Feminism, huh? We all know what feminism is, don't we? Feminism is about equality for all. We know this...
Feminism is not one singular practice. It has evolved and diverged as an organic practice would.
Its definition has changed, sometimes fundamentally, from a philosophy that holds material analysis at its core; that seeks to abolish patriarchal control, viewing gendered stereotypes as prisons; That oppression of women is the fundamental oppression which carries its influence through every other social strata where power resides, with an imperative on revolutionary change; It may view female oppression as a function of capitalism, and see liberation via the overthrow of capitalism. In recent times intersectionality has featured strongly in theory, often in ways that do not necessarily reflect the views set out by Kimberlè Crenshaw when she first proposed it. Most recently we have been bestowed with a popularised liberal feminism, which seeks change through the systems already in place. It cries for equality in a structure already built, arguing for an equal status in it.
This is a fundamental and profound difference: do we change society by dismantling and restructuring our lives, relationships, our values, with the changing of a predatory and insidious economic system; or do we fight for an equal footing inside of it, seeking compromise and gradual reform?
When women and girls are not central to feminism, something profound has occurred. When we talk of not the sexes but genders, and seek to represent everybody based on a scale of vulnerability, when those normally held as the most privileged - straight, white, western males, become the star of the show by making a claim to be women, there is a problem. This is not feminism.
It’s not possible, surely, that under the guise of a ‘feminism' touted as righteous by every left-leaning, pop culture media and corporate PR, that’s influenced so many facets of our society, misogyny has been revitalised?
The ancient woman-hatred that dismissed some of us as old, stupid, frigid, spiteful, sexually repressed and intrusively fascinated in the sex lives of others; as judgemental, ugly, hysterical bitch or witch, that hasn’t made a reappearance?
Feminism has a long history of women fighting for equality and liberation, because our biological status as women means we are physically smaller and weaker than men, less threatening than men, and perceived as objects to be fucked, claimed, restricted and oppressed. All our emotional mess with our bloody wombs and procreative potential.
Everywhere and always, we are tied to the domestic sphere, where we cook, clean, care and comply. All over the world and in every stage of civilisation, you will see the same dynamic. Feminism is a movement which changed the law: the vote; abortion; rape in marriage became a crime; the equal pay act; maternity cover; divorce rights; changes to how domestic violence is treated by police. They formed shelters for women and their children fleeing male violence, rape crisis centres. They built a framework which examined patriarchal society, fought for and protected women.
The exclusion of males was not out of hatred. Women raise sons too; they have fathers, brothers, male friends and lovers who they respect and love. But this is about feminism, and feminism is about WOMEN.
Compare and contrast with modern day feminism.
An inclusive, permissive and slogan-led lifestyle. Where movie producers are rapist scum for bribing actresses on the casting couch, but other women are empowered by submitting to the sexual urges of men for economic relief.
Where paying a twentysomething to bear pregnancy, then swiftly removing the baby can be a legitimate service in the economy.
Where the contradictions are studiously ignored and critics are demonised, mocked, wildly misrepresented. A sort of Spice Girl philosophy in a world of perfect smiles and bodies, cheeky dance moves, arse-pinching, and flirting with the old guys while occasionally shouting 'girl power!' in contrived demonstrations of rebellion.
In this supposedly brave new world, images of bondage-strapped women being humiliated, porn titles telling us she was 'destroyed', is 'barely legal' is just commerce. Adult men dressing as babies, masturbating while their nappies are changed, they must not be kink shamed.
Pornography is valid, it's self empowerment, it might stop rape too - like prostitution, we know the sexual needs of men are non negotiable, they are primal, irrepressible. So, accept that and leave safer routes for fulfilment. Sex workers would be ok if it wasn't for stigma.
We won't look at the foundations of those who climb into the back of a motor for a quick blow job.
Their drug problems, disenfranchised lives and histories of abuse are a separate issue.
In online prostitute review sites, punters ridicule, demean, gleefully recount the times they got away with a breach of consent (rape) by removing the condom on a woman too inebriated to notice. They share tips, explaining the desperate women stood out in the rain with all the pressures of an addiction can easily be coerced into half price sex acts. Anything to escape the cold or withdrawal.
These are not really relevant, 'sex work is work'. No accusations of slut shaming occur here when the punters call women every degrading term under the sun. The reality of these broken women's lives is too removed from the woke feminist.
They picture the well heeled, assertive, atypical prostitute, or the hard working undergrad who could never make this kind of money waiting tables, who makes it through this patch of prostitution, out into the professional world, remarkably unscathed. They hold those images in their head and avert their gaze, staring straight ahead like the dog walker who won't acknowledge the shit their pet has just laid in the park.
You do not get to have an opinion in the sex lives of adults, no matter how abusive, paedophilic or disturbing.
Adults are by virtue of their adulthood autonomous. They can say no, they can call the police. Any closer examination of power structures, the consequences of a patriarchy which has enforced norms and standards - a hierarchy of not just power but value of individuals, the true, life-destroying shaming of those cast as sluts - there’s rarely the time.
The cheering championing of sex work is not interested in the socio-economic and psychological etymology of those who enter into it. These will, undoubtedly, be dealt with as entirely unrelated to prostitution.
*'sex work's not for me, but I support those who do choose it!'* > vacuous chants to fade...
So, let’s keep going with this new incarnation of feminism, which advocates for all genders!
Males can be women. Males can experience misogyny. A story of intense oppression and abuse of trans people is spun, because advocacy has morphed from genuine concern and advancement into an ego-wank which accrues status.
It posits the champion of the oppressed as the cause célèb.
This, dear reader, is often not really about trans people. This is a psychological game of victim, rescuer, persecutor. Thus a persecutor must be found, and they should be as visible as possible. And besides, a mob isn’t always bad. Sometimes it's justice, and it’s fun when you feel part of something.
‘TERF’ began life as a simple acronym; trans exclusionary radical feminist. The trouble is, it’s been used so much, often with so much vitriolic abuse, so many rape and death threats, and for so many disparate thought crimes, it is both a slur and meaningless.
Is TERF reserved for radical feminists? Do these people even know what a rad fem is? No.
What exactly is a TERF? A transphobe? If so, why don’t you shout 'transphobe' at us, brave young lib fems and assorted woke blokes? What threat do radical feminists, those who angrily countered gender stereotypes, who built places of refuges, who fought for gay rights, pose?
What is it they do that requires a special name? Who do they beat up, kill?
Declaring ‘TERF!’ is an easy way to assert yourself online, or in public (if you’re in a group). It instantly marks that woman as a bile-fuelled propagandist; hysterical, lying, ridiculous and beyond credibility. This TERF is bigoted, past it, ugly, stupid. She can be dismissed, every comment deluged in laughing emojis. She’s not worth engaging with – in fact you must not, she is toxic, and her ideas are contagious as well as having the ability to kill, even when uttered in secret.
But let’s tell the story, of the greatest oppression, the most vulnerable people in our society...
This, this, will justify any harsh slap downs of women who raise what could be reasonable points (dog whistles. they're dog whistles! It’s not as innocent a remark as you might think – this is a TERF).
So, it goes that trans people are extremely vulnerable, suffering a drastic rise in hate crime. They are driven to commit suicide, and attempt it at a terrifying rate. Because of the endless misery of their lives. And TERFs.
Most seriously, there is an epidemic of murder against trans people (*will tackle these points in a subsequent blog.) Because of this, and the constant harassment, abuse and the fear this causes, trans people need special attention, care and allyship. Benign tolerance is not enough, celebration and validation is essential. Trans people, trans women and trans women of colour especially, need representation and solidarity. Consequently, any sniff of non compliance, of questioning or exclusion from womanhood is to be called out.
I have a word of warning regarding the victim / rescuer / persecutor dynamic. It is never a stable or altruistic relationship. It hinges on the continued infantilising of the victim, who must be always needy and grateful lest the roles change. If you wanted to empower yourself then, think on.
These claims, the purported facts and statistics are so jam-packed with lies, misinterpretation, and based on such tiny study numbers, it becomes an overwhelming tangle of nonsense so powerful it can submerge civilisations.
It is so out of focus, skewed and manipulated you need a strong gut, thick skin and iron-clad resolve to challenge it. Suffice to say, there are many groups in much more vulnerable situations, with far less representation and commercial backing.
Women have just begun to access the offices of power, to shake free from ancient shackles and the societal pressure to not 'cause a scene'.
This remarkable change that now hails misogynistic abuse as an act of progressive advocacy; that refuses to condemn the harassment, vexatious legal action, vandalism and harassment of rape crisis centres; which looks the other way when ancient woman-hate is directed at feminists who don't comply; who demands women accept cocks in their prisons, shelters and orifices - this needs one hell if a sub-structure to counterbalance the overreach. The foundations of which lie in the constant reiteration of vulnerability.
Because that, somehow, justifies it all.
Paris Lees writes in The Independent that a request from a journalist to take part in a feature about “the row” between those Paris calls 'TERFs' and trans people, there was just no way.
Why? Because:
"She told me it would be a “balanced” piece that listened to “all the sides of the debate”. I offered her a quote:
“In Britain, 48 per cent of young trans people have attempted suicide. What drives them to feel so hopeless, desperate and alone? Could it be the widespread social exclusion, family rejection, workplace discrimination, media ridicule, poor healthcare and street violence trans people face? If you want to talk about trans issues, start here.”’
So I'm assuming that by ‘start here', Paris means this is the only way we can focus correctly. It's funny though, because, as a 'journalist' it's entirely up to Paris to pursue this angle (*again, these statistics are untrue please see Transgender Trend, The Suicide Myth)
Paris is free to follow this 'lead', although it's a bit of a tired one. Why Paris has a wish to publicise such defensive, dismissive tone towards a journalist with a different process is strange. It's entirely unnecessary - unless, that is, I allow my cynicism enough oxygen to gasp the most heinous of taboos - a civil, fact based, open dialogue which seeks to find compromise: this is the last thing the gender ideologue wants.
Paris is not able, is dismissing it with exhausted, hackneyed tropes he must know are bullshit.
The trans activists don't want liberation from a vulnerable status - they want supremacy. An entitlement forged in the fires of victim-hood. There's a reason no-platforming and refusal to appear alongside feminists prevails. Honesty is the worst policy.
Are we also to believe it is radical feminists, or women, who work in a basis of biological reality, are the cause of this suffering? Or is the 'fact' of this suffering simply a hall pass to access all areas of women's lives, protections and successes?
This is a self-righteous, defiant refusal to acknowledge the fact that there are clashes among trans rights and women’s rights. Trying to look dignified while avoiding difficult subjects which require conversation, mutual respect and facts. They look straight ahead. Do not talk to the TERFs. Don’t let them an inch.
The overwhelming pressure on trans people is a powerful narrative. It commands attention and it makes any difference of opinion look crass, selfish, bigoted. So we end up in a scenario which is prime liberal feminist fodder – be nice, be kind, let the doors of toilets, prison, refuges fly open for these poor people.
Be the decent, underdog-championing progressive and advocate your own humility and caring, sharing ideals. It creates a philosophy where liberal feminists who say they believe all women, who vociferously defend the right of anyone to withdraw consent at any stage of sex (quite rightly) tell lesbians that when they find their date has not a vulva but a hard penis, they made that bed, they better lie in it.
Refusing a woman's cock is an egregious assault which is synonymous with white supremacy. Or something.
This is a world where ‘women rape too!’ Where experiencing normal fear of male bodies is an offence, and even hundreds of examples of men playing the trans card to absolve themselves of consequences when up on rape charges is entirely irrelevant. This should be dismissed with obscene personal messages, offemsive memes and those laughing emojis.
This is an ecosystem of western angst, where FGM campaigners are vilified for using the word ‘female genital mutilation’ and drives against banishing menstruating girls and women to period huts can only be supported if they omit the words 'girl' and 'woman'.
That is, supposedly, essential to make sure trans men and non binaries, people existing almost entirely in the West, are reflected.
It is here that racist comparisons of black women to men, or a deeply insulting version of events that holds 'indigenous' and 'non western' cultures as so innocent that they didn't know how babies were made until the white colonialists appeared, are justified.
But it's alright, because they’re sure to have a BLM frame. Supporting Black lives Matter means this individual has checked their privilege, done all the historical and introspective work necessary to say this, to attach a new ideology and proclaim themselves as an advocate and ally who can't speak for all black people, of course. But they can give it a go...
Here, women who are not white are completely synonymous with males with penises. Exclusion is wrong, they say. Sex is a social construct just as race is. They're the same. The fact that there actually are profound biological differences between males and females, and no race commits sex crimes on a par to that of men, is not important. We are allowed not a scrap of discrimination. Trans women have a pedestal that eclipses and explains all sexually aggressive behaviour, only superseded when it becomes too obvious, and they become outliers. Remember Myra Hindley and Rose West? (The fact they acted with men is, again, irrelevant).
It’s appropriate and laudable to paint women as mean, spiteful, privileged prudes with hysterical notions of rape and ideas above their station. Joining dog-piles which ridicule her, where her fears are laughed off as frigid histrionics is encouraged. TERF is a label that precedes misogyny and subsequently forgives it. For, don’cha know, there’s an epidemic of murder and hate crimes.
Misogyny is not a hate crime, but this lack of protection, equality or a control group is of course not relevant. The ferocity of police investigating an online misgendering, while a famous author is bombarded with thousands upon thousands of sexually aggressive, degrading and abusive misogynistic tweets with zero ‘non crime hate incident’ interrogations just shows the police are catching on.
Women’s prisons, where you really find the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, are not within the realm of the liberal feminist. Never have they had no control over who lives with them, been beyond the reach of their parents. If female prisoners are raped by a supposed trans woman with ‘her' cock, that’s nothing on what would happen to a trans woman in a man's prison. Some victims are more equal than others.
If women’s refuges, built by those troublesome feminists of the seventies, don’t accept all women then that’s a problem!
Undoubtedly they have a second hand story of the vulnerable woman and trans woman in crisis, who rebuilt each other with love and sisterhood. Are there concerns about intruders using a guise of a trans identity? If there are, they can be sifted out and refused. Somehow a risk assessment will identify any bad actors, and will continue to do so even when evidence says otherwise.
If somehow a woman who’s whole life has been broken apart in a bid for freedom from an abuser has a gut reaction to a deep voice, an Adam's apple, that’s a problem she will have to learn to mitigate. The trans woman is central to feminism here, and don’t you forget that. Vulnerability is the essence of womanhood. Be vulnerable in the Brave New World.
Unlike Black Lives Matter, which is noble for centring black people, feminism cannot centre females. While racist analogies abound, BLM is a central part of the posturing among the liberals feminists. ‘All lives matter’ is an appalling slur, it misses the point, it’s appropriation. Simultaneously, feminism is for everyone. And that's that.
I’m unsure when women achieved such incredible privilege they were sitting on excessive shares that need to be paid in reparation to biological males. It passed me by.
There could, if material analysis, class analysis, any fuckin analysis were used, be a very good argument that western men and women who collect the slogans and experience such a deep security which enables this treacherous denial of biological reality and abdication of any solidarity with the truly vulnerable and oppressed, is a psycho-social phenomenon on a parallel with Just World Theory. That a warped, conspicuous and authoritarian campaign of self-aggrandising non-think has swept up a significant enough mass that critical thinking is unnecessary and unpalatable.
I hope, for the welfare of women and girls worldwide, I am wrong.
Trans People Have No Dispute With Feminists, They Either Support Transgender Rights Or They Do Not
