"T is the key that opens the gate holding back the flood, but you need to go through that gate to get to your destination". I am very baffled by this allegory: If there are floodwaters behind the gate, aren't you going to drown once you open it? (Which seems pretty accurate but hardly a selling point for transitioning).
"Before I realized I was trans, I actually had dysphoria about not looking feminine enough." Huh? My read on that statement is she had unrealistic, Hollywood ideas about what it means to be feminine and she couldn't perform this act, so do the male act instead.
"Hollywood ideas about what it means to be feminine"
By Hollywood you mean feminism. Hollywood has been promoting feminist ideology since the 1960's at least. Today Hollywood is feminism on speed with booster rockets and platform shoes.
Let's not forget that it was feminists who demanded society never value women for female biological function or inclination. To do so is demeaning and insulting to women they said. And society dutifully obliged. Now as a result women have no inherent value as females, and must compete with men as parodies of men (the modern empowered, career driven woman).. .or else caricature the most shallow and materialistic aspects of femininity (with botox, hair extensions, implants, make up etc) to become one dimensional Barbie dolls completely disconnected from nature and obsessed with vanity and hedonism only.... because a biological role is degrading and oppressive!
But those oppressive, demeaning traditional gender roles and identities (based as they were on biological function and disposition) gave the 50% of women who are below average in looks an automatic place in society, a value to society and a template for behaviour, an identity, self worth and meaning to life. This served 'handsome' women very well, as well as shy and introverted women who might score high in autistic traits.
But of course we cannot explore how a century of feminism has de-gendered society and helped to usher in the trans apocalypse we are now witnessing, because feminists have appropriated the 'gender critical' community, and blamed everything trans on men, so they can find a new source of that sweet nectar of female victimhood. Slurp, slurp.. yum, yum!
The TERFs will ensure all trans criticism will be restricted to a feminist lens which will not allow for women to have played ANY role in the de-gendering of society... for women can be no more than passive victims of male patriarchal dominance, and never active players who set the social norms and define gender roles and gender identities.
And as the horrors of childhood transition become evident to society an army of feminist white knights (like Graham Linehan) will flock to the TERF's side and declare it is indeed men's fault, and that the poor wimmins are once again the sweet innocent, adorable, weak, vulnerable victims of nasty male sexuality and male patriarchal oppression. But not them of course, they are the CHOSEN FEW GOOD MEN who do value women and respect women!
And the TERFs will pat their heads as they continue to drink that sweet nectar of female victimhood!
And all the single mothers dragging their kids to drag shows and whooping at the emasculated men making a mockery of themselves will be swept under the rug, as will be the armies of blue haired, nose ringed female teachers, board members, councillors, parents and social workers all pushing trans everything, queer everything and rainbow everything.
And as with every other social issue feminists have hijacked and appropriated, the trans issue will never be allowed to be discussed in an adult, intelligent, curious manner. It will have to be shoe horned into feminist ideology, even if that means unnecessary suffering for everyone and the continuing slide into a completely genderless society where artificial wombs and robots take over the roles of men and women, and humans are reduced to asexual, sterilised worker drones (with 100 pseudo genders to chose from) and gender equality is finally achieved by erasing gender completely - which was always feminism's objective from the beginning.
I guess it was just a happy accident on the way to the erasure of gender that second wave feminism produced Roe v Wade and the advent of reproductive rights, Title IX, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the inclusion of sex as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the opening of some male-dominated occupations to women and the right for a woman to obtain credit in her own name without her husband's approval, among other things.
1. men don't yet have reproductive rights. A woman consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood, but a man consenting to sex (or even being raped or spermjacked) is consenting to parenthood. Even underage male rape victims have been forced by the courts to pay child support to their female rapists after they turned 18.
Reproductive rights for men (AKA gender equality) could easily be formulated such that men are able to legally surrender all their parental obligations (as well as access rights) in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, during the same time frame that a woman is able to legally get an abortion.
2. Equal pay was introduced to protect MALE workers (and the families they were supporting) from being undercut by women (who already had the support of a husband's wages and were looking for a supplemental income, having been liberated from housework thanks to modern technology, also thanks to men). The fact that these bored housewives already had the financial support of a husband meant they were able to undercut male applicants. Those men could not find work, and they and their families had no income, hence the introduction of equal pay laws to protect men from being undercut by women.
3. Feminism had nothing to do with civil rights. Feminism has always been a sexist and racist movement. The original proto-feminists of the Seneca Falls era were openly racist, arguing that women deserved the vote but not blacks. Feminism has always fought for female privilege, not equal rights. Even feminism's greatest victory of equal voting rights is a lie. It was not equal rights but female privilege. Men had to offer their bodies to the state as cannon fodder to be granted voting rights. Women enjoyed voting rights with no such obligations. This allowed women to vote for wars that only men were forced to fight in. Go and look at some war photos of dead soldiers lying in the trenches and tell me women were ever oppressed by men. If you still don't get it try reversing the sexes and then replaying the last century.
4. The 'opening of some male-dominated occupations to women' had nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with new technology making housework much less labour intensive and making the workplace environment outside of the home 100x safer, more pleasant and therefore more appealing to women (ie the modern indoor office or factory with electric lighting, central heating, indoor toilets, paved road access and convenient transport links).
When garbage disposal can be done by robots controlled by operatives sitting in a comfortable heated control room sitting at a desk monitoring computer screens all day with a vending machine or canteen on site, you can bet feminists will suddenly demand "women must be allowed to be garbage collectors!" and they will quickly fill up these positions, pushing male garbage collectors out of this job at the precise moment the job becomes safe, comfortable and desirable.
95% of workplace deaths are still men today because women refuse to work in those jobs, and hog all the comfortable and safe jobs. Most men are OK with this because most men are gynocentric (just as most women are). But it is an insult to them to claim that 'male dominated workplaces' had anything to do with men oppressing women. There are a hundred complex factors which have dictated sex distribution in the workplace over the centuries and NONE of them have anything to do with 'patriarchal oppression of women'.
Feminists have NEVER campaigned for gender equality in the workplace, but only special access to jobs that they find DESIRABLE and which generally involve sitting in an office and often delegating ACTUAL work to working class men who they will ever set eyes on in their lives.
Traditionally men would start out 'on the shop floor' and work their way up through the ranks to secretarial and then managerial positions, having gained decades of experience in every position along the way - and giving them a broad overview of how that industry or sector works. But now these men are often blocked from climbing the career ladder in this way because women with no shop floor experience get to join at the secretarial/ managerial level because of 'quotas', despite having no clue how the organisation operates at the shop floor level.
Feminists are only interested in the glass ceiling and not the glass cellar. Gender equality means 50% female truck drivers, roofers, plumbers, electricians, sewage maintenance workers, steel workers, tree fellers and air conditioning installers.
It's not that women should occupy 50% of these occupation, it's just that feminists should stop lying that they want gender equality in the workplace. They don't and never have.
5. Men were traditionally responsible for their own debt AND any debt accrued by their wives which is why they had to sign off on credit. Traditionally women occupied a role mid way between that of a child and that of an adult. This is because life was brutal and women found it beneficial to trade a degree of social and economic freedom in order to have the safety, comfort and protection provided by men, acting as both partner and guardian.
Again, to imply this arrangement was 'oppression of women by men' assumes women had no agency or free will and thus no ability to negotiate (or even dictate) gender roles throughout history - which is an insult to women and runs counter to everything we know about the dynamic between men and women.
There is a saying "there are no feminists when there is a fire", but it is more accurate to say "all women revert to being feminists when there is a fire". In other words, in the event of a fire women assume a more child like status, which automatically forces men into the role of protector and guardian (and rescuer).
When times are tough and life is brutal (such as most of history until only a few generations ago) women assumed a more child-like status in order to force men into a more protective and self sacrificing role ("women and children first").
Feminists are those women who still demand such patriarchal gender roles, except they demand it without the gratitude or respect women used to give to men, and without any concern for the wellbeing of children.
This is why feminists' mantra is "he for she". Note the absence of any concern for children. This is because feminists are women who have assumed the child role (appropriated childhood) and pushed actual children out of the equation altogether.
Thanks to feminism destroying the traditional family so that women can enjoy 'fulfilling careers' (even though most women just end up with soul destroying jobs, like men!) children have been pushed out of the loving and safe home and into the arms of the technocracy indoctrination camps, where they are indoctrinated by radical feminists into being 'global citizens' - complete with 100 pseudo genders and trans medical procedures to pave the way for a genderless future where artificial wombs replace women.
Because after all, motherhood is degrading, and a burden women should not have to endure, as feminists have been saying for 50+ years now.
Well, you have huge task ahead of you correcting the sources on which I based my comment and the myriad other sources that likely make the same assertions.
If you wish to challenge any of the numbered points I made, feel free to do so. I can go into as much detail as you like, although I feel Eliza might not want her comments to be dominated by a debate on the entire history of law and culture as it relates to gender!
If you want to start a thread somewhere else I can oblige you.
You don’t know anything about feminism or the women who opposed the “trans” lie from the beginning, starting with Janice Raymond and Germaine Greer.
Stop embarrassing yourself. The “trans” lie isn’t a result of feminism; it’s a result of money from men like Pritzker, Stryker, Rothblatt, Soros, etc. Just stop.
These are not arguments. They are hand waving. Do you have an argument?
Germaine Greer chooses not to define feminism. This makes her a quintessential feminist. Feminism is whatever feminists want it to be in the moment. Give that the human race is gynocentric, this makes feminism the most dangerous ideology ever invented.
Feminism is just "X, Y Z for the benefit of women". X, Y and Z can be any agenda and attaching it to 'women' means society will promote, support, fund and obey X, Y and Z because society will always lean towards policies that are said to serve women.
I totally agree that many feminists are appalled at the current state of trans activism. I am just pointing out that feminism made it all possible and pushed it into all of our lives.
I am not saying most feminists did it deliberately or even knowingly. Most feminists are almost completely unaware of what it is they are actually promoting, and this has been the case throughout feminism's history.
This is exactly my point and it's the perfect argument because you didn't address it--you're ignorant and you don't know what you're talking about. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Feminism is for females and females alone, yes. That's like asking what "democracy" is and thinking it applies the same in all situations, everywhere, all the time. It's a legal, social, financial movement, and people argue about it all the time, yet it still exists, You're not very intelligent, and it shows in your rambling, low IQ drivel because you think "feminism" should be held to a different standard when people still fight over what "socialism" or "capitalism" should mean. This is idiotic.
You don't know what "trans" is, you don't know how various feminists have fought it throughout history, you don't know who is funding it, you don't know that TERFs are the major opponents to it (and we'll win), you don't know anything.
You appear to use the word "feminism" as a stand in for all of your personal issues or failings in life. Nobody cares. You don't know what you're talking about. That's my point, and it's correct.
"Trans" is a corporate amalgamation of big pharma interests, the medical industry, subversive billionaires, and social media narcissistic males like Dylan Mulvaney and Jeffrey Marsh. It has appeared as a result of funding which increased massively in 2016/2017, from males like Martin Rothblatt and James Pritzker. Journalists like Jennifer Bilek has covered this extensively. You clearly haven't read anything about it.
It's not my job to educate unintelligent people like you. You don't know what you're talking about. Be quiet.
This assumes feminist ideology (a) speaks for all women (b) is supported by all women.
That is not only ridiculous and completely false, it is also epic cringe, because you are implying women are a monolithic entity with no individuality or free will.
"That's like asking what "democracy" is and thinking it applies the same in all situations, everywhere, all the time."
Democracy is a system of social organisation that has an objective definition. It is not open to interpretation.
"It's a legal, social, financial movement, and people argue about it all the time, yet it still exists"
If I had just arrived on planet Earth and asked what feminist ideology was, your description would leave me none the wiser.
"You're not very intelligent, and it shows in your rambling, low IQ drivel because you think "feminism" should be held to a different standard when people still fight over what "socialism" or "capitalism" should mean."
Socialism and capitalism have objective definitions.
"You don't know what "trans" is"
Trans (like 'feminism') has become a meaningless word because it is being used by different groups to describe different things. My criticism of feminism is that it attaches any policy to 'women' in order to drive that policy through, based on society's inherent sympathy and compassion for women.
'Trans' is now doing the same thing, attaching various policies (many of them contradictory) to 'transexual' in order to drive that policy through, based on society's inherent sympathy and compassion for transexuals.
In this sense feminism and trans are one and the same. I would argue that trans is basically 5th wave feminism. Having destroyed traditional families, traditional pair bonding and traditional gender roles and gender identities feminism has gone as far as it can within a binary framework. Feminism's social construct theory of gender and rejection of biology (sexual dimorphism) has taken society to a more genderless and non binary view of humans.
'Transexual' used to mean a person who wanted to live as a man or a woman. The idea being that their gender is fixed (and binary) but in opposition to their outward sexual characteristics, hence the desire for body modification to align the body with the gender (as best as can be achieved with crude medical interventions).
I would argue it was feminism that brought SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM to the concept of transexual, which flipped it on its head to create transgenderism, which implies gender is FLUID and ARBITRARY, rather than fixed and binary.
"you don't know how various feminists have fought it throughout history, you don't know who is funding it, you don't know that TERFs are the major opponents to it (and we'll win), you don't know anything."
I already acknowledged that many feminists fiercely oppose trans activism. Just as many second wavers fiercely opposed third wave feminism, and many first wave fiercely opposed second wave.
Feminists have ALWAYS opposed the social, economic and cultural effects of their previous feminist activism. That is PRECISELY the point I am making.
Anti feminists, feminist critics and MRA's have been arguing for YEARS that feminism's push for deconstructing gender and 'dismantling the patriarchy' (ie dismantling traditional gender roles, spaces, occupations, identities etc) is eroding the very boundaries that provide both sexes with PRIVAC, a DISTINCT IDENTITY and their own respective SAFE SPACES.
Today TERF's are just repeating all the complaints and arguments that MRA's have been making for years and years in this respect. MRA's wanted women to stay away from men;s shed's, the boy scouts, men's clubs, various male occupations and institutions. They did not like having their male spaces feminised so that they could no longer act as men and work as men like to work.
We've systematically driven men out of all of their safe spaces and even occupied their gender roles in movies, with women assuming the 'male lead' and performing the heroic and macho behaviour that no woman in real life ever performs (or has any desire to!).
Men's identity is intimately linked to their occupations (more so than their bodies) and we've taken that away from men.
TERF's are now getting a taste of their own medicine, and it is perfectly natural that they are also traumatised and upset about it.
But that does not mean it wasn't feminism that started this trend of deconstructing gender and mixing up the genders. It was. It's just that when the only victims were men feminists showed no compassion - in fact they relished in it and mocked the men who complained that their male identities and male spaces were being feminised and occupied by women. These mn were accused of being 'toxic' and 'fragile'.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. While the MRA's are saying "We did warn you this would happen"... the feminists are saying "OMG it's all men's fault!"
No it is not. It is feminism which created this appetite for total deconstruction of gender and erosion of boundaries.
"You appear to use the word "feminism" as a stand in for all of your personal issues or failings in life."
You are not making arguments. You are just belittling me.
""Trans" is a corporate amalgamation of big pharma interests, the medical industry, subversive billionaires, and social media narcissistic males like Dylan Mulvaney and Jeffrey Marsh."
In its current form yes. These are the same interests which funded and steered feminism for the last century. It is well documented that feminism was funded by the Rockefellers to break up the nuclear family, get women into the workplace (as taxpayers) and get children into the indoctrination camps to be indoctrinated with more radical feminism than their feminist parents.
Big Pharma also benefits hugely from the plummeting mental health of women caused by feminist lifestyles and the mountains of anti depressants consumed as a result.
Then there is the multi billion dollar abortion industry. Then there is the multi billion dollar fertility industry, as feminist women tend to eschew motherhood and then suddenly get baby rabies in their late 30's when fertility is a problem (peak fertility occurs around the age of 24).
Then there is the multi billion dollar cosmetics and fashion industry which benefits from women trying desperately to find a man well after they've hit the wall (rather than finding one when they are youthful and desirable). Traditional women who marry young can afford to grow old gracefully having already secured a husband and children. They don't have to compete with women 10 years younger than them when trying to find a man to marry.
We know feminism (and now trans) is a boon for mega corporations because they all support it and promote it.
What they DON'T promote is traditional gender roles, nuclear family, stay at home mothers, strong individualistic capable men, home schooling and recognising that men and women are INHERENTLY DIFFERENT and need from their own spaces, activities and sub cultures.
People like Dylan Mulvaney and Jeffrey Marsh are just copying female entitlement and narcissism, as invented by feminists. It was 'sex positive feminism' in the 1990's (3rd wave) that sought to normalise sexual fetishes, sexual hedonism and sexual consumerism and mix it all up with vanity, ego and narcissism. It was 'sex positive feminism' that sought to detach sex from stable, long term relationships and reproduction and make sex a trivial affair.
Now here we are with body parts treated like lego bricks, and creepy guys using (a caricature of) female sexuality and female compassion to get close to children.
Female staff in the juvenile detention sector rape more underage males than any other form of rape. MRA's can;t stop it because feminism won't allow this kind of sexual violence and oppression to be recognised - because it shatters the 'female victim/ male perpetrator' narrative that feminism thrives on.
But by denying female predatory behaviour exists and pinning all sexual crimes on men (rather than being an even split) feminism has made women (and female sexuality) synonymous with safety and virtue. This is why creepy men now adopt female affectations and persona to slip by society's radar and get to children.
"It's not my job to educate unintelligent people like you. "
Actually it is. Feminist organisations and programs get billions of dollars in funding annually, much of it coming from taxes. The very least you could do as a feminist is to ENGAGE in civilised debates and discussions when you come across them, rather than hand wave all criticisms aside as if they were a bad smell.
A little more humility and you'd realise TERFs today are where MRA's were at a decade ago.
A little less ego and you'd realise the real battle is not between men and women (and never was), but between ordinary men and women and the technocratic, transhumanist ruling class.
Men and women are (and always were) naturally complimentary and hugely successful when working as a team.
It's not my job to teach ignorant people who can't read. LOL--male narcissism from Dylan Mulvaney and Jeffrey Marsh is actually females' fault--pure misogyny.
You didn't understand anything I said, and you're not smart enough to even accept it. I can't teach stupid people on Substack. You can't even properly read my statement on feminism--I said it's FOR FEMALES and females ALONE. Not ALL females accept it or call themselves "feminist," even the ones that take advantage of it while seeking male validation. You can't even read and understand that simple sentence.
Get a job. Unemployment is a hell of a thing. Get off your computer and do something with your life. You're not smart enough for this and it sounds like you're two minutes away from trooning out. Good luck in life because you sound like a friendless porn addict. Stop talking about concepts you aren't intelligent enough to comprehend. Be quiet.
I didn't write any ad hominems either. I am speaking honestly--you're not intelligent enough to speak because you're not educated enough on this topic. You have poor reading comprehension skills, and you don't understand any of my references or the history of this movement. You can't even properly read simple statements I made.
You seem to have problems with women in general, so that's a you problem. That's why you think Dylan Mulvaney is not a clear example of the pure male narcissism which drives "trans." He's the epitome of it. And yeah sure, nobody ever debates, disagrees, or offers differing views and definition of "socialism" and "capitalism"--everyone agrees on everything completely because it's objective and this has been true for all of history. LOL. See, this is what I mean. You're not intelligent and educated enough to speak on this
Women and men were never "complementary" as stated in your ahistorical nonsense. Men always felt more comfortable when women were subservient, personal servants, barred from any financial or social independence, unable to have protection from violence in the home, etc. That's exploitation and subjugation, not being "complementary." Now that they can't get away with treating their wives like a punching bag/waitress, they rage while swiping all day on Tinder (Tinder is 76% male btw).
Like I said, you aren't educated to speak on this. I can't give you a history lesson here. Pointing out lack of education and knowledge isn't ad hominem. It's simply true. I don't care about your personal struggles or history. It's just facts.
These girls think testosterone will be the thing that magically makes their lives better, and all their problems will go away. It's the latest version of losing five pounds, or getting the lead in the school play, or making the cheerleading squad.
There is another common thread- isolation. I see it in my daughters, the lack of joy in friendships. They somehow can’t lean on friends when they are down. They see it as a flaw? The nature of those connections seem to have changed over the past couple of decades. We used to get energy from friends that sustained us through our adolescent and young adult discomfort.
And so many of these girls think they are the ones providing mental health to their friends but not receiving help from them... Yet if that's how most of these girls feel, clearly they are not doing a good job either providing or receiving help from one another. Maybe because they try hard to be therapists rather than friends/peers and use empty psycho-babble on one another?
"Contradiction trails in the wake of impossible dreams and the desperate attempt to smuggle an embodied human life into such a fantasy." --- Eliza Mondegreen
This seems really important. So much of “trans” seems to involve preoccupation with how one is perceived by others within a very traditional gender binary. We used to celebrate gender nonconformity (at least within the coastal liberal cities where most women of this is concentrated). No longer.
My 50-something lesbian sister was lamenting this around Pride. What happened to the Dyke March? It’s almost nonexistent now. Lesbians are all middle-aged women like my sister, while gender non-conforming young women are identifying as trans while lamenting being seen as short, weak, pudgy men.
Yes. It brings to mind the phrase, “the internalized oppressor.” These young women clearly think being a lesbian (and an autistic one at that) is a disgusting, horrible fate. It feels a bizarre time warp.
What you call “gender dysphoria” was actually just delusion. You don’t have “gender,” no human does. Therefore, there’s no such thing as “gender dysphoria.” Like you state, it’s a symptom (in your case, depression) and not an identity, reality, or condition.
Doctors don’t want to address this because it’s a money maker and it’s being pushed by very powerful forces. I’m glad you got out, but none of this should have happened. The people who push this set the terms of debate, which is why these terms make no sense.
There’s no such thing as “transition” or “detransition.” Sex is binary and immutable. A male who wears dresses, takes hormones, and gets surgery to imitate women did not transition. He is only pretending, even if he passes (which is extremely rare), and he was male the entire time. Subsequently, ceasing to wear dresses, take hormones, or imitate women isn’t a “detransition.”
Mutilation and imitation is not “transition.” Stopping the lies is not “detransition.” This is simply mental illness which must be treated, not “affirmed” with lies. The words matter because this battle is essentially about language. Don’t use the words and the problem is solved.
It’s interesting what you say about depression bc I have noticed that. I swear it seems like “gender dysphoria” is mainly “depression” for a LOT of people. That feeling of having no future in front of you, no way forward as yourself...is depression. The idea you could escape that via becoming a different person. And how do you become a different person? Well our society presents gender transition as an option. Plain old anxiety and depression are under-discussed in this area imo. Depression especially can make people do some crazy shit.
"T is the key that opens the gate holding back the flood, but you need to go through that gate to get to your destination". I am very baffled by this allegory: If there are floodwaters behind the gate, aren't you going to drown once you open it? (Which seems pretty accurate but hardly a selling point for transitioning).
There's part of my thesis that is like "telling-on-yourself metaphors"
So yes, you're right.
"Before I realized I was trans, I actually had dysphoria about not looking feminine enough." Huh? My read on that statement is she had unrealistic, Hollywood ideas about what it means to be feminine and she couldn't perform this act, so do the male act instead.
"Hollywood ideas about what it means to be feminine"
By Hollywood you mean feminism. Hollywood has been promoting feminist ideology since the 1960's at least. Today Hollywood is feminism on speed with booster rockets and platform shoes.
Let's not forget that it was feminists who demanded society never value women for female biological function or inclination. To do so is demeaning and insulting to women they said. And society dutifully obliged. Now as a result women have no inherent value as females, and must compete with men as parodies of men (the modern empowered, career driven woman).. .or else caricature the most shallow and materialistic aspects of femininity (with botox, hair extensions, implants, make up etc) to become one dimensional Barbie dolls completely disconnected from nature and obsessed with vanity and hedonism only.... because a biological role is degrading and oppressive!
But those oppressive, demeaning traditional gender roles and identities (based as they were on biological function and disposition) gave the 50% of women who are below average in looks an automatic place in society, a value to society and a template for behaviour, an identity, self worth and meaning to life. This served 'handsome' women very well, as well as shy and introverted women who might score high in autistic traits.
But of course we cannot explore how a century of feminism has de-gendered society and helped to usher in the trans apocalypse we are now witnessing, because feminists have appropriated the 'gender critical' community, and blamed everything trans on men, so they can find a new source of that sweet nectar of female victimhood. Slurp, slurp.. yum, yum!
The TERFs will ensure all trans criticism will be restricted to a feminist lens which will not allow for women to have played ANY role in the de-gendering of society... for women can be no more than passive victims of male patriarchal dominance, and never active players who set the social norms and define gender roles and gender identities.
And as the horrors of childhood transition become evident to society an army of feminist white knights (like Graham Linehan) will flock to the TERF's side and declare it is indeed men's fault, and that the poor wimmins are once again the sweet innocent, adorable, weak, vulnerable victims of nasty male sexuality and male patriarchal oppression. But not them of course, they are the CHOSEN FEW GOOD MEN who do value women and respect women!
And the TERFs will pat their heads as they continue to drink that sweet nectar of female victimhood!
And all the single mothers dragging their kids to drag shows and whooping at the emasculated men making a mockery of themselves will be swept under the rug, as will be the armies of blue haired, nose ringed female teachers, board members, councillors, parents and social workers all pushing trans everything, queer everything and rainbow everything.
And as with every other social issue feminists have hijacked and appropriated, the trans issue will never be allowed to be discussed in an adult, intelligent, curious manner. It will have to be shoe horned into feminist ideology, even if that means unnecessary suffering for everyone and the continuing slide into a completely genderless society where artificial wombs and robots take over the roles of men and women, and humans are reduced to asexual, sterilised worker drones (with 100 pseudo genders to chose from) and gender equality is finally achieved by erasing gender completely - which was always feminism's objective from the beginning.
I guess it was just a happy accident on the way to the erasure of gender that second wave feminism produced Roe v Wade and the advent of reproductive rights, Title IX, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the inclusion of sex as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the opening of some male-dominated occupations to women and the right for a woman to obtain credit in her own name without her husband's approval, among other things.
1. men don't yet have reproductive rights. A woman consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood, but a man consenting to sex (or even being raped or spermjacked) is consenting to parenthood. Even underage male rape victims have been forced by the courts to pay child support to their female rapists after they turned 18.
Reproductive rights for men (AKA gender equality) could easily be formulated such that men are able to legally surrender all their parental obligations (as well as access rights) in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, during the same time frame that a woman is able to legally get an abortion.
2. Equal pay was introduced to protect MALE workers (and the families they were supporting) from being undercut by women (who already had the support of a husband's wages and were looking for a supplemental income, having been liberated from housework thanks to modern technology, also thanks to men). The fact that these bored housewives already had the financial support of a husband meant they were able to undercut male applicants. Those men could not find work, and they and their families had no income, hence the introduction of equal pay laws to protect men from being undercut by women.
3. Feminism had nothing to do with civil rights. Feminism has always been a sexist and racist movement. The original proto-feminists of the Seneca Falls era were openly racist, arguing that women deserved the vote but not blacks. Feminism has always fought for female privilege, not equal rights. Even feminism's greatest victory of equal voting rights is a lie. It was not equal rights but female privilege. Men had to offer their bodies to the state as cannon fodder to be granted voting rights. Women enjoyed voting rights with no such obligations. This allowed women to vote for wars that only men were forced to fight in. Go and look at some war photos of dead soldiers lying in the trenches and tell me women were ever oppressed by men. If you still don't get it try reversing the sexes and then replaying the last century.
4. The 'opening of some male-dominated occupations to women' had nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with new technology making housework much less labour intensive and making the workplace environment outside of the home 100x safer, more pleasant and therefore more appealing to women (ie the modern indoor office or factory with electric lighting, central heating, indoor toilets, paved road access and convenient transport links).
When garbage disposal can be done by robots controlled by operatives sitting in a comfortable heated control room sitting at a desk monitoring computer screens all day with a vending machine or canteen on site, you can bet feminists will suddenly demand "women must be allowed to be garbage collectors!" and they will quickly fill up these positions, pushing male garbage collectors out of this job at the precise moment the job becomes safe, comfortable and desirable.
95% of workplace deaths are still men today because women refuse to work in those jobs, and hog all the comfortable and safe jobs. Most men are OK with this because most men are gynocentric (just as most women are). But it is an insult to them to claim that 'male dominated workplaces' had anything to do with men oppressing women. There are a hundred complex factors which have dictated sex distribution in the workplace over the centuries and NONE of them have anything to do with 'patriarchal oppression of women'.
Feminists have NEVER campaigned for gender equality in the workplace, but only special access to jobs that they find DESIRABLE and which generally involve sitting in an office and often delegating ACTUAL work to working class men who they will ever set eyes on in their lives.
Traditionally men would start out 'on the shop floor' and work their way up through the ranks to secretarial and then managerial positions, having gained decades of experience in every position along the way - and giving them a broad overview of how that industry or sector works. But now these men are often blocked from climbing the career ladder in this way because women with no shop floor experience get to join at the secretarial/ managerial level because of 'quotas', despite having no clue how the organisation operates at the shop floor level.
Feminists are only interested in the glass ceiling and not the glass cellar. Gender equality means 50% female truck drivers, roofers, plumbers, electricians, sewage maintenance workers, steel workers, tree fellers and air conditioning installers.
It's not that women should occupy 50% of these occupation, it's just that feminists should stop lying that they want gender equality in the workplace. They don't and never have.
5. Men were traditionally responsible for their own debt AND any debt accrued by their wives which is why they had to sign off on credit. Traditionally women occupied a role mid way between that of a child and that of an adult. This is because life was brutal and women found it beneficial to trade a degree of social and economic freedom in order to have the safety, comfort and protection provided by men, acting as both partner and guardian.
Again, to imply this arrangement was 'oppression of women by men' assumes women had no agency or free will and thus no ability to negotiate (or even dictate) gender roles throughout history - which is an insult to women and runs counter to everything we know about the dynamic between men and women.
There is a saying "there are no feminists when there is a fire", but it is more accurate to say "all women revert to being feminists when there is a fire". In other words, in the event of a fire women assume a more child like status, which automatically forces men into the role of protector and guardian (and rescuer).
When times are tough and life is brutal (such as most of history until only a few generations ago) women assumed a more child-like status in order to force men into a more protective and self sacrificing role ("women and children first").
Feminists are those women who still demand such patriarchal gender roles, except they demand it without the gratitude or respect women used to give to men, and without any concern for the wellbeing of children.
This is why feminists' mantra is "he for she". Note the absence of any concern for children. This is because feminists are women who have assumed the child role (appropriated childhood) and pushed actual children out of the equation altogether.
Thanks to feminism destroying the traditional family so that women can enjoy 'fulfilling careers' (even though most women just end up with soul destroying jobs, like men!) children have been pushed out of the loving and safe home and into the arms of the technocracy indoctrination camps, where they are indoctrinated by radical feminists into being 'global citizens' - complete with 100 pseudo genders and trans medical procedures to pave the way for a genderless future where artificial wombs replace women.
Because after all, motherhood is degrading, and a burden women should not have to endure, as feminists have been saying for 50+ years now.
Well, you have huge task ahead of you correcting the sources on which I based my comment and the myriad other sources that likely make the same assertions.
If you wish to challenge any of the numbered points I made, feel free to do so. I can go into as much detail as you like, although I feel Eliza might not want her comments to be dominated by a debate on the entire history of law and culture as it relates to gender!
If you want to start a thread somewhere else I can oblige you.
We've found the Incel.
Ah yes, the feminism boogeyman, source of all evils in the world.
You don’t know anything about feminism or the women who opposed the “trans” lie from the beginning, starting with Janice Raymond and Germaine Greer.
Stop embarrassing yourself. The “trans” lie isn’t a result of feminism; it’s a result of money from men like Pritzker, Stryker, Rothblatt, Soros, etc. Just stop.
"You don’t know anything about feminism "
"Stop embarrassing yourself."
These are not arguments. They are hand waving. Do you have an argument?
Germaine Greer chooses not to define feminism. This makes her a quintessential feminist. Feminism is whatever feminists want it to be in the moment. Give that the human race is gynocentric, this makes feminism the most dangerous ideology ever invented.
Feminism is just "X, Y Z for the benefit of women". X, Y and Z can be any agenda and attaching it to 'women' means society will promote, support, fund and obey X, Y and Z because society will always lean towards policies that are said to serve women.
I totally agree that many feminists are appalled at the current state of trans activism. I am just pointing out that feminism made it all possible and pushed it into all of our lives.
I am not saying most feminists did it deliberately or even knowingly. Most feminists are almost completely unaware of what it is they are actually promoting, and this has been the case throughout feminism's history.
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.
This is exactly my point and it's the perfect argument because you didn't address it--you're ignorant and you don't know what you're talking about. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Feminism is for females and females alone, yes. That's like asking what "democracy" is and thinking it applies the same in all situations, everywhere, all the time. It's a legal, social, financial movement, and people argue about it all the time, yet it still exists, You're not very intelligent, and it shows in your rambling, low IQ drivel because you think "feminism" should be held to a different standard when people still fight over what "socialism" or "capitalism" should mean. This is idiotic.
You don't know what "trans" is, you don't know how various feminists have fought it throughout history, you don't know who is funding it, you don't know that TERFs are the major opponents to it (and we'll win), you don't know anything.
You appear to use the word "feminism" as a stand in for all of your personal issues or failings in life. Nobody cares. You don't know what you're talking about. That's my point, and it's correct.
"Trans" is a corporate amalgamation of big pharma interests, the medical industry, subversive billionaires, and social media narcissistic males like Dylan Mulvaney and Jeffrey Marsh. It has appeared as a result of funding which increased massively in 2016/2017, from males like Martin Rothblatt and James Pritzker. Journalists like Jennifer Bilek has covered this extensively. You clearly haven't read anything about it.
It's not my job to educate unintelligent people like you. You don't know what you're talking about. Be quiet.
"Feminism is for females and females alone, yes."
This assumes feminist ideology (a) speaks for all women (b) is supported by all women.
That is not only ridiculous and completely false, it is also epic cringe, because you are implying women are a monolithic entity with no individuality or free will.
"That's like asking what "democracy" is and thinking it applies the same in all situations, everywhere, all the time."
Democracy is a system of social organisation that has an objective definition. It is not open to interpretation.
"It's a legal, social, financial movement, and people argue about it all the time, yet it still exists"
If I had just arrived on planet Earth and asked what feminist ideology was, your description would leave me none the wiser.
"You're not very intelligent, and it shows in your rambling, low IQ drivel because you think "feminism" should be held to a different standard when people still fight over what "socialism" or "capitalism" should mean."
Socialism and capitalism have objective definitions.
"You don't know what "trans" is"
Trans (like 'feminism') has become a meaningless word because it is being used by different groups to describe different things. My criticism of feminism is that it attaches any policy to 'women' in order to drive that policy through, based on society's inherent sympathy and compassion for women.
'Trans' is now doing the same thing, attaching various policies (many of them contradictory) to 'transexual' in order to drive that policy through, based on society's inherent sympathy and compassion for transexuals.
In this sense feminism and trans are one and the same. I would argue that trans is basically 5th wave feminism. Having destroyed traditional families, traditional pair bonding and traditional gender roles and gender identities feminism has gone as far as it can within a binary framework. Feminism's social construct theory of gender and rejection of biology (sexual dimorphism) has taken society to a more genderless and non binary view of humans.
'Transexual' used to mean a person who wanted to live as a man or a woman. The idea being that their gender is fixed (and binary) but in opposition to their outward sexual characteristics, hence the desire for body modification to align the body with the gender (as best as can be achieved with crude medical interventions).
I would argue it was feminism that brought SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM to the concept of transexual, which flipped it on its head to create transgenderism, which implies gender is FLUID and ARBITRARY, rather than fixed and binary.
"you don't know how various feminists have fought it throughout history, you don't know who is funding it, you don't know that TERFs are the major opponents to it (and we'll win), you don't know anything."
I already acknowledged that many feminists fiercely oppose trans activism. Just as many second wavers fiercely opposed third wave feminism, and many first wave fiercely opposed second wave.
Feminists have ALWAYS opposed the social, economic and cultural effects of their previous feminist activism. That is PRECISELY the point I am making.
Anti feminists, feminist critics and MRA's have been arguing for YEARS that feminism's push for deconstructing gender and 'dismantling the patriarchy' (ie dismantling traditional gender roles, spaces, occupations, identities etc) is eroding the very boundaries that provide both sexes with PRIVAC, a DISTINCT IDENTITY and their own respective SAFE SPACES.
Today TERF's are just repeating all the complaints and arguments that MRA's have been making for years and years in this respect. MRA's wanted women to stay away from men;s shed's, the boy scouts, men's clubs, various male occupations and institutions. They did not like having their male spaces feminised so that they could no longer act as men and work as men like to work.
We've systematically driven men out of all of their safe spaces and even occupied their gender roles in movies, with women assuming the 'male lead' and performing the heroic and macho behaviour that no woman in real life ever performs (or has any desire to!).
Men's identity is intimately linked to their occupations (more so than their bodies) and we've taken that away from men.
TERF's are now getting a taste of their own medicine, and it is perfectly natural that they are also traumatised and upset about it.
But that does not mean it wasn't feminism that started this trend of deconstructing gender and mixing up the genders. It was. It's just that when the only victims were men feminists showed no compassion - in fact they relished in it and mocked the men who complained that their male identities and male spaces were being feminised and occupied by women. These mn were accused of being 'toxic' and 'fragile'.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. While the MRA's are saying "We did warn you this would happen"... the feminists are saying "OMG it's all men's fault!"
No it is not. It is feminism which created this appetite for total deconstruction of gender and erosion of boundaries.
"You appear to use the word "feminism" as a stand in for all of your personal issues or failings in life."
You are not making arguments. You are just belittling me.
""Trans" is a corporate amalgamation of big pharma interests, the medical industry, subversive billionaires, and social media narcissistic males like Dylan Mulvaney and Jeffrey Marsh."
In its current form yes. These are the same interests which funded and steered feminism for the last century. It is well documented that feminism was funded by the Rockefellers to break up the nuclear family, get women into the workplace (as taxpayers) and get children into the indoctrination camps to be indoctrinated with more radical feminism than their feminist parents.
Big Pharma also benefits hugely from the plummeting mental health of women caused by feminist lifestyles and the mountains of anti depressants consumed as a result.
Then there is the multi billion dollar abortion industry. Then there is the multi billion dollar fertility industry, as feminist women tend to eschew motherhood and then suddenly get baby rabies in their late 30's when fertility is a problem (peak fertility occurs around the age of 24).
Then there is the multi billion dollar cosmetics and fashion industry which benefits from women trying desperately to find a man well after they've hit the wall (rather than finding one when they are youthful and desirable). Traditional women who marry young can afford to grow old gracefully having already secured a husband and children. They don't have to compete with women 10 years younger than them when trying to find a man to marry.
We know feminism (and now trans) is a boon for mega corporations because they all support it and promote it.
What they DON'T promote is traditional gender roles, nuclear family, stay at home mothers, strong individualistic capable men, home schooling and recognising that men and women are INHERENTLY DIFFERENT and need from their own spaces, activities and sub cultures.
People like Dylan Mulvaney and Jeffrey Marsh are just copying female entitlement and narcissism, as invented by feminists. It was 'sex positive feminism' in the 1990's (3rd wave) that sought to normalise sexual fetishes, sexual hedonism and sexual consumerism and mix it all up with vanity, ego and narcissism. It was 'sex positive feminism' that sought to detach sex from stable, long term relationships and reproduction and make sex a trivial affair.
Now here we are with body parts treated like lego bricks, and creepy guys using (a caricature of) female sexuality and female compassion to get close to children.
Female staff in the juvenile detention sector rape more underage males than any other form of rape. MRA's can;t stop it because feminism won't allow this kind of sexual violence and oppression to be recognised - because it shatters the 'female victim/ male perpetrator' narrative that feminism thrives on.
But by denying female predatory behaviour exists and pinning all sexual crimes on men (rather than being an even split) feminism has made women (and female sexuality) synonymous with safety and virtue. This is why creepy men now adopt female affectations and persona to slip by society's radar and get to children.
"It's not my job to educate unintelligent people like you. "
Actually it is. Feminist organisations and programs get billions of dollars in funding annually, much of it coming from taxes. The very least you could do as a feminist is to ENGAGE in civilised debates and discussions when you come across them, rather than hand wave all criticisms aside as if they were a bad smell.
A little more humility and you'd realise TERFs today are where MRA's were at a decade ago.
A little less ego and you'd realise the real battle is not between men and women (and never was), but between ordinary men and women and the technocratic, transhumanist ruling class.
Men and women are (and always were) naturally complimentary and hugely successful when working as a team.
It's not my job to teach ignorant people who can't read. LOL--male narcissism from Dylan Mulvaney and Jeffrey Marsh is actually females' fault--pure misogyny.
You didn't understand anything I said, and you're not smart enough to even accept it. I can't teach stupid people on Substack. You can't even properly read my statement on feminism--I said it's FOR FEMALES and females ALONE. Not ALL females accept it or call themselves "feminist," even the ones that take advantage of it while seeking male validation. You can't even read and understand that simple sentence.
Get a job. Unemployment is a hell of a thing. Get off your computer and do something with your life. You're not smart enough for this and it sounds like you're two minutes away from trooning out. Good luck in life because you sound like a friendless porn addict. Stop talking about concepts you aren't intelligent enough to comprehend. Be quiet.
You both need to be more respectful of one another in your disagreements or take it elsewhere. Your choice.
I have been nothing but courteous, patient and painstakingly attentive to Kat's comments.
Not a single ad hom from me.
Criticising feminist ideology is NOT a personal attack, even if it does personally offend feminists (which is not my intention).
I didn't write any ad hominems either. I am speaking honestly--you're not intelligent enough to speak because you're not educated enough on this topic. You have poor reading comprehension skills, and you don't understand any of my references or the history of this movement. You can't even properly read simple statements I made.
You seem to have problems with women in general, so that's a you problem. That's why you think Dylan Mulvaney is not a clear example of the pure male narcissism which drives "trans." He's the epitome of it. And yeah sure, nobody ever debates, disagrees, or offers differing views and definition of "socialism" and "capitalism"--everyone agrees on everything completely because it's objective and this has been true for all of history. LOL. See, this is what I mean. You're not intelligent and educated enough to speak on this
Women and men were never "complementary" as stated in your ahistorical nonsense. Men always felt more comfortable when women were subservient, personal servants, barred from any financial or social independence, unable to have protection from violence in the home, etc. That's exploitation and subjugation, not being "complementary." Now that they can't get away with treating their wives like a punching bag/waitress, they rage while swiping all day on Tinder (Tinder is 76% male btw).
Like I said, you aren't educated to speak on this. I can't give you a history lesson here. Pointing out lack of education and knowledge isn't ad hominem. It's simply true. I don't care about your personal struggles or history. It's just facts.
This person can't read and understand simple statements.
Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. Take it somewhere else.
These girls think testosterone will be the thing that magically makes their lives better, and all their problems will go away. It's the latest version of losing five pounds, or getting the lead in the school play, or making the cheerleading squad.
In many cases, it might be that simple. Tragic!
There is another common thread- isolation. I see it in my daughters, the lack of joy in friendships. They somehow can’t lean on friends when they are down. They see it as a flaw? The nature of those connections seem to have changed over the past couple of decades. We used to get energy from friends that sustained us through our adolescent and young adult discomfort.
And so many of these girls think they are the ones providing mental health to their friends but not receiving help from them... Yet if that's how most of these girls feel, clearly they are not doing a good job either providing or receiving help from one another. Maybe because they try hard to be therapists rather than friends/peers and use empty psycho-babble on one another?
"Contradiction trails in the wake of impossible dreams and the desperate attempt to smuggle an embodied human life into such a fantasy." --- Eliza Mondegreen
Thanks for the reality checks! We trans widows know the fallacies and inherent contradictions. To make sure people know, go about stickering!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/g_-wcxyDduY
This seems really important. So much of “trans” seems to involve preoccupation with how one is perceived by others within a very traditional gender binary. We used to celebrate gender nonconformity (at least within the coastal liberal cities where most women of this is concentrated). No longer.
My 50-something lesbian sister was lamenting this around Pride. What happened to the Dyke March? It’s almost nonexistent now. Lesbians are all middle-aged women like my sister, while gender non-conforming young women are identifying as trans while lamenting being seen as short, weak, pudgy men.
Yes. It brings to mind the phrase, “the internalized oppressor.” These young women clearly think being a lesbian (and an autistic one at that) is a disgusting, horrible fate. It feels a bizarre time warp.
You mean sex roles, correct?
What you call “gender dysphoria” was actually just delusion. You don’t have “gender,” no human does. Therefore, there’s no such thing as “gender dysphoria.” Like you state, it’s a symptom (in your case, depression) and not an identity, reality, or condition.
Doctors don’t want to address this because it’s a money maker and it’s being pushed by very powerful forces. I’m glad you got out, but none of this should have happened. The people who push this set the terms of debate, which is why these terms make no sense.
There’s no such thing as “transition” or “detransition.” Sex is binary and immutable. A male who wears dresses, takes hormones, and gets surgery to imitate women did not transition. He is only pretending, even if he passes (which is extremely rare), and he was male the entire time. Subsequently, ceasing to wear dresses, take hormones, or imitate women isn’t a “detransition.”
Mutilation and imitation is not “transition.” Stopping the lies is not “detransition.” This is simply mental illness which must be treated, not “affirmed” with lies. The words matter because this battle is essentially about language. Don’t use the words and the problem is solved.
It’s interesting what you say about depression bc I have noticed that. I swear it seems like “gender dysphoria” is mainly “depression” for a LOT of people. That feeling of having no future in front of you, no way forward as yourself...is depression. The idea you could escape that via becoming a different person. And how do you become a different person? Well our society presents gender transition as an option. Plain old anxiety and depression are under-discussed in this area imo. Depression especially can make people do some crazy shit.