I know this is a republishing of an article written months ago but I think the point I’m going to make is still relevant because the trans debate is still going on in the same way it was then.
Last week Jordan McSweeney was sentenced to life with a minimum term of 38 years for the murder and sexual assault of Zara Aleena. Information about the crime which had not previously been reported because he pleaded guilty was released which included CCTV of his movements prior to the attack which showed him following other women, witness statements from those other women and some information about his previous convictions (according to the BBC, “28 convictions for 69 crimes, dating back to 2006, ranging from burglary to assaulting the police and including racially motivated offences”) and the circumstances of his release from prison and the attempts to recall him following breaches of his licence in the days before he murdered Zara Aleena. There was some reaction from feminist activists, writers and politicians on the day of his sentencing and the following day.
On Friday last week The Sun published an article by Jeremy Clarkson about Meghan Markle. Many people (including celebrities and feminist activists) reacted strongly to it, more than 12000 complaints have been made to IPSO and more than 60 MPs have written to the editor of The Sun to condemn the article “in the strongest terms” and state that it contributes to an “unacceptable climate of hatred and violence”. It seems that some people care more about a bad man thinking bad thoughts and using bad words about a famous woman or someone using the wrong word to describe a person they don’t know than they care about the fact that an evil man with dozens of criminal convictions sexually assaulted and murdered a woman who wasn’t famous.
Perhaps someone could write a book about how irrelevant, cowardly and self-serving the feminist movement has become.
You shouldn’t blame the feminist movement for the press’ fixation on celebrities. Blame us – those of us who subscribe to the terrible press and media and keep them afloat.
Not sure why you’re not understanding the difference between McSweeney & Clarkson. One won’t get out of jail until he’s an old man (if at all.) The other would get away scott free with his harmful hate sprewing if many decent folk didn’t take the time to call him out. And clearly many feminists aren’t cowardly, both on the pro trans & trans critical side – such as the article author willing to risk cancellation & ostracisation to say what she believes is in woman’s interests.
Reality check ! There are plenty of “decent folk” who like reading Jeremy Clarkson. And even some who agree with him. If you don’t like being offended, don’t read him. It sounds rather like you’d want people you disagree with censored. Most of us value free speech.
I haven’t read this Clarkson article and I have no idea what it said. But the fact that 12000 people apparently don’t like it is no proof whatever that it is offensive/wrong/needs to be “called out”. It might just be that there are 12000 people and 60MPs who are too easily offended and have too much spare time on their hands. We might also enquire how many people agreed with it. And check the for:against ratio.
I know lots of decent folk like Clarkson – or at least that they did. Only takes 5 mins to google what he said, you might change your mind too. And youre right I’d be happy to see him censored. It’s natural to feel flashes of hate for other others every now and then. But one of the pillars our civilistion rests on is that grown men should repress that sort of thing, and not spill it out for all to see. If they can’t, then in extreme cases, someone else should do it for them. Never agreed with cancelling before, now thanks to JC I now understand where SJWs have been comming from.
Thanks. Glad we’re keeping things civil and polite !
I’ve read the quote now. I do however struggle to comprehend how anyone could take his statement literally, seriously or as any sort of instruction. The man’s been trading on exaggeration and generating outrage for over 20 years. I’m not sure he even takes himself that seriously.
Professional offence takers will always find a reason to take offence.
If any real and serious offence has actually been committed here (“thought crimes” don’t cut it for me), I’m sure this can be pursued through the courts.
Has she become a lightning rod, an embodiment of woke? Narcissistic, manipulative, a proven liar, a person so lacking in integrity she doesn’t care what damage she does to her own or her loved ones families in her pursuit of …what? Money, power, a political future?
All would explain why she so assiduously surfs every wave the elite grievance grifters manufacture.
Hate is rooted in fear. Nobody hates that to which they are indifferent. Many of us are fearful of the Orwellian future we see rolling towards us every time we switch on the TV, or read a newspaper, or talk to anybody under 30. Megan Markle is a living embodiment of that fear.
Anyway, that was my bit of self reflection after I found my dopamine receptors lighting up with a spasm of joy on reading Clarkson’s piece, before the rational mind kicked back in.
I hope this won’t spoil the civil tone of this debate.
Thanks. Glad we’re keeping things civil and polite !
I’ve read the quote now. I do however struggle to comprehend how anyone could take his statement literally, seriously or as any sort of instruction. The man’s been trading on exaggeration and generating outrage for over 20 years. I’m not sure he even takes himself that seriously.
Professional offence takers will always find a reason to take offence.
If any real and serious offence has actually been committed here (“thought crimes” don’t cut it for me), I’m sure this can be pursued through the courts.
Has she become a lightning rod, an embodiment of woke? Narcissistic, manipulative, a proven liar, a person so lacking in integrity she doesn’t care what damage she does to her own or her loved ones families in her pursuit of …what? Money, power, a political future?
All would explain why she so assiduously surfs every wave the elite grievance grifters manufacture.
Hate is rooted in fear. Nobody hates that to which they are indifferent. Many of us are fearful of the Orwellian future we see rolling towards us every time we switch on the TV, or read a newspaper, or talk to anybody under 30. Megan Markle is a living embodiment of that fear.
Anyway, that was my bit of self reflection after I found my dopamine receptors lighting up with a spasm of joy on reading Clarkson’s piece, before the rational mind kicked back in.
I hope this won’t spoil the civil tone of this debate.
I know lots of decent folk like Clarkson – or at least that they did. Only takes 5 mins to google what he said, you might change your mind too. And youre right I’d be happy to see him censored. It’s natural to feel flashes of hate for other others every now and then. But one of the pillars our civilistion rests on is that grown men should repress that sort of thing, and not spill it out for all to see. If they can’t, then in extreme cases, someone else should do it for them. Never agreed with cancelling before, now thanks to JC I now understand where SJWs have been comming from.
You haven’t understood the point I was making which is that people are far more angry and vocal about what Jeremy Clarkson wrote than they are about what Jordan McSweeney did. That’s what feminism, other types of activism, journalism and politics are like in the age of social media: they are more interested in being outraged by what people (and especially famous people) say rather than what people do, even if what someone does results in injury or death.
It is easy, quick and profitable to be outraged about Jeremy Clarkson or whoever this week’s hate figure is. A few years ago it was Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir Tim Hunt whose crime was to tell a joke and most weeks it is JK Rowling. However, when a woman is murdered by a man with a long history of criminal convictions or thousands of underage girls are raped under the noses of public bodies with a legal duty to protect them or men, women and children are massacred in the foyer of a concert venue there isn’t the same outrage. It isn’t as easy, quick or profitable to be outraged about the failings of the criminal justice system or child protection systems or the security services, even though it is more important to be outraged. Go for the easy target, jump on the latest bandwagon, write 1000 words for £320.
This is about what and who matters and what and who doesn’t matter to activists, journalists and politicians. For the current generation of feminists what matters most is money and who matters most is themselves.
Thanks for explaining civilly and I agree with much of that. I’d say though it’s impossible for many to sustain outrage at the violent deaths of women when it happens so frequently. When there’s been something unique about it some feminists have put themselves at risk to protest it, as happened with Sarah Everand, and there’s much ongoing activism to make society safer for women in general. I kind of feel we’re at a strange time where both misandry & misogyny are growing at once and so there is still a place for feminism – though do agree some is self servering as you say.
Thank you very much for replying and addressing the problem I was trying to describe, in my idiosyncratic way. I’m not opposed to feminism: indeed, I believe in equal rights, equal treatment and equality of opportunity. I’m extremely disappointed with how feminism has developed, particularly in the fourth wave which I see as being largely made up of female English Literature graduates who became feminists when they realised there was money in it. Start a campaign on social media to try to get a newspaper column, write a newspaper column to try to get a book deal, write books to try to get a job for a campaign group. Today feminism is a career.
You mentioned Sarah Everard and whilst her murder was a terrible crime I still found some of the feminist reaction to it to be false. There were vigils held simultaneously around the country after feminist campaigners called for people to show solidarity. During the coronavirus pandemic five women were either murdered or died in suspicious circumstances in a relatively small area in a short space of time. A group of local women organised a vigil to raise awareness of violence against women and girls. Almost no one outside the local area took any interest, there was almost no coverage in the national media and there were no other vigils elsewhere. I doubt any feminist activist in London could even tell you where the vigil for those five women was held.
Almost no feminists protested or wrote about the mass rape of underage girls in Rotherham or anywhere where it has been happening for decades. Almost no feminists protested or wrote about the mass sexual assaults in Cologne. Almost no white feminists protested or wrote about the killing of Mahsa Amini. Most feminists don’t care about most other women but expect all women to show solidarity with them when they demand it.
I have more respect for Julie Bindel than almost all of the rest of the Western feminist movement put together.
I wholly endorse your viewpoint here.
In relation to Sarah Everard, it is telling that a young woman from a much lower social order, who was brutally murdered at the same time, received no mention from the feminist movement, let alone exaggerated public protests and no constant reference in BBC news for days, weeks on end.
We live in a new era of supreme hypocrisy, coercion and untruth. And the very people who are so quick to bellow their affronted virtue in public are the very same who are imposing this evil on our world.
“Start a campaign on social media to try to get a newspaper column, write a newspaper column to try to get a book deal, write books to try to get a job for a campaign group. Today feminism is a career.“
Are you kidding? Maybe 50 years ago; but today the hot new trend is to go conservative—and especially antifeminist—if you want a career. Liberals and feminists are common (because a majority of people actually hold such values); but a conservative pundit (especially if young) is seen as a novelty—and therefore is fast-tracked to a media career.
I wholly endorse your viewpoint here.
In relation to Sarah Everard, it is telling that a young woman from a much lower social order, who was brutally murdered at the same time, received no mention from the feminist movement, let alone exaggerated public protests and no constant reference in BBC news for days, weeks on end.
We live in a new era of supreme hypocrisy, coercion and untruth. And the very people who are so quick to bellow their affronted virtue in public are the very same who are imposing this evil on our world.
“Start a campaign on social media to try to get a newspaper column, write a newspaper column to try to get a book deal, write books to try to get a job for a campaign group. Today feminism is a career.“
Are you kidding? Maybe 50 years ago; but today the hot new trend is to go conservative—and especially antifeminist—if you want a career. Liberals and feminists are common (because a majority of people actually hold such values); but a conservative pundit (especially if young) is seen as a novelty—and therefore is fast-tracked to a media career.
Thank you very much for replying and addressing the problem I was trying to describe, in my idiosyncratic way. I’m not opposed to feminism: indeed, I believe in equal rights, equal treatment and equality of opportunity. I’m extremely disappointed with how feminism has developed, particularly in the fourth wave which I see as being largely made up of female English Literature graduates who became feminists when they realised there was money in it. Start a campaign on social media to try to get a newspaper column, write a newspaper column to try to get a book deal, write books to try to get a job for a campaign group. Today feminism is a career.
You mentioned Sarah Everard and whilst her murder was a terrible crime I still found some of the feminist reaction to it to be false. There were vigils held simultaneously around the country after feminist campaigners called for people to show solidarity. During the coronavirus pandemic five women were either murdered or died in suspicious circumstances in a relatively small area in a short space of time. A group of local women organised a vigil to raise awareness of violence against women and girls. Almost no one outside the local area took any interest, there was almost no coverage in the national media and there were no other vigils elsewhere. I doubt any feminist activist in London could even tell you where the vigil for those five women was held.
Almost no feminists protested or wrote about the mass rape of underage girls in Rotherham or anywhere where it has been happening for decades. Almost no feminists protested or wrote about the mass sexual assaults in Cologne. Almost no white feminists protested or wrote about the killing of Mahsa Amini. Most feminists don’t care about most other women but expect all women to show solidarity with them when they demand it.
I have more respect for Julie Bindel than almost all of the rest of the Western feminist movement put together.
Thanks for explaining civilly and I agree with much of that. I’d say though it’s impossible for many to sustain outrage at the violent deaths of women when it happens so frequently. When there’s been something unique about it some feminists have put themselves at risk to protest it, as happened with Sarah Everand, and there’s much ongoing activism to make society safer for women in general. I kind of feel we’re at a strange time where both misandry & misogyny are growing at once and so there is still a place for feminism – though do agree some is self servering as you say.
Reality check ! There are plenty of “decent folk” who like reading Jeremy Clarkson. And even some who agree with him. If you don’t like being offended, don’t read him. It sounds rather like you’d want people you disagree with censored. Most of us value free speech.
I haven’t read this Clarkson article and I have no idea what it said. But the fact that 12000 people apparently don’t like it is no proof whatever that it is offensive/wrong/needs to be “called out”. It might just be that there are 12000 people and 60MPs who are too easily offended and have too much spare time on their hands. We might also enquire how many people agreed with it. And check the for:against ratio.
You haven’t understood the point I was making which is that people are far more angry and vocal about what Jeremy Clarkson wrote than they are about what Jordan McSweeney did. That’s what feminism, other types of activism, journalism and politics are like in the age of social media: they are more interested in being outraged by what people (and especially famous people) say rather than what people do, even if what someone does results in injury or death.
It is easy, quick and profitable to be outraged about Jeremy Clarkson or whoever this week’s hate figure is. A few years ago it was Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir Tim Hunt whose crime was to tell a joke and most weeks it is JK Rowling. However, when a woman is murdered by a man with a long history of criminal convictions or thousands of underage girls are raped under the noses of public bodies with a legal duty to protect them or men, women and children are massacred in the foyer of a concert venue there isn’t the same outrage. It isn’t as easy, quick or profitable to be outraged about the failings of the criminal justice system or child protection systems or the security services, even though it is more important to be outraged. Go for the easy target, jump on the latest bandwagon, write 1000 words for £320.
This is about what and who matters and what and who doesn’t matter to activists, journalists and politicians. For the current generation of feminists what matters most is money and who matters most is themselves.
You shouldn’t blame the feminist movement for the press’ fixation on celebrities. Blame us – those of us who subscribe to the terrible press and media and keep them afloat.
Not sure why you’re not understanding the difference between McSweeney & Clarkson. One won’t get out of jail until he’s an old man (if at all.) The other would get away scott free with his harmful hate sprewing if many decent folk didn’t take the time to call him out. And clearly many feminists aren’t cowardly, both on the pro trans & trans critical side – such as the article author willing to risk cancellation & ostracisation to say what she believes is in woman’s interests.
Aw Zk
1 year ago
I know this is a republishing of an article written months ago but I think the point I’m going to make is still relevant because the trans debate is still going on in the same way it was then.
Last week Jordan McSweeney was sentenced to life with a minimum term of 38 years for the murder and sexual assault of Zara Aleena. Information about the crime which had not previously been reported because he pleaded guilty was released which included CCTV of his movements prior to the attack which showed him following other women, witness statements from those other women and some information about his previous convictions (according to the BBC, “28 convictions for 69 crimes, dating back to 2006, ranging from burglary to assaulting the police and including racially motivated offences”) and the circumstances of his release from prison and the attempts to recall him following breaches of his licence in the days before he murdered Zara Aleena. There was some reaction from feminist activists, writers and politicians on the day of his sentencing and the following day.
On Friday last week The Sun published an article by Jeremy Clarkson about Meghan Markle. Many people (including celebrities and feminist activists) reacted strongly to it, more than 12000 complaints have been made to IPSO and more than 60 MPs have written to the editor of The Sun to condemn the article “in the strongest terms” and state that it contributes to an “unacceptable climate of hatred and violence”. It seems that some people care more about a bad man thinking bad thoughts and using bad words about a famous woman or someone using the wrong word to describe a person they don’t know than they care about the fact that an evil man with dozens of criminal convictions sexually assaulted and murdered a woman who wasn’t famous.
Perhaps someone could write a book about how irrelevant, cowardly and self-serving the feminist movement has become.
Last edited 1 year ago by Aw Zk
AC Harper
1 year ago
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Gender is sex.”
― George Orwell, 1984 (updated)
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell (not updated)
AC Harper
1 year ago
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Gender is sex.”
― George Orwell, 1984 (updated)
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell (not updated)
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago
Welcome to the world, feminists. Now that they are turning the pejoratives on you, maybe you — in about a century — will start to understand how it feeels to be called a racist-sexist-homophobe.
Actually, I’ve only been called a racist twice in my life. Once by a black guy, son of a university professor, and once by a gay guy.
The whole point of leftist politics is that “we” are the Allies of the Oppressed fighting against the Oppressors. And don’t you forget it.
It started with the left fighting for the workers. But in about 1965 the left transitioned to race and feminism. Forget the workers! But then that became old hat and now the poor helpless victims are the transgenders.
Do you see the problem here?
No. I don’t suppose you do.
I’ve been rereading my Trollope recently, and I am discovering that women were just as idiotic back then as they are now.
‘I am discovering that women were just as idiotic back then as they are now.’
I admire the boldness of that statement if nothing else.
Do you have a mother? Grandmother? Aunt? Or were you saved from being subjected to such idiocy? Delivered by stork were you?
My mother, likes to let her feelings out, so do I, I declare you a wa**er.
Woman up late in the UK, proliferation of weird American opinions going on here right now.
Jonas moze – you just get more out there every time.
Just been on the article about American politics encroaching, all of you people on here right now are just proving to me why this is bad, over and over again.
Hey! I’ve got no problem with the essay. I’m American, alternating between reading Fukuyama and Trollope (coincidentally) in alternating shifts lately. The latter seems to make an equal number of characters of both sexes act infuriatingly stupid.
You have to be stupid to claim women are exactly the same as men while simultaneously expecting to keep those nice privileges that are allowed only to women.
“Do you have a mother? Grandmother? Aunt? ”
It is telling that while men are supposed to be shamed into silence by that line, in case of women the equivalent doesn’t seem to turn up much regarding fathers, grandfathers and uncles – whether it’s men being exclusively drafted to fight wars (while movies and media decide to stock up on “strong women”), the utter lack of concern for male victims of suicide or domestic violence, or the lack of diversity in truck driving or mining.
So, would agree with him that women have changed not a bit from “back then” – when they would be suffragettes but sit out WW1 in their comfortable homes or demand priority over the lifeboats.
I’m so sorry – what nice privileges are afforded us that I’m expecting to keep? Should I get back in my box then on account of those privileges? Stop bothering the men folk?
I never claimed we were the same.
I think it’s unreasonable to say ‘women are just as idiotic now as they were then’, I couldn’t help picking on it. Does seem a rather sweeping statement to me.
You mention WW1 – Britain is well into the industrial revolution, women worked in factories, as servants, only rich ones ‘sat in their comfortable homes’. My nan and great aunts spent ww2 working the fields, nan was the daughter of a farm labourer, my great aunts were land girls, while the men folk went to fight. In fact I think us women actually kept the factories going, kept the farms going and were a massive part of the effort to win ww2. They certainly didn’t sit anything out in comfortable homes I can tell you that. These women can do. Nan is hardcore, she’s still tougher than old boots now.
“what nice privileges are afforded us”
– Preferential treatment over fathers in family courts
– Statistically likely to receive less punishment for the same crime
– Special “women’s” categories or diversity quotas where women can’t compete
– Zilch participation in more dangerous or strenuous, outdoor occupations
– Domestic violence and similar services exclusively for women.
“us women actually kept the factories going, kept the farms going and were a massive part of the effort to win ww2”
If that contribution really was equal and as dangerous as that of the male soldiers dying on the warfronts, you women wouldn’t be so reticent about demanding gender equality when it comes to military conscription.
Well without us darling you’d have had nothing to eat and nothing to fight with.
I never once in my post demanded gender equality when it comes to military conscription.
I actually feel in the UK, women have a good deal, like you say, all the services listed above, I personally don’t feel, as I posted the other day, shat upon by a patriarchy or otherwise unequal. I object to women in general though being referred to as idiotic in the manner the original poster did so.
– Zilch participation in more dangerous or strenuous, outdoor occupations
You walked into that one like your friend above.
When I was 15 my self employed dad put his hand through a table saw and mangled his hand, since then, pretty much, I’ve been on the tools, with him.
I’m actually a lady electrician, I’ve dug trenches, worked on house and barn roofs fitting solar panels in the pissing down rain, I’ve worked on farms in snow, heaps and heaps of cow shit, pulling cables through it till your plastered, actual dried people and pig shit that’s been through an anaerobic digester, on street cabs full of rat piss, in all weathers, in lofts, barn roofs, floor spaces, in very hot weather, ever worked in the roof of a recycling plant while its running a trommel? Full of dust off Northamptonshires rubbish and diesel fumes from the plant? Pulling in cables and putting up light fittings as big as you are? I’ve heaved cables, I can fit massive moulded case and three phase gear, I’ve wired enormous diesel generators as big as your front room.
I can drive massive platforms, handle a set of ladders and piss all over your bonfire like its nothing.
I have enormous respect for guys that do groundwork and steel erection, builders and scaffolders, I’ve seen them work, I know I would struggle to do those jobs myself, all day, every day.
Assumption is the mother of your f*’* up.
Hear we go, one exception to a rule (if what she even says is true) and all women are amazing, hard, hardy types, who can do anything physical and tactile just as well as men can. Laughable.
I didn’t say all women were amazing. I also didn’t say we could do everything the same. That would be as ridiculous as saying all men are amazing, hardy types. I personally have many floors. We all do, women and men.
Samir said we didn’t participate in outdoor or dangerous occupations. Well that’s just bo**cks.
He said we all sat at home comfortably during the world wars. Also bo**cks.
Laughable in fact.
Next.
I didn’t say all women were amazing. I also didn’t say we could do everything the same. That would be as ridiculous as saying all men are amazing, hardy types. I personally have many floors. We all do, women and men.
Samir said we didn’t participate in outdoor or dangerous occupations. Well that’s just bo**cks.
He said we all sat at home comfortably during the world wars. Also bo**cks.
Laughable in fact.
Next.
Hear we go, one exception to a rule (if what she even says is true) and all women are amazing, hard, hardy types, who can do anything physical and tactile just as well as men can. Laughable.
Well without us darling you’d have had nothing to eat and nothing to fight with.
I never once in my post demanded gender equality when it comes to military conscription.
I actually feel in the UK, women have a good deal, like you say, all the services listed above, I personally don’t feel, as I posted the other day, shat upon by a patriarchy or otherwise unequal. I object to women in general though being referred to as idiotic in the manner the original poster did so.
– Zilch participation in more dangerous or strenuous, outdoor occupations
You walked into that one like your friend above.
When I was 15 my self employed dad put his hand through a table saw and mangled his hand, since then, pretty much, I’ve been on the tools, with him.
I’m actually a lady electrician, I’ve dug trenches, worked on house and barn roofs fitting solar panels in the pissing down rain, I’ve worked on farms in snow, heaps and heaps of cow shit, pulling cables through it till your plastered, actual dried people and pig shit that’s been through an anaerobic digester, on street cabs full of rat piss, in all weathers, in lofts, barn roofs, floor spaces, in very hot weather, ever worked in the roof of a recycling plant while its running a trommel? Full of dust off Northamptonshires rubbish and diesel fumes from the plant? Pulling in cables and putting up light fittings as big as you are? I’ve heaved cables, I can fit massive moulded case and three phase gear, I’ve wired enormous diesel generators as big as your front room.
I can drive massive platforms, handle a set of ladders and piss all over your bonfire like its nothing.
I have enormous respect for guys that do groundwork and steel erection, builders and scaffolders, I’ve seen them work, I know I would struggle to do those jobs myself, all day, every day.
Assumption is the mother of your f*’* up.
“what nice privileges are afforded us”
– Preferential treatment over fathers in family courts
– Statistically likely to receive less punishment for the same crime
– Special “women’s” categories or diversity quotas where women can’t compete
– Zilch participation in more dangerous or strenuous, outdoor occupations
– Domestic violence and similar services exclusively for women.
“us women actually kept the factories going, kept the farms going and were a massive part of the effort to win ww2”
If that contribution really was equal and as dangerous as that of the male soldiers dying on the warfronts, you women wouldn’t be so reticent about demanding gender equality when it comes to military conscription.
I’m so sorry – what nice privileges are afforded us that I’m expecting to keep? Should I get back in my box then on account of those privileges? Stop bothering the men folk?
I never claimed we were the same.
I think it’s unreasonable to say ‘women are just as idiotic now as they were then’, I couldn’t help picking on it. Does seem a rather sweeping statement to me.
You mention WW1 – Britain is well into the industrial revolution, women worked in factories, as servants, only rich ones ‘sat in their comfortable homes’. My nan and great aunts spent ww2 working the fields, nan was the daughter of a farm labourer, my great aunts were land girls, while the men folk went to fight. In fact I think us women actually kept the factories going, kept the farms going and were a massive part of the effort to win ww2. They certainly didn’t sit anything out in comfortable homes I can tell you that. These women can do. Nan is hardcore, she’s still tougher than old boots now.
Hey! I’ve got no problem with the essay. I’m American, alternating between reading Fukuyama and Trollope (coincidentally) in alternating shifts lately. The latter seems to make an equal number of characters of both sexes act infuriatingly stupid.
You have to be stupid to claim women are exactly the same as men while simultaneously expecting to keep those nice privileges that are allowed only to women.
“Do you have a mother? Grandmother? Aunt? ”
It is telling that while men are supposed to be shamed into silence by that line, in case of women the equivalent doesn’t seem to turn up much regarding fathers, grandfathers and uncles – whether it’s men being exclusively drafted to fight wars (while movies and media decide to stock up on “strong women”), the utter lack of concern for male victims of suicide or domestic violence, or the lack of diversity in truck driving or mining.
So, would agree with him that women have changed not a bit from “back then” – when they would be suffragettes but sit out WW1 in their comfortable homes or demand priority over the lifeboats.
I’m old enough to remember when (beginning in the 1960s) feminists were viscerally opposed to any research that might find biological differences between men and women. They presumed that any differences would favor men, not women. (I write as an academic. There were no research grants in those days for anyone whose proposed “methodology” did not rely on that hypothesis.) Orthodox policy in ideological circles relied on the notion that men and women were interchangeable except for the physical mechanics of reproduction–after which, it made no difference who cared for children or did anything else. The task of feminism, therefore, was to get as many women as possible, including mothers, into offices for careers. This way of thinking had consequences that are still with us. And I refer not only to the stifled debate over fatherhood. (Are fathers necessary in family life or merely as luxuries or wallets at best and as liabilities at worst?) I refer also to the debate over transgender ideology. (If sexual differences amount to nothing significant, then why not claim that they don’t exist at all?) By the 1990s, feminists were advocating “alternative epistemologies,” moreover, which elevating feeling (presumably a female blessing) over “linear” thinking (presumably a male curse).
But the story soon became more complicated than that. Many feminists changed their minds about research on sex differences after realizing (beginning in the 1980s) that research might favor women, not men. In fact, they began to promote research on sex differences in the hope that science would demonstrate female superiority and male inferiority–notions that have long since prevailed not only in the sciences but also in the humanities and social sciences.
Feminists today have good reason to reject transgender ideology, but they should acknowledge on both moral and intellectual grounds that earlier feminist generations anticipated the current woke preference for ideology over science (or any kind of “white” or “male” reason). Woke ideology absorbed (and, in some ways, changed) feminist ideology along with various racist ideologies. At issue now is not only how to define “woman,” but also how to define “man” (and countless other words that can be attacked somehow on ideological grounds).The adversaries of feminism are not “misogynistic” men, per se, but the male and female politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and even scientists who are afraid to speak the obvious truth.
‘I am discovering that women were just as idiotic back then as they are now.’
I admire the boldness of that statement if nothing else.
Do you have a mother? Grandmother? Aunt? Or were you saved from being subjected to such idiocy? Delivered by stork were you?
My mother, likes to let her feelings out, so do I, I declare you a wa**er.
Woman up late in the UK, proliferation of weird American opinions going on here right now.
Jonas moze – you just get more out there every time.
Just been on the article about American politics encroaching, all of you people on here right now are just proving to me why this is bad, over and over again.
I’m old enough to remember when (beginning in the 1960s) feminists were viscerally opposed to any research that might find biological differences between men and women. They presumed that any differences would favor men, not women. (I write as an academic. There were no research grants in those days for anyone whose proposed “methodology” did not rely on that hypothesis.) Orthodox policy in ideological circles relied on the notion that men and women were interchangeable except for the physical mechanics of reproduction–after which, it made no difference who cared for children or did anything else. The task of feminism, therefore, was to get as many women as possible, including mothers, into offices for careers. This way of thinking had consequences that are still with us. And I refer not only to the stifled debate over fatherhood. (Are fathers necessary in family life or merely as luxuries or wallets at best and as liabilities at worst?) I refer also to the debate over transgender ideology. (If sexual differences amount to nothing significant, then why not claim that they don’t exist at all?) By the 1990s, feminists were advocating “alternative epistemologies,” moreover, which elevating feeling (presumably a female blessing) over “linear” thinking (presumably a male curse).
But the story soon became more complicated than that. Many feminists changed their minds about research on sex differences after realizing (beginning in the 1980s) that research might favor women, not men. In fact, they began to promote research on sex differences in the hope that science would demonstrate female superiority and male inferiority–notions that have long since prevailed not only in the sciences but also in the humanities and social sciences.
Feminists today have good reason to reject transgender ideology, but they should acknowledge on both moral and intellectual grounds that earlier feminist generations anticipated the current woke preference for ideology over science (or any kind of “white” or “male” reason). Woke ideology absorbed (and, in some ways, changed) feminist ideology along with various racist ideologies. At issue now is not only how to define “woman,” but also how to define “man” (and countless other words that can be attacked somehow on ideological grounds).The adversaries of feminism are not “misogynistic” men, per se, but the male and female politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and even scientists who are afraid to speak the obvious truth.
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago
Welcome to the world, feminists. Now that they are turning the pejoratives on you, maybe you — in about a century — will start to understand how it feeels to be called a racist-sexist-homophobe.
Actually, I’ve only been called a racist twice in my life. Once by a black guy, son of a university professor, and once by a gay guy.
The whole point of leftist politics is that “we” are the Allies of the Oppressed fighting against the Oppressors. And don’t you forget it.
It started with the left fighting for the workers. But in about 1965 the left transitioned to race and feminism. Forget the workers! But then that became old hat and now the poor helpless victims are the transgenders.
Do you see the problem here?
No. I don’t suppose you do.
I’ve been rereading my Trollope recently, and I am discovering that women were just as idiotic back then as they are now.
Last edited 1 year ago by Christopher Chantrill
Peter B
1 year ago
I got the distinct impression that if Hadley Freeman finds an issue where those who disagree with her can be labelled “right wing bigots” then she will still discount whatever is said – regardless of the facts. Even today. In other words, only after an issue has passed her “hygiene filter” will it be considered on its merits. “Facts are sacred” seems to apply only after that.
And it’s curious how there are never any “left wing bigots”.
I suggest that this in itself is simply another form of bigotry – the inability to listen if you take exception to some peripheral thing which happens to offend you. If I believed in such things, I’d start banging on about unconcious bias.
So I struggled to get past paragraph six.
I can now start to imagine what the French Revolution was like as the extremists got ever more extreme and turned on each other in what we now call a purity spiral.
I was rather hoping that more serious – dare I say it real – problems this year like inflation, energy prices, economic slowdown, Russia./Ukraine might get more people back on track with reality. It seems not. We’ll just need to wait for the circular firing squad here to finish each other off.
Reality is coming for us – ready or not. And what do you need most when war approaches and all the critical infrastructure and economy begin to collapse? Right wing bigots!
Reality is coming for us – ready or not. And what do you need most when war approaches and all the critical infrastructure and economy begin to collapse? Right wing bigots!
“And it’s curious how there are never any “left wing bigots”.
You may not be familiar with the social[ist] formula: LEFT = GOOD; RIGHT = BAD
Peter B
1 year ago
I got the distinct impression that if Hadley Freeman finds an issue where those who disagree with her can be labelled “right wing bigots” then she will still discount whatever is said – regardless of the facts. Even today. In other words, only after an issue has passed her “hygiene filter” will it be considered on its merits. “Facts are sacred” seems to apply only after that.
And it’s curious how there are never any “left wing bigots”.
I suggest that this in itself is simply another form of bigotry – the inability to listen if you take exception to some peripheral thing which happens to offend you. If I believed in such things, I’d start banging on about unconcious bias.
So I struggled to get past paragraph six.
I can now start to imagine what the French Revolution was like as the extremists got ever more extreme and turned on each other in what we now call a purity spiral.
I was rather hoping that more serious – dare I say it real – problems this year like inflation, energy prices, economic slowdown, Russia./Ukraine might get more people back on track with reality. It seems not. We’ll just need to wait for the circular firing squad here to finish each other off.
Daria Angelova
1 year ago
“I also know that so many of the arguments that are happening in their name are not ones that they wish for at all; they are conducted largely by provocateurs who are just burnishing their online brands.”
Is that really the case though? How can we tell what the prevalent opinion among the trans people is these days? Yes I’ve seen reasonable, level-headed takes that do not deny biology, but the majority of them seem to come from old-school trans people who transitioned many years ago, when “trans” meant something completely different. Are these reasonable trans people the majority, or is the majority now more like Lia Thomas, whose interview expressed complete disinterest in your support or compassion unless you support Lia as a 100% full female?
Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term. If you’re using that word, you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a “woman, who is trans”; after that, it’s a natural progression to “trans women are women”. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”.
But see what you’re doing in your own post, with the language you’re using? You’re effectively saying that there are two kinds of “woman”, a “trans” one and a “biological” one. No they’re not the same thing, at least until the time trans-identifying males begin to insist that they’re biological women. But the language you use makes it sound as if they both come under the umbrella of “woman”.
What statement is easier to push through: “trans women are women”, or “trans-identifying males are women”? One thing greases the way for another.
Well-meaning people like myself believed that “trans women” was just meant to be a kind social lie, a bit like couples saying “we are pregnant”, a phrase that’s obviously not meant to be taken literally. Well now that the dictionaries revise the meaning of the word “woman”, it’s obvious we’ve been had.
No, you used that language. Sorry let me edit my post to indicate that.
You are walking yourself around in circles.
You also said: ‘Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term’
‘. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”’
So what, we don’t bother with the debate? We just roll over in the UK cos the dictionary says so?
Are you joking?
You’re deliberately misinterpreting my post for some reason. My point is about the language and how the use of the word “trans woman” paved the way for the statement “trans women are women”, and the utterly ridiculous distinction between “biological woman” and “trans woman”.
I myself no longer use the term “trans woman” to refer to the males who identify as women. But there’s no avoiding it if you want to talk about the problem with the language and distortion of the word “woman”.
A more honest word would be Twankey’s as no-one has ever confused a pantomime dame for an actual woman. Unfortunately it would be immediately deemed derogatory because of its honesty. Reality and truth have no place in this debate for the Trans activists.
A more honest word would be Twankey’s as no-one has ever confused a pantomime dame for an actual woman. Unfortunately it would be immediately deemed derogatory because of its honesty. Reality and truth have no place in this debate for the Trans activists.
It seems to me that Daria wrote nothing of the kind, about not bothering with the debate. In fact, Daria is debating. I’m not sure why you’ve misinterpreted what Daria wrote, because it seems to me you’re both essentially on the same side of the debate!
Yhat’s all we need: those who disagree with trans-activism arguing among themselves.
Second paragraph, of her first post:
Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term. If you’re using that word, you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a “woman, who is trans”; after that, it’s a natural progression to “trans women are women”. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”
I still disagree it’s a ‘natural progression’.
I disagree that the debate is lost already.
I disagree that using the term trans woman means ‘you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a woman who is is trans’
And your response? “So we don’t bother with the debate?” whilst debating with Daria.
I’m really not here to test the interpretative prowess of others, but that looks uncannily like a mis- . Using the phrase “already lost the debate” is a pretty standard way of saying that too much ground is being ceded by one side, in this case by using the terminology of those who seek to overturn the previously accepted definition of a woman.
Fair enough I suppose though, I still disagree with:
I still disagree it’s a ‘natural progression’. – it only is if people start saying so.
I disagree that using the term trans woman means ‘you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a woman who is is trans.’
Again, only if America starts saying its so.
Ascribing all these meanings to these phrases is part of the problem in my view. So now according to her – if anyone writes trans woman – they are referring to a woman who is trans and they agree that that is the same thing as a woman. I object to that. Its too non logical for my head space. Getting convoluted. I do think she’s talking in circles.
Honestly, I had no idea all this had come as far as this. I strayed on here from much more fringe places. Just so much confusion coming out of America right now.
Britain is tolerant towards all kinds of eccentric characters, we make eccentric better than anyone. I think America can keep its trans debates, dictionary definitions, and shove off. We are by and large pretty tolerant here. I know this.
Fair enough I suppose though, I still disagree with:
I still disagree it’s a ‘natural progression’. – it only is if people start saying so.
I disagree that using the term trans woman means ‘you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a woman who is is trans.’
Again, only if America starts saying its so.
Ascribing all these meanings to these phrases is part of the problem in my view. So now according to her – if anyone writes trans woman – they are referring to a woman who is trans and they agree that that is the same thing as a woman. I object to that. Its too non logical for my head space. Getting convoluted. I do think she’s talking in circles.
Honestly, I had no idea all this had come as far as this. I strayed on here from much more fringe places. Just so much confusion coming out of America right now.
Britain is tolerant towards all kinds of eccentric characters, we make eccentric better than anyone. I think America can keep its trans debates, dictionary definitions, and shove off. We are by and large pretty tolerant here. I know this.
Thing is, it’s much harder to argue that trans women are not women when the definition “trans woman” has the word “woman” right there in it. Even more so when you also use the expression “biological women” to indicate the group of people who previously were simply called women. “Biological women” basically implies that the word “women” is not necessarily always tied to biology, so we need to specify exactly which kind of women we’re talking about.
Language is important and the shift from “transsexual” to “transwoman” to “trans woman” was pushed through very very deliberately.
Visions of Americans in cubicles scanning and altering dictionaries to keep up with their own crazy.
This right here is the problem in the first place:
‘so we need to specify exactly which kind of women we’re talking about’
This is how America started out with this whole debacle.
I don’t understand the difference between transwoman and trans woman, what is the significance of the space? My dictionary is a 1950s Oxford version. I doubt it will help me out.
The space is there deliberately to place the emphasis on the word “woman”. So that “trans woman” can look the same as someone saying “tall woman”, “black woman”, etc., as if the “trans” part was merely a descriptor of a woman. You don’t have the same effect with “transwoman”.
Wow, you don’t give up do you? Points for effort I appreciate that. Now I’m going to subject you to British eccentricity and insanity, fuelled by wine. Because I can.
I just bought a kitten that requires my late night attention otherwise, I really wouldn’t bother or still be here right now. But hey ho, let’s keep going in the name of debate, it’s better than telly.
So. Let’s do this. The significance of the space.
Deliberately emphasises the word woman. OK.
Question: did the Americans have a dictionary with transwoman then they changed it to trans woman? With a space? And you actually debated this to get it changed in the dictionary?? If this is true I’m going to die laughing and be happy I don’t have to then actually commit suicide faced with this fact.
Legitimate question: do you really have nothing else to worry about?
So, help me out here, trans woman is more like woman than transwoman. Which because it has no space has less emphasis. And this justifies the fact that you accused me of accepting a transwoman or trans woman or whatever America says now is the same as a woman by the very use of my language? Have I got that right?
Wow, you don’t give up do you? Points for effort I appreciate that. Now I’m going to subject you to British eccentricity and insanity, fuelled by wine. Because I can.
I just bought a kitten that requires my late night attention otherwise, I really wouldn’t bother or still be here right now. But hey ho, let’s keep going in the name of debate, it’s better than telly.
So. Let’s do this. The significance of the space.
Deliberately emphasises the word woman. OK.
Question: did the Americans have a dictionary with transwoman then they changed it to trans woman? With a space? And you actually debated this to get it changed in the dictionary?? If this is true I’m going to die laughing and be happy I don’t have to then actually commit suicide faced with this fact.
Legitimate question: do you really have nothing else to worry about?
So, help me out here, trans woman is more like woman than transwoman. Which because it has no space has less emphasis. And this justifies the fact that you accused me of accepting a transwoman or trans woman or whatever America says now is the same as a woman by the very use of my language? Have I got that right?
The space is there deliberately to place the emphasis on the word “woman”. So that “trans woman” can look the same as someone saying “tall woman”, “black woman”, etc., as if the “trans” part was merely a descriptor of a woman. You don’t have the same effect with “transwoman”.
Visions of Americans in cubicles scanning and altering dictionaries to keep up with their own crazy.
This right here is the problem in the first place:
‘so we need to specify exactly which kind of women we’re talking about’
This is how America started out with this whole debacle.
I don’t understand the difference between transwoman and trans woman, what is the significance of the space? My dictionary is a 1950s Oxford version. I doubt it will help me out.
And your response? “So we don’t bother with the debate?” whilst debating with Daria.
I’m really not here to test the interpretative prowess of others, but that looks uncannily like a mis- . Using the phrase “already lost the debate” is a pretty standard way of saying that too much ground is being ceded by one side, in this case by using the terminology of those who seek to overturn the previously accepted definition of a woman.
Thing is, it’s much harder to argue that trans women are not women when the definition “trans woman” has the word “woman” right there in it. Even more so when you also use the expression “biological women” to indicate the group of people who previously were simply called women. “Biological women” basically implies that the word “women” is not necessarily always tied to biology, so we need to specify exactly which kind of women we’re talking about.
Language is important and the shift from “transsexual” to “transwoman” to “trans woman” was pushed through very very deliberately.
Second paragraph, of her first post:
Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term. If you’re using that word, you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a “woman, who is trans”; after that, it’s a natural progression to “trans women are women”. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”
I still disagree it’s a ‘natural progression’.
I disagree that the debate is lost already.
I disagree that using the term trans woman means ‘you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a woman who is is trans’
You’re deliberately misinterpreting my post for some reason. My point is about the language and how the use of the word “trans woman” paved the way for the statement “trans women are women”, and the utterly ridiculous distinction between “biological woman” and “trans woman”.
I myself no longer use the term “trans woman” to refer to the males who identify as women. But there’s no avoiding it if you want to talk about the problem with the language and distortion of the word “woman”.
It seems to me that Daria wrote nothing of the kind, about not bothering with the debate. In fact, Daria is debating. I’m not sure why you’ve misinterpreted what Daria wrote, because it seems to me you’re both essentially on the same side of the debate!
Yhat’s all we need: those who disagree with trans-activism arguing among themselves.
Exactly. Civil conversation, face to face, is one thing. Doesn’t change the fact that we’re talking about people who for whatever reason want to pretend they are the other sex. Some adults have a secret friend they talk to also.
No, you used that language. Sorry let me edit my post to indicate that.
You are walking yourself around in circles.
You also said: ‘Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term’
‘. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”’
So what, we don’t bother with the debate? We just roll over in the UK cos the dictionary says so?
Are you joking?
Exactly. Civil conversation, face to face, is one thing. Doesn’t change the fact that we’re talking about people who for whatever reason want to pretend they are the other sex. Some adults have a secret friend they talk to also.
But see what you’re doing in your own post, with the language you’re using? You’re effectively saying that there are two kinds of “woman”, a “trans” one and a “biological” one. No they’re not the same thing, at least until the time trans-identifying males begin to insist that they’re biological women. But the language you use makes it sound as if they both come under the umbrella of “woman”.
What statement is easier to push through: “trans women are women”, or “trans-identifying males are women”? One thing greases the way for another.
Well-meaning people like myself believed that “trans women” was just meant to be a kind social lie, a bit like couples saying “we are pregnant”, a phrase that’s obviously not meant to be taken literally. Well now that the dictionaries revise the meaning of the word “woman”, it’s obvious we’ve been had.
Just no to you too. It is not a ‘natural progression’ from being a ‘trans woman’ as you state – to a biological one. Full stop.
Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Daria Angelova
1 year ago
“I also know that so many of the arguments that are happening in their name are not ones that they wish for at all; they are conducted largely by provocateurs who are just burnishing their online brands.”
Is that really the case though? How can we tell what the prevalent opinion among the trans people is these days? Yes I’ve seen reasonable, level-headed takes that do not deny biology, but the majority of them seem to come from old-school trans people who transitioned many years ago, when “trans” meant something completely different. Are these reasonable trans people the majority, or is the majority now more like Lia Thomas, whose interview expressed complete disinterest in your support or compassion unless you support Lia as a 100% full female?
Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term. If you’re using that word, you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a “woman, who is trans”; after that, it’s a natural progression to “trans women are women”. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”.
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
I’ve wondered if the transexual fad in young females isn’t a recrudesence of the inexplicably popular anorexia in the similar demographic back in the seventies and eighties. That one seemed to have died down quite a bit. Or maybe the crisis media just got bored with it and stopped covering it.
No, it’s a resurgence of bisexuality and androgyny in late 60s/early 70s popular music. I know a young woman of 23 who labels herself ‘queer’ (and a witch and a performance artist, amongst other things. She’s a rich, bored flake, is what it basically boils down to). She is going out with a self-identified ‘trans woman,’ i.e. a guy who has never transitioned, and probably never will. So what it basically means it that they’re both hetero, with some convoluted, trendy labels to ‘separate’ themselves in their ‘oppression’ and ‘otherness’ from the vulgar hetero common herd.
It’s totally laughable: she can say she’s ‘queer’ cos she’s f*****g a ‘woman.’ The young are confused these days because they have grown up in an era where every kind of human sexuality under the bored sun is laid out before them on the net before they even dip a finger in the tight virginal vagina of sexuality, and they don’t know who to say they are this week, or why. Massive con, and a halfwit circus. Boring beyond belief, and this horrifyingly tedious subject lost any kind of meaning or interest years ago.
Divide and conquer indeed.
No, it’s a resurgence of bisexuality and androgyny in late 60s/early 70s popular music. I know a young woman of 23 who labels herself ‘queer’ (and a witch and a performance artist, amongst other things. She’s a rich, bored flake, is what it basically boils down to). She is going out with a self-identified ‘trans woman,’ i.e. a guy who has never transitioned, and probably never will. So what it basically means it that they’re both hetero, with some convoluted, trendy labels to ‘separate’ themselves in their ‘oppression’ and ‘otherness’ from the vulgar hetero common herd.
It’s totally laughable: she can say she’s ‘queer’ cos she’s f*****g a ‘woman.’ The young are confused these days because they have grown up in an era where every kind of human sexuality under the bored sun is laid out before them on the net before they even dip a finger in the tight virginal vagina of sexuality, and they don’t know who to say they are this week, or why. Massive con, and a halfwit circus. Boring beyond belief, and this horrifyingly tedious subject lost any kind of meaning or interest years ago.
Divide and conquer indeed.
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
I’ve wondered if the transexual fad in young females isn’t a recrudesence of the inexplicably popular anorexia in the similar demographic back in the seventies and eighties. That one seemed to have died down quite a bit. Or maybe the crisis media just got bored with it and stopped covering it.
Last edited 1 year ago by Jeff Cunningham
Jonas Moze
1 year ago
Activists like to claim that the only people who have a problem with this are “Right-wing bigots”,
Yea, well whats wrong with being a Right-wing Bigot? Is Left-wing self-hating, ‘I believe in everything agenda dictates’ a more reasonable creed? That’s just a Left-wing Bigot, because it is holding beliefs.
BIGOT: ”A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious or other creed, opinion, practice, or ritual; a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, system of belief, or party organization; an intolerant dogmatist.”
OK, knowing wrong from right is being a bigot. Being against bad and for good is a bigot – as obviously bad is same as good, and right is same as wrong….. or do they say there is no right/wrong good/bad so it is moot to hold any view? (Well except for the approved agenda which exists pure and ex-nihilo; just because it does..)
”I’m currently writing a book about anorexia. Multiple doctors have confirmed to me what I already suspected, which is that there are obvious parallels between what gender dysphoric teenage girls say today — about their hatred of their body, their fear of sexualisation, their assumptions about what being a woman means — and what I said while in hospital as a teenager.”
If only they had celebrated your anorexia instead of stigmatizing you, you would not be the mess you are today. Thank God the young mentioned above are better understood.
OK, knowing wrong from right is being a bigot.
Did you miss the word ‘unreasonably’ in the definition of bigot?
Jonas Moze
1 year ago
Activists like to claim that the only people who have a problem with this are “Right-wing bigots”,
Yea, well whats wrong with being a Right-wing Bigot? Is Left-wing self-hating, ‘I believe in everything agenda dictates’ a more reasonable creed? That’s just a Left-wing Bigot, because it is holding beliefs.
BIGOT: ”A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious or other creed, opinion, practice, or ritual; a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, system of belief, or party organization; an intolerant dogmatist.”
OK, knowing wrong from right is being a bigot. Being against bad and for good is a bigot – as obviously bad is same as good, and right is same as wrong….. or do they say there is no right/wrong good/bad so it is moot to hold any view? (Well except for the approved agenda which exists pure and ex-nihilo; just because it does..)
”I’m currently writing a book about anorexia. Multiple doctors have confirmed to me what I already suspected, which is that there are obvious parallels between what gender dysphoric teenage girls say today — about their hatred of their body, their fear of sexualisation, their assumptions about what being a woman means — and what I said while in hospital as a teenager.”
If only they had celebrated your anorexia instead of stigmatizing you, you would not be the mess you are today. Thank God the young mentioned above are better understood.
CF Hankinson
1 year ago
Bravo well said. Again but no one’s listening even on this thread. Extraordinarily the lack of any common sense, intelligent humanity on this issue is mind boggling.
Somehow instead of the male sex giving up its persona of the first sex, the patriarchs, the stereotypical tropes of bravery and strength, instead of intelligently encompassing difference without humiliation they have managed to delude everyone that effeminate men aren’t men they are women. Why? How narrow minded how embarrassingly insecure. Instead as Hadley Freeman says women have been told to accept and shut up about a lie.
That is the shame of gender ideology, it’s cowardice, it’s lack of honesty and bravery.
That corporations, political parties follow fashion is no surprise.
For many reasons, some more laudable than others some men want to be seen as female, adopt the stereotype of femaleness, something feminists have been fighting against for decades. Feminists just want equal rights with men in society and the law. They are not receptacles of difference they are born a sex and have to deal with it and hopefully get a fair one. This is a massive step back to women and to fiddle around pretending it is not happening and preserving maleness as something else is a bullying fantasy.
“Somehow instead of the male sex giving up its persona of the first sex, the patriarchs, the stereotypical tropes of bravery and strength, instead of intelligently encompassing difference without humiliation they have managed to delude everyone that effeminate men aren’t men they are women.”
Which men are you referring to?
I thought I explained, men as in the sex class that have changed language and laws, that have deemed that trans women are women and not men. Who have caused the renaming of the women sex class to be inclusive but not men. Men are men. There are many female allies. I have no idea why. At first I thought it was good to dissolve gender identities but it has only dissolved women as a sex class along with their necessary rights for fairness and safety. No men’s rights have been expunged.
“men as in the sex class that have changed language and laws, that have deemed that trans women are women and not men. “
You still haven’t explained which men. Do you mean the men who call themselves women, or men in general?
gender ideology favours men over women. Women have got to stand up for themselves. That is what the article is saying. I have no idea where you are coming from. It’s not all about you.
You’re telling a man ‘it’s not all about you,’ (try having a discussion with men online about domestic violence from women to men, and see how quickly some woman will jump in to claim the oppression crown, saying ‘it’s not about you’), yet are saying ‘gender ideology favours men over women.’ So you’re telling a man that it IS all about him!
Christ, do you people even LISTEN to yourselves? This trans ‘debate is all MEANINGLESS, just a corporate distraction to keep the crabs in the bucket fighting amongst themselves and from fighting the REAL oppressor and planet-murderers, i.e. the elites.
You’re telling a man ‘it’s not all about you,’ (try having a discussion with men online about domestic violence from women to men, and see how quickly some woman will jump in to claim the oppression crown, saying ‘it’s not about you’), yet are saying ‘gender ideology favours men over women.’ So you’re telling a man that it IS all about him!
Christ, do you people even LISTEN to yourselves? This trans ‘debate is all MEANINGLESS, just a corporate distraction to keep the crabs in the bucket fighting amongst themselves and from fighting the REAL oppressor and planet-murderers, i.e. the elites.
gender ideology favours men over women. Women have got to stand up for themselves. That is what the article is saying. I have no idea where you are coming from. It’s not all about you.
Men as a sex class have not held a monopoly on the content of “language and laws” for decades now—if indeed they ever truly controlled the language at all.
“men as in the sex class that have changed language and laws, that have deemed that trans women are women and not men. “
You still haven’t explained which men. Do you mean the men who call themselves women, or men in general?
Men as a sex class have not held a monopoly on the content of “language and laws” for decades now—if indeed they ever truly controlled the language at all.
I thought I explained, men as in the sex class that have changed language and laws, that have deemed that trans women are women and not men. Who have caused the renaming of the women sex class to be inclusive but not men. Men are men. There are many female allies. I have no idea why. At first I thought it was good to dissolve gender identities but it has only dissolved women as a sex class along with their necessary rights for fairness and safety. No men’s rights have been expunged.
“Somehow instead of the male sex giving up its persona of the first sex, the patriarchs, the stereotypical tropes of bravery and strength, instead of intelligently encompassing difference without humiliation they have managed to delude everyone that effeminate men aren’t men they are women.”
Which men are you referring to?
You lost me at ‘patriarchs.’ Whenever I hear anybody using that word now, I tune out, knowing they are talking crap.
CF Hankinson
1 year ago
Bravo well said. Again but no one’s listening even on this thread. Extraordinarily the lack of any common sense, intelligent humanity on this issue is mind boggling.
Somehow instead of the male sex giving up its persona of the first sex, the patriarchs, the stereotypical tropes of bravery and strength, instead of intelligently encompassing difference without humiliation they have managed to delude everyone that effeminate men aren’t men they are women. Why? How narrow minded how embarrassingly insecure. Instead as Hadley Freeman says women have been told to accept and shut up about a lie.
That is the shame of gender ideology, it’s cowardice, it’s lack of honesty and bravery.
That corporations, political parties follow fashion is no surprise.
For many reasons, some more laudable than others some men want to be seen as female, adopt the stereotype of femaleness, something feminists have been fighting against for decades. Feminists just want equal rights with men in society and the law. They are not receptacles of difference they are born a sex and have to deal with it and hopefully get a fair one. This is a massive step back to women and to fiddle around pretending it is not happening and preserving maleness as something else is a bullying fantasy.
Brett H
1 year ago
“Women can no longer afford to sit out the gender wars”
If that’s the case and they have been sitting through it then why? Or is it still someone else’s fault?
Edit: this story reminds me a little of all the Germans at the end of the war who said they had given shelter to Jews,
I’m going to go one step further and suggest that some of these Guardian journalists were amongst the early enablers and cheerleaders for the madness of the gender cult – that they laid the foundations on which more extreme views would later flourish – before it all got beyond their control.
No disagreement there – but that story goes *way* back.One version I heard was that the first rebellion against the patriarchy was by men – younger sons against the patriarchs and the eldest sons. They wanted an equal share in the privileges of the more senior men – and were not at all happy when they found out that lower class men and even women wanted their share of the privileges too (is anyone reminded of Harry Windsor, BTW?).
it is not obvious exactly at what point the equalising ought to stop – though I would note that women are *not* a minority, where as the various sexual and (in the UK) racial minorities are.
No disagreement there – but that story goes *way* back.One version I heard was that the first rebellion against the patriarchy was by men – younger sons against the patriarchs and the eldest sons. They wanted an equal share in the privileges of the more senior men – and were not at all happy when they found out that lower class men and even women wanted their share of the privileges too (is anyone reminded of Harry Windsor, BTW?).
it is not obvious exactly at what point the equalising ought to stop – though I would note that women are *not* a minority, where as the various sexual and (in the UK) racial minorities are.
I think you missed the bit where she lists famous women and established professionals who have been de-platformed and fired for wrong-speak. When the ACLU demands a book’s censorship, reasonable women who have to keep their jobs understand only too well what the stakes are. I’ve been on the job market lately, and each job description is clearly written by young and woke HR people. It’s “pronouns in your email signature” or no job for you.
I’m going to go one step further and suggest that some of these Guardian journalists were amongst the early enablers and cheerleaders for the madness of the gender cult – that they laid the foundations on which more extreme views would later flourish – before it all got beyond their control.
I think you missed the bit where she lists famous women and established professionals who have been de-platformed and fired for wrong-speak. When the ACLU demands a book’s censorship, reasonable women who have to keep their jobs understand only too well what the stakes are. I’ve been on the job market lately, and each job description is clearly written by young and woke HR people. It’s “pronouns in your email signature” or no job for you.
Last edited 1 year ago by Claire England
Brett H
1 year ago
“Women can no longer afford to sit out the gender wars”
If that’s the case and they have been sitting through it then why? Or is it still someone else’s fault?
Edit: this story reminds me a little of all the Germans at the end of the war who said they had given shelter to Jews,
Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Lucy Beney
1 year ago
On the subject of gender dysphoric teenage girls, in addition to the parallels with anorexia, many have witnessed – or been on the receiving end – of domestic violence. Whereas in the past, these girls may have grown up strongly feminist, determined never to be financially dependent on a man and trapped in a relationship, many now see being female as a weakness which they can avoid by becoming a boy. This is most pronounced in girls who have been assaulted by their mother’s partner, while their mother was present but did nothing to defend them.
Another observation – adults can do the mental gymnastics, but many young people actually believe this stuff with potentially catastrophic consequences. Here’s a little story: a 15 yr old lesbian got into a relationship with a 15 yr old trans girl. Although under the age of consent, they mutually consented to the relationship becoming sexual. The lesbian girl was expecting a “lesbian encounter”; what she actually experienced was full on heterosexual sex with an energetic teenage boy. Her question was – is this rape? She consented to sex, but did not expect what happened, despite knowing her partner was a trans girl. When asked later about whether or not they had used contraception, she said it wasn’t necessary – after all, a trans girl is a girl and two girls can’t make a baby. Confused?
These things used to be called “the facts of life” for a reason – and they haven’t changed. How much more responsibility can we abdicate?
I think you will find the domestic violence rates amongst biological lesbians is pretty damned impressive, too, if NEVER discussed. Cos only ONE sex commits domestic violence, RIGHT? 😉
I think you will find the domestic violence rates amongst biological lesbians is pretty damned impressive, too, if NEVER discussed. Cos only ONE sex commits domestic violence, RIGHT? 😉
Lucy Beney
1 year ago
On the subject of gender dysphoric teenage girls, in addition to the parallels with anorexia, many have witnessed – or been on the receiving end – of domestic violence. Whereas in the past, these girls may have grown up strongly feminist, determined never to be financially dependent on a man and trapped in a relationship, many now see being female as a weakness which they can avoid by becoming a boy. This is most pronounced in girls who have been assaulted by their mother’s partner, while their mother was present but did nothing to defend them.
Another observation – adults can do the mental gymnastics, but many young people actually believe this stuff with potentially catastrophic consequences. Here’s a little story: a 15 yr old lesbian got into a relationship with a 15 yr old trans girl. Although under the age of consent, they mutually consented to the relationship becoming sexual. The lesbian girl was expecting a “lesbian encounter”; what she actually experienced was full on heterosexual sex with an energetic teenage boy. Her question was – is this rape? She consented to sex, but did not expect what happened, despite knowing her partner was a trans girl. When asked later about whether or not they had used contraception, she said it wasn’t necessary – after all, a trans girl is a girl and two girls can’t make a baby. Confused?
These things used to be called “the facts of life” for a reason – and they haven’t changed. How much more responsibility can we abdicate?
Last edited 1 year ago by Lucy Beney
Omar Aysha
1 year ago
#TransWomenAreConMen is trending on Twitter interestingly enough.
I have sympathy for someone who hates their body so much they want to chop perfectly healthy organs off. But for them to think they have the right to force their view of reality (that they’re in the “wrong” body) onto me is unacceptable, it’s pure narcissism. I believe in biology, someone’s opinion of themselves is nothing to do with me.
I suggest we borrow phraseology from other industries namely housing. My friend built a new home to look like an old one, it’s mock Tudor, it looks like Tudor but it will never be Tudor. The insides were done by a faux finisher to look Tudor, again the finishing looked old but they weren’t and never will be as old as the finishing they mimic.
So I propose Mock Male and Faux Female, instead of putting trans before because as someone else pointed out, that implies they’re actually the other sex, they aren’t and never will be.
Last edited 1 year ago by Omar Aysha
Omar Aysha
1 year ago
#TransWomenAreConMen is trending on Twitter interestingly enough.
I have sympathy for someone who hates their body so much they want to chop perfectly healthy organs off. But for them to think they have the right to force their view of reality (that they’re in the “wrong” body) onto me is unacceptable, it’s pure narcissism. I believe in biology, someone’s opinion of themselves is nothing to do with me.
I suggest we borrow phraseology from other industries namely housing. My friend built a new home to look like an old one, it’s mock Tudor, it looks like Tudor but it will never be Tudor. The insides were done by a faux finisher to look Tudor, again the finishing looked old but they weren’t and never will be as old as the finishing they mimic.
So I propose Mock Male and Faux Female, instead of putting trans before because as someone else pointed out, that implies they’re actually the other sex, they aren’t and never will be.
Last edited 1 year ago by Omar Aysha
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Men competing in women’s sports is assault with deadly intent. Men demanding to use women’s bathrooms are sexual predators. Men demanding to be called by women’s pronouns are mentally ill and should be institutionalized.
All sane people know this. Sadly, too many are afraid to say it.
Last edited 1 year ago by Johnathan Galt
Johnathan Galt
1 year ago
Men competing in women’s sports is assault with deadly intent. Men demanding to use women’s bathrooms are sexual predators. Men demanding to be called by women’s pronouns are mentally ill and should be institutionalized.
All sane people know this. Sadly, too many are afraid to say it.
Last edited 1 year ago by Johnathan Galt
Frederick Prete
1 year ago
This is a very insightful, thought-provoking and thoughtful essay. I think that it clearly characterizes the difficulties that have arisen for women. Many of these could be resolved easily if the activists took a reasoned approach to the issues. I’ve written a few essays on the dilemma in my sub- stack “Everything Is Biology.” For instance, “Women Don’t Produce Eggs.” https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/women-dont-produce-eggs
Perhaps, over time, reason will prevail… Hopefully.
Thank you for this great essay, Frederick
Frederick Prete
1 year ago
This is a very insightful, thought-provoking and thoughtful essay. I think that it clearly characterizes the difficulties that have arisen for women. Many of these could be resolved easily if the activists took a reasoned approach to the issues. I’ve written a few essays on the dilemma in my sub- stack “Everything Is Biology.” For instance, “Women Don’t Produce Eggs.” https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/women-dont-produce-eggs
Perhaps, over time, reason will prevail… Hopefully.
Thank you for this great essay, Frederick
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Trans people are .003% of the human population. I think people should keep this in mind.
And that justifies changing the language and laws that affect 51%?
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Trans people are .003% of the human population. I think people should keep this in mind.
June Davis
1 year ago
The progressives are champions of all victims.Bravo for them! The only problem is that they make victims of so many that they have to prioritize due to conflicts like FGM (female genital mutilation) vrs Islamic cultural traditions and gay rights that don’t include gay men in middle eastern countries—you know the ones they throw off balconies and publicly execute.Now transgender trumps women’s rights that we fought for these many years. Just wondering where the author was years ago when other groups were not in favor with the progressives?
June Davis
1 year ago
The progressives are champions of all victims.Bravo for them! The only problem is that they make victims of so many that they have to prioritize due to conflicts like FGM (female genital mutilation) vrs Islamic cultural traditions and gay rights that don’t include gay men in middle eastern countries—you know the ones they throw off balconies and publicly execute.Now transgender trumps women’s rights that we fought for these many years. Just wondering where the author was years ago when other groups were not in favor with the progressives?
Robert Eagle
1 year ago
Does any intelligent person still subscribe to The Guardian? Congratulations, Hadley, on your escape!
Last edited 1 year ago by Robert Eagle
Robert Eagle
1 year ago
Does any intelligent person still subscribe to The Guardian? Congratulations, Hadley, on your escape!
Last edited 1 year ago by Robert Eagle
Allan murray-jones
1 year ago
I am utterly supportive of this article; well written.
But it is one example, if a very important one, of a much larger problem with the ‘rights’ agenda (which in general I support). This is the problem: all too often my ‘rights’ and your ‘rights’ clash. Other than the courts and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, both of whom entirely get the point, this is largely ignored. So in the article under examination, of course trans people have rights, but so do women (like the women in my family). And we cannot rely on the ‘media’ to report the issue.
I know it is long ago, and not much written about, but even as a non-Catholic, I felt that the closure of the Catholic adoption agencies when they did not feel they could place children with gay families was offensive. That had an easy resolution; people could go to adoption agencies which supported gay adoption and those which did not. But the government of the day decided to go for the easy solution, that one freedom trumped other.
So many liberals went along with this illiberal agenda of ranking ‘rights’ that it was easy for today’s activists to assume the postures they do today.
From which my take is that ‘good girls’ and other old fashioned liberals contributed to the unpleasant environment of today.
This whole area needs a rethink. All of us need to accept that people with views which the vast majority of us have rights to. And I would have much more sympathy with ‘good girls’ if they fronted up to that, before their own ‘rights’ got trampled.
Allan murray-jones
1 year ago
I am utterly supportive of this article; well written.
But it is one example, if a very important one, of a much larger problem with the ‘rights’ agenda (which in general I support). This is the problem: all too often my ‘rights’ and your ‘rights’ clash. Other than the courts and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, both of whom entirely get the point, this is largely ignored. So in the article under examination, of course trans people have rights, but so do women (like the women in my family). And we cannot rely on the ‘media’ to report the issue.
I know it is long ago, and not much written about, but even as a non-Catholic, I felt that the closure of the Catholic adoption agencies when they did not feel they could place children with gay families was offensive. That had an easy resolution; people could go to adoption agencies which supported gay adoption and those which did not. But the government of the day decided to go for the easy solution, that one freedom trumped other.
So many liberals went along with this illiberal agenda of ranking ‘rights’ that it was easy for today’s activists to assume the postures they do today.
From which my take is that ‘good girls’ and other old fashioned liberals contributed to the unpleasant environment of today.
This whole area needs a rethink. All of us need to accept that people with views which the vast majority of us have rights to. And I would have much more sympathy with ‘good girls’ if they fronted up to that, before their own ‘rights’ got trampled.
Grace Carley
1 year ago
I am so glad this was reposted as I missed it first time around and am reading it on the day the Scottish parliament is likely to vote for Self ID with virtually no limits. Hadley Freeman is an absolute hero. This should be required reading for trans activists. But blind ideology is blind ideology. For now. Let’s see who’s on the right side of history.
Grace Carley
1 year ago
I am so glad this was reposted as I missed it first time around and am reading it on the day the Scottish parliament is likely to vote for Self ID with virtually no limits. Hadley Freeman is an absolute hero. This should be required reading for trans activists. But blind ideology is blind ideology. For now. Let’s see who’s on the right side of history.
Mark M Breza
1 year ago
The ‘I’ gender generation ! The article started with the word and it was repeated continuously like it was the most important word in the British dictionary; in an essay about over selfness ?
Mark M Breza
1 year ago
The ‘I’ gender generation ! The article started with the word and it was repeated continuously like it was the most important word in the British dictionary; in an essay about over selfness ?
Tim Weir
1 year ago
‘But this should not be an either/or situation: both women and trans people should be able to speak out equally and honestly in progressive spheres’
Anyone see what she did there? For Hadley, men apparently don’t have the right to speak out equally and honestly in progressive spheres. Personally, I have no ambition to define what a woman is. I just want to enter a plea for a bit more toleration, for the idea that while we’re all free to have opinions, we don’t always need to slam them in each others faces. And I’ll try not to be too amused at Hadley Freeman being hoist by her own petard.
FWIW I agree with the gender-critical feminist position here, as I think the great majority of men do. That there are essential differences between male and female experiences of the world based on how their bodies work is of course blindingly obvious; it would be good if feminists such as Freeman realised that men aren’t necessarily the enemy and in fact most of us would see ourselves as allies to the basic common-sense positions that she is advocating.
Last edited 1 year ago by Tim Weir
Tim Weir
1 year ago
‘But this should not be an either/or situation: both women and trans people should be able to speak out equally and honestly in progressive spheres’
Anyone see what she did there? For Hadley, men apparently don’t have the right to speak out equally and honestly in progressive spheres. Personally, I have no ambition to define what a woman is. I just want to enter a plea for a bit more toleration, for the idea that while we’re all free to have opinions, we don’t always need to slam them in each others faces. And I’ll try not to be too amused at Hadley Freeman being hoist by her own petard.
FWIW I agree with the gender-critical feminist position here, as I think the great majority of men do. That there are essential differences between male and female experiences of the world based on how their bodies work is of course blindingly obvious; it would be good if feminists such as Freeman realised that men aren’t necessarily the enemy and in fact most of us would see ourselves as allies to the basic common-sense positions that she is advocating.
Last edited 1 year ago by Tim Weir
John Barr
1 year ago
You know, I always wonder how long it will be in an article before Hadley Freeman reminds us she is Jewish, like it has anything to do whatsoever with the subject she is discussing, mostly. Tiresome.
And. Ironically, it is decorticated scum rags like The Guardian that helped propagate all this American horseshit on this side of the Atlantic, and still do. Ms. Freeman was very happy until quite recently to accept their cash. It’s her and other middle class journo halfwit types that have helped perpetuate this preening, posing, pouting utter Yank shit. And there is no “right side of history.”
Last edited 1 year ago by John Barr
John Barr
1 year ago
You know, I always wonder how long it will be in an article before Hadley Freeman reminds us she is Jewish, like it has anything to do whatsoever with the subject she is discussing, mostly. Tiresome.
And. Ironically, it is decorticated scum rags like The Guardian that helped propagate all this American horseshit on this side of the Atlantic, and still do. Ms. Freeman was very happy until quite recently to accept their cash. It’s her and other middle class journo halfwit types that have helped perpetuate this preening, posing, pouting utter Yank shit. And there is no “right side of history.”
Last edited 1 year ago by John Barr
cara williams
1 year ago
reading these comments made me sad. some men saying women have had it too good and anything bad that was happening they could blame on feminism and themselves. sad. last night i dreamt of a world without sexual difference. no one read jane eyre. there were no women’s voices. no one read shakespeare. there were no men’s voices. love poetry had ceased to exist. there were no mothers. no fathers. there was no love. romance, fidelity, union were a historical charade. instead meat puppets preened in front of mirrors. taking photos of their latest surgical mutations. look. i have an arm coming from my forehead and a baby coming by fed ex. i will be posting a video of myself carving it into pieces. tune into my feed.
cara williams
1 year ago
reading these comments made me sad. some men saying women have had it too good and anything bad that was happening they could blame on feminism and themselves. sad. last night i dreamt of a world without sexual difference. no one read jane eyre. there were no women’s voices. no one read shakespeare. there were no men’s voices. love poetry had ceased to exist. there were no mothers. no fathers. there was no love. romance, fidelity, union were a historical charade. instead meat puppets preened in front of mirrors. taking photos of their latest surgical mutations. look. i have an arm coming from my forehead and a baby coming by fed ex. i will be posting a video of myself carving it into pieces. tune into my feed.
I know this is a republishing of an article written months ago but I think the point I’m going to make is still relevant because the trans debate is still going on in the same way it was then.
Last week Jordan McSweeney was sentenced to life with a minimum term of 38 years for the murder and sexual assault of Zara Aleena. Information about the crime which had not previously been reported because he pleaded guilty was released which included CCTV of his movements prior to the attack which showed him following other women, witness statements from those other women and some information about his previous convictions (according to the BBC, “28 convictions for 69 crimes, dating back to 2006, ranging from burglary to assaulting the police and including racially motivated offences”) and the circumstances of his release from prison and the attempts to recall him following breaches of his licence in the days before he murdered Zara Aleena. There was some reaction from feminist activists, writers and politicians on the day of his sentencing and the following day.
On Friday last week The Sun published an article by Jeremy Clarkson about Meghan Markle. Many people (including celebrities and feminist activists) reacted strongly to it, more than 12000 complaints have been made to IPSO and more than 60 MPs have written to the editor of The Sun to condemn the article “in the strongest terms” and state that it contributes to an “unacceptable climate of hatred and violence”. It seems that some people care more about a bad man thinking bad thoughts and using bad words about a famous woman or someone using the wrong word to describe a person they don’t know than they care about the fact that an evil man with dozens of criminal convictions sexually assaulted and murdered a woman who wasn’t famous.
Perhaps someone could write a book about how irrelevant, cowardly and self-serving the feminist movement has become.
You shouldn’t blame the feminist movement for the press’ fixation on celebrities. Blame us – those of us who subscribe to the terrible press and media and keep them afloat.
Not sure why you’re not understanding the difference between McSweeney & Clarkson. One won’t get out of jail until he’s an old man (if at all.) The other would get away scott free with his harmful hate sprewing if many decent folk didn’t take the time to call him out. And clearly many feminists aren’t cowardly, both on the pro trans & trans critical side – such as the article author willing to risk cancellation & ostracisation to say what she believes is in woman’s interests.
Reality check ! There are plenty of “decent folk” who like reading Jeremy Clarkson. And even some who agree with him. If you don’t like being offended, don’t read him. It sounds rather like you’d want people you disagree with censored. Most of us value free speech.
I haven’t read this Clarkson article and I have no idea what it said. But the fact that 12000 people apparently don’t like it is no proof whatever that it is offensive/wrong/needs to be “called out”. It might just be that there are 12000 people and 60MPs who are too easily offended and have too much spare time on their hands. We might also enquire how many people agreed with it. And check the for:against ratio.
I know lots of decent folk like Clarkson – or at least that they did. Only takes 5 mins to google what he said, you might change your mind too. And youre right I’d be happy to see him censored. It’s natural to feel flashes of hate for other others every now and then. But one of the pillars our civilistion rests on is that grown men should repress that sort of thing, and not spill it out for all to see. If they can’t, then in extreme cases, someone else should do it for them. Never agreed with cancelling before, now thanks to JC I now understand where SJWs have been comming from.
Thanks. Glad we’re keeping things civil and polite !
I’ve read the quote now. I do however struggle to comprehend how anyone could take his statement literally, seriously or as any sort of instruction. The man’s been trading on exaggeration and generating outrage for over 20 years. I’m not sure he even takes himself that seriously.
Professional offence takers will always find a reason to take offence.
If any real and serious offence has actually been committed here (“thought crimes” don’t cut it for me), I’m sure this can be pursued through the courts.
Has she become a lightning rod, an embodiment of woke? Narcissistic, manipulative, a proven liar, a person so lacking in integrity she doesn’t care what damage she does to her own or her loved ones families in her pursuit of …what? Money, power, a political future?
All would explain why she so assiduously surfs every wave the elite grievance grifters manufacture.
Hate is rooted in fear. Nobody hates that to which they are indifferent. Many of us are fearful of the Orwellian future we see rolling towards us every time we switch on the TV, or read a newspaper, or talk to anybody under 30. Megan Markle is a living embodiment of that fear.
Anyway, that was my bit of self reflection after I found my dopamine receptors lighting up with a spasm of joy on reading Clarkson’s piece, before the rational mind kicked back in.
I hope this won’t spoil the civil tone of this debate.
Thanks. Glad we’re keeping things civil and polite !
I’ve read the quote now. I do however struggle to comprehend how anyone could take his statement literally, seriously or as any sort of instruction. The man’s been trading on exaggeration and generating outrage for over 20 years. I’m not sure he even takes himself that seriously.
Professional offence takers will always find a reason to take offence.
If any real and serious offence has actually been committed here (“thought crimes” don’t cut it for me), I’m sure this can be pursued through the courts.
Has she become a lightning rod, an embodiment of woke? Narcissistic, manipulative, a proven liar, a person so lacking in integrity she doesn’t care what damage she does to her own or her loved ones families in her pursuit of …what? Money, power, a political future?
All would explain why she so assiduously surfs every wave the elite grievance grifters manufacture.
Hate is rooted in fear. Nobody hates that to which they are indifferent. Many of us are fearful of the Orwellian future we see rolling towards us every time we switch on the TV, or read a newspaper, or talk to anybody under 30. Megan Markle is a living embodiment of that fear.
Anyway, that was my bit of self reflection after I found my dopamine receptors lighting up with a spasm of joy on reading Clarkson’s piece, before the rational mind kicked back in.
I hope this won’t spoil the civil tone of this debate.
I know lots of decent folk like Clarkson – or at least that they did. Only takes 5 mins to google what he said, you might change your mind too. And youre right I’d be happy to see him censored. It’s natural to feel flashes of hate for other others every now and then. But one of the pillars our civilistion rests on is that grown men should repress that sort of thing, and not spill it out for all to see. If they can’t, then in extreme cases, someone else should do it for them. Never agreed with cancelling before, now thanks to JC I now understand where SJWs have been comming from.
You haven’t understood the point I was making which is that people are far more angry and vocal about what Jeremy Clarkson wrote than they are about what Jordan McSweeney did. That’s what feminism, other types of activism, journalism and politics are like in the age of social media: they are more interested in being outraged by what people (and especially famous people) say rather than what people do, even if what someone does results in injury or death.
It is easy, quick and profitable to be outraged about Jeremy Clarkson or whoever this week’s hate figure is. A few years ago it was Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir Tim Hunt whose crime was to tell a joke and most weeks it is JK Rowling. However, when a woman is murdered by a man with a long history of criminal convictions or thousands of underage girls are raped under the noses of public bodies with a legal duty to protect them or men, women and children are massacred in the foyer of a concert venue there isn’t the same outrage. It isn’t as easy, quick or profitable to be outraged about the failings of the criminal justice system or child protection systems or the security services, even though it is more important to be outraged. Go for the easy target, jump on the latest bandwagon, write 1000 words for £320.
This is about what and who matters and what and who doesn’t matter to activists, journalists and politicians. For the current generation of feminists what matters most is money and who matters most is themselves.
Thanks for explaining civilly and I agree with much of that. I’d say though it’s impossible for many to sustain outrage at the violent deaths of women when it happens so frequently. When there’s been something unique about it some feminists have put themselves at risk to protest it, as happened with Sarah Everand, and there’s much ongoing activism to make society safer for women in general. I kind of feel we’re at a strange time where both misandry & misogyny are growing at once and so there is still a place for feminism – though do agree some is self servering as you say.
Thank you very much for replying and addressing the problem I was trying to describe, in my idiosyncratic way. I’m not opposed to feminism: indeed, I believe in equal rights, equal treatment and equality of opportunity. I’m extremely disappointed with how feminism has developed, particularly in the fourth wave which I see as being largely made up of female English Literature graduates who became feminists when they realised there was money in it. Start a campaign on social media to try to get a newspaper column, write a newspaper column to try to get a book deal, write books to try to get a job for a campaign group. Today feminism is a career.
You mentioned Sarah Everard and whilst her murder was a terrible crime I still found some of the feminist reaction to it to be false. There were vigils held simultaneously around the country after feminist campaigners called for people to show solidarity. During the coronavirus pandemic five women were either murdered or died in suspicious circumstances in a relatively small area in a short space of time. A group of local women organised a vigil to raise awareness of violence against women and girls. Almost no one outside the local area took any interest, there was almost no coverage in the national media and there were no other vigils elsewhere. I doubt any feminist activist in London could even tell you where the vigil for those five women was held.
Almost no feminists protested or wrote about the mass rape of underage girls in Rotherham or anywhere where it has been happening for decades. Almost no feminists protested or wrote about the mass sexual assaults in Cologne. Almost no white feminists protested or wrote about the killing of Mahsa Amini. Most feminists don’t care about most other women but expect all women to show solidarity with them when they demand it.
I have more respect for Julie Bindel than almost all of the rest of the Western feminist movement put together.
I wholly endorse your viewpoint here.
In relation to Sarah Everard, it is telling that a young woman from a much lower social order, who was brutally murdered at the same time, received no mention from the feminist movement, let alone exaggerated public protests and no constant reference in BBC news for days, weeks on end.
We live in a new era of supreme hypocrisy, coercion and untruth. And the very people who are so quick to bellow their affronted virtue in public are the very same who are imposing this evil on our world.
“Start a campaign on social media to try to get a newspaper column, write a newspaper column to try to get a book deal, write books to try to get a job for a campaign group. Today feminism is a career.“
Are you kidding? Maybe 50 years ago; but today the hot new trend is to go conservative—and especially antifeminist—if you want a career. Liberals and feminists are common (because a majority of people actually hold such values); but a conservative pundit (especially if young) is seen as a novelty—and therefore is fast-tracked to a media career.
I wholly endorse your viewpoint here.
In relation to Sarah Everard, it is telling that a young woman from a much lower social order, who was brutally murdered at the same time, received no mention from the feminist movement, let alone exaggerated public protests and no constant reference in BBC news for days, weeks on end.
We live in a new era of supreme hypocrisy, coercion and untruth. And the very people who are so quick to bellow their affronted virtue in public are the very same who are imposing this evil on our world.
“Start a campaign on social media to try to get a newspaper column, write a newspaper column to try to get a book deal, write books to try to get a job for a campaign group. Today feminism is a career.“
Are you kidding? Maybe 50 years ago; but today the hot new trend is to go conservative—and especially antifeminist—if you want a career. Liberals and feminists are common (because a majority of people actually hold such values); but a conservative pundit (especially if young) is seen as a novelty—and therefore is fast-tracked to a media career.
Thank you very much for replying and addressing the problem I was trying to describe, in my idiosyncratic way. I’m not opposed to feminism: indeed, I believe in equal rights, equal treatment and equality of opportunity. I’m extremely disappointed with how feminism has developed, particularly in the fourth wave which I see as being largely made up of female English Literature graduates who became feminists when they realised there was money in it. Start a campaign on social media to try to get a newspaper column, write a newspaper column to try to get a book deal, write books to try to get a job for a campaign group. Today feminism is a career.
You mentioned Sarah Everard and whilst her murder was a terrible crime I still found some of the feminist reaction to it to be false. There were vigils held simultaneously around the country after feminist campaigners called for people to show solidarity. During the coronavirus pandemic five women were either murdered or died in suspicious circumstances in a relatively small area in a short space of time. A group of local women organised a vigil to raise awareness of violence against women and girls. Almost no one outside the local area took any interest, there was almost no coverage in the national media and there were no other vigils elsewhere. I doubt any feminist activist in London could even tell you where the vigil for those five women was held.
Almost no feminists protested or wrote about the mass rape of underage girls in Rotherham or anywhere where it has been happening for decades. Almost no feminists protested or wrote about the mass sexual assaults in Cologne. Almost no white feminists protested or wrote about the killing of Mahsa Amini. Most feminists don’t care about most other women but expect all women to show solidarity with them when they demand it.
I have more respect for Julie Bindel than almost all of the rest of the Western feminist movement put together.
Thanks for explaining civilly and I agree with much of that. I’d say though it’s impossible for many to sustain outrage at the violent deaths of women when it happens so frequently. When there’s been something unique about it some feminists have put themselves at risk to protest it, as happened with Sarah Everand, and there’s much ongoing activism to make society safer for women in general. I kind of feel we’re at a strange time where both misandry & misogyny are growing at once and so there is still a place for feminism – though do agree some is self servering as you say.
Reality check ! There are plenty of “decent folk” who like reading Jeremy Clarkson. And even some who agree with him. If you don’t like being offended, don’t read him. It sounds rather like you’d want people you disagree with censored. Most of us value free speech.
I haven’t read this Clarkson article and I have no idea what it said. But the fact that 12000 people apparently don’t like it is no proof whatever that it is offensive/wrong/needs to be “called out”. It might just be that there are 12000 people and 60MPs who are too easily offended and have too much spare time on their hands. We might also enquire how many people agreed with it. And check the for:against ratio.
You haven’t understood the point I was making which is that people are far more angry and vocal about what Jeremy Clarkson wrote than they are about what Jordan McSweeney did. That’s what feminism, other types of activism, journalism and politics are like in the age of social media: they are more interested in being outraged by what people (and especially famous people) say rather than what people do, even if what someone does results in injury or death.
It is easy, quick and profitable to be outraged about Jeremy Clarkson or whoever this week’s hate figure is. A few years ago it was Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir Tim Hunt whose crime was to tell a joke and most weeks it is JK Rowling. However, when a woman is murdered by a man with a long history of criminal convictions or thousands of underage girls are raped under the noses of public bodies with a legal duty to protect them or men, women and children are massacred in the foyer of a concert venue there isn’t the same outrage. It isn’t as easy, quick or profitable to be outraged about the failings of the criminal justice system or child protection systems or the security services, even though it is more important to be outraged. Go for the easy target, jump on the latest bandwagon, write 1000 words for £320.
This is about what and who matters and what and who doesn’t matter to activists, journalists and politicians. For the current generation of feminists what matters most is money and who matters most is themselves.
You shouldn’t blame the feminist movement for the press’ fixation on celebrities. Blame us – those of us who subscribe to the terrible press and media and keep them afloat.
Not sure why you’re not understanding the difference between McSweeney & Clarkson. One won’t get out of jail until he’s an old man (if at all.) The other would get away scott free with his harmful hate sprewing if many decent folk didn’t take the time to call him out. And clearly many feminists aren’t cowardly, both on the pro trans & trans critical side – such as the article author willing to risk cancellation & ostracisation to say what she believes is in woman’s interests.
I know this is a republishing of an article written months ago but I think the point I’m going to make is still relevant because the trans debate is still going on in the same way it was then.
Last week Jordan McSweeney was sentenced to life with a minimum term of 38 years for the murder and sexual assault of Zara Aleena. Information about the crime which had not previously been reported because he pleaded guilty was released which included CCTV of his movements prior to the attack which showed him following other women, witness statements from those other women and some information about his previous convictions (according to the BBC, “28 convictions for 69 crimes, dating back to 2006, ranging from burglary to assaulting the police and including racially motivated offences”) and the circumstances of his release from prison and the attempts to recall him following breaches of his licence in the days before he murdered Zara Aleena. There was some reaction from feminist activists, writers and politicians on the day of his sentencing and the following day.
On Friday last week The Sun published an article by Jeremy Clarkson about Meghan Markle. Many people (including celebrities and feminist activists) reacted strongly to it, more than 12000 complaints have been made to IPSO and more than 60 MPs have written to the editor of The Sun to condemn the article “in the strongest terms” and state that it contributes to an “unacceptable climate of hatred and violence”. It seems that some people care more about a bad man thinking bad thoughts and using bad words about a famous woman or someone using the wrong word to describe a person they don’t know than they care about the fact that an evil man with dozens of criminal convictions sexually assaulted and murdered a woman who wasn’t famous.
Perhaps someone could write a book about how irrelevant, cowardly and self-serving the feminist movement has become.
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Gender is sex.”
― George Orwell, 1984 (updated)
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell (not updated)
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Gender is sex.”
― George Orwell, 1984 (updated)
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell (not updated)
Welcome to the world, feminists. Now that they are turning the pejoratives on you, maybe you — in about a century — will start to understand how it feeels to be called a racist-sexist-homophobe.
Actually, I’ve only been called a racist twice in my life. Once by a black guy, son of a university professor, and once by a gay guy.
The whole point of leftist politics is that “we” are the Allies of the Oppressed fighting against the Oppressors. And don’t you forget it.
It started with the left fighting for the workers. But in about 1965 the left transitioned to race and feminism. Forget the workers! But then that became old hat and now the poor helpless victims are the transgenders.
Do you see the problem here?
No. I don’t suppose you do.
I’ve been rereading my Trollope recently, and I am discovering that women were just as idiotic back then as they are now.
‘I am discovering that women were just as idiotic back then as they are now.’
I admire the boldness of that statement if nothing else.
Do you have a mother? Grandmother? Aunt? Or were you saved from being subjected to such idiocy? Delivered by stork were you?
My mother, likes to let her feelings out, so do I, I declare you a wa**er.
Woman up late in the UK, proliferation of weird American opinions going on here right now.
Jonas moze – you just get more out there every time.
Just been on the article about American politics encroaching, all of you people on here right now are just proving to me why this is bad, over and over again.
Hey! I’ve got no problem with the essay. I’m American, alternating between reading Fukuyama and Trollope (coincidentally) in alternating shifts lately. The latter seems to make an equal number of characters of both sexes act infuriatingly stupid.
He walked straight into that, I couldn’t resist.
He walked straight into that, I couldn’t resist.
You have to be stupid to claim women are exactly the same as men while simultaneously expecting to keep those nice privileges that are allowed only to women.
“Do you have a mother? Grandmother? Aunt? ”
It is telling that while men are supposed to be shamed into silence by that line, in case of women the equivalent doesn’t seem to turn up much regarding fathers, grandfathers and uncles – whether it’s men being exclusively drafted to fight wars (while movies and media decide to stock up on “strong women”), the utter lack of concern for male victims of suicide or domestic violence, or the lack of diversity in truck driving or mining.
So, would agree with him that women have changed not a bit from “back then” – when they would be suffragettes but sit out WW1 in their comfortable homes or demand priority over the lifeboats.
I’m so sorry – what nice privileges are afforded us that I’m expecting to keep? Should I get back in my box then on account of those privileges? Stop bothering the men folk?
I never claimed we were the same.
I think it’s unreasonable to say ‘women are just as idiotic now as they were then’, I couldn’t help picking on it. Does seem a rather sweeping statement to me.
You mention WW1 – Britain is well into the industrial revolution, women worked in factories, as servants, only rich ones ‘sat in their comfortable homes’. My nan and great aunts spent ww2 working the fields, nan was the daughter of a farm labourer, my great aunts were land girls, while the men folk went to fight. In fact I think us women actually kept the factories going, kept the farms going and were a massive part of the effort to win ww2. They certainly didn’t sit anything out in comfortable homes I can tell you that. These women can do. Nan is hardcore, she’s still tougher than old boots now.
“what nice privileges are afforded us”
– Preferential treatment over fathers in family courts
– Statistically likely to receive less punishment for the same crime
– Special “women’s” categories or diversity quotas where women can’t compete
– Zilch participation in more dangerous or strenuous, outdoor occupations
– Domestic violence and similar services exclusively for women.
“us women actually kept the factories going, kept the farms going and were a massive part of the effort to win ww2”
If that contribution really was equal and as dangerous as that of the male soldiers dying on the warfronts, you women wouldn’t be so reticent about demanding gender equality when it comes to military conscription.
Well without us darling you’d have had nothing to eat and nothing to fight with.
I never once in my post demanded gender equality when it comes to military conscription.
I actually feel in the UK, women have a good deal, like you say, all the services listed above, I personally don’t feel, as I posted the other day, shat upon by a patriarchy or otherwise unequal. I object to women in general though being referred to as idiotic in the manner the original poster did so.
– Zilch participation in more dangerous or strenuous, outdoor occupations
You walked into that one like your friend above.
When I was 15 my self employed dad put his hand through a table saw and mangled his hand, since then, pretty much, I’ve been on the tools, with him.
I’m actually a lady electrician, I’ve dug trenches, worked on house and barn roofs fitting solar panels in the pissing down rain, I’ve worked on farms in snow, heaps and heaps of cow shit, pulling cables through it till your plastered, actual dried people and pig shit that’s been through an anaerobic digester, on street cabs full of rat piss, in all weathers, in lofts, barn roofs, floor spaces, in very hot weather, ever worked in the roof of a recycling plant while its running a trommel? Full of dust off Northamptonshires rubbish and diesel fumes from the plant? Pulling in cables and putting up light fittings as big as you are? I’ve heaved cables, I can fit massive moulded case and three phase gear, I’ve wired enormous diesel generators as big as your front room.
I can drive massive platforms, handle a set of ladders and piss all over your bonfire like its nothing.
I have enormous respect for guys that do groundwork and steel erection, builders and scaffolders, I’ve seen them work, I know I would struggle to do those jobs myself, all day, every day.
Assumption is the mother of your f*’* up.
Hear we go, one exception to a rule (if what she even says is true) and all women are amazing, hard, hardy types, who can do anything physical and tactile just as well as men can. Laughable.
I didn’t say all women were amazing. I also didn’t say we could do everything the same. That would be as ridiculous as saying all men are amazing, hardy types. I personally have many floors. We all do, women and men.
Samir said we didn’t participate in outdoor or dangerous occupations. Well that’s just bo**cks.
He said we all sat at home comfortably during the world wars. Also bo**cks.
Laughable in fact.
Next.
I didn’t say all women were amazing. I also didn’t say we could do everything the same. That would be as ridiculous as saying all men are amazing, hardy types. I personally have many floors. We all do, women and men.
Samir said we didn’t participate in outdoor or dangerous occupations. Well that’s just bo**cks.
He said we all sat at home comfortably during the world wars. Also bo**cks.
Laughable in fact.
Next.
Hear we go, one exception to a rule (if what she even says is true) and all women are amazing, hard, hardy types, who can do anything physical and tactile just as well as men can. Laughable.
Well without us darling you’d have had nothing to eat and nothing to fight with.
I never once in my post demanded gender equality when it comes to military conscription.
I actually feel in the UK, women have a good deal, like you say, all the services listed above, I personally don’t feel, as I posted the other day, shat upon by a patriarchy or otherwise unequal. I object to women in general though being referred to as idiotic in the manner the original poster did so.
– Zilch participation in more dangerous or strenuous, outdoor occupations
You walked into that one like your friend above.
When I was 15 my self employed dad put his hand through a table saw and mangled his hand, since then, pretty much, I’ve been on the tools, with him.
I’m actually a lady electrician, I’ve dug trenches, worked on house and barn roofs fitting solar panels in the pissing down rain, I’ve worked on farms in snow, heaps and heaps of cow shit, pulling cables through it till your plastered, actual dried people and pig shit that’s been through an anaerobic digester, on street cabs full of rat piss, in all weathers, in lofts, barn roofs, floor spaces, in very hot weather, ever worked in the roof of a recycling plant while its running a trommel? Full of dust off Northamptonshires rubbish and diesel fumes from the plant? Pulling in cables and putting up light fittings as big as you are? I’ve heaved cables, I can fit massive moulded case and three phase gear, I’ve wired enormous diesel generators as big as your front room.
I can drive massive platforms, handle a set of ladders and piss all over your bonfire like its nothing.
I have enormous respect for guys that do groundwork and steel erection, builders and scaffolders, I’ve seen them work, I know I would struggle to do those jobs myself, all day, every day.
Assumption is the mother of your f*’* up.
“what nice privileges are afforded us”
– Preferential treatment over fathers in family courts
– Statistically likely to receive less punishment for the same crime
– Special “women’s” categories or diversity quotas where women can’t compete
– Zilch participation in more dangerous or strenuous, outdoor occupations
– Domestic violence and similar services exclusively for women.
“us women actually kept the factories going, kept the farms going and were a massive part of the effort to win ww2”
If that contribution really was equal and as dangerous as that of the male soldiers dying on the warfronts, you women wouldn’t be so reticent about demanding gender equality when it comes to military conscription.
I’m so sorry – what nice privileges are afforded us that I’m expecting to keep? Should I get back in my box then on account of those privileges? Stop bothering the men folk?
I never claimed we were the same.
I think it’s unreasonable to say ‘women are just as idiotic now as they were then’, I couldn’t help picking on it. Does seem a rather sweeping statement to me.
You mention WW1 – Britain is well into the industrial revolution, women worked in factories, as servants, only rich ones ‘sat in their comfortable homes’. My nan and great aunts spent ww2 working the fields, nan was the daughter of a farm labourer, my great aunts were land girls, while the men folk went to fight. In fact I think us women actually kept the factories going, kept the farms going and were a massive part of the effort to win ww2. They certainly didn’t sit anything out in comfortable homes I can tell you that. These women can do. Nan is hardcore, she’s still tougher than old boots now.
Hey! I’ve got no problem with the essay. I’m American, alternating between reading Fukuyama and Trollope (coincidentally) in alternating shifts lately. The latter seems to make an equal number of characters of both sexes act infuriatingly stupid.
You have to be stupid to claim women are exactly the same as men while simultaneously expecting to keep those nice privileges that are allowed only to women.
“Do you have a mother? Grandmother? Aunt? ”
It is telling that while men are supposed to be shamed into silence by that line, in case of women the equivalent doesn’t seem to turn up much regarding fathers, grandfathers and uncles – whether it’s men being exclusively drafted to fight wars (while movies and media decide to stock up on “strong women”), the utter lack of concern for male victims of suicide or domestic violence, or the lack of diversity in truck driving or mining.
So, would agree with him that women have changed not a bit from “back then” – when they would be suffragettes but sit out WW1 in their comfortable homes or demand priority over the lifeboats.
I’m old enough to remember when (beginning in the 1960s) feminists were viscerally opposed to any research that might find biological differences between men and women. They presumed that any differences would favor men, not women. (I write as an academic. There were no research grants in those days for anyone whose proposed “methodology” did not rely on that hypothesis.) Orthodox policy in ideological circles relied on the notion that men and women were interchangeable except for the physical mechanics of reproduction–after which, it made no difference who cared for children or did anything else. The task of feminism, therefore, was to get as many women as possible, including mothers, into offices for careers. This way of thinking had consequences that are still with us. And I refer not only to the stifled debate over fatherhood. (Are fathers necessary in family life or merely as luxuries or wallets at best and as liabilities at worst?) I refer also to the debate over transgender ideology. (If sexual differences amount to nothing significant, then why not claim that they don’t exist at all?) By the 1990s, feminists were advocating “alternative epistemologies,” moreover, which elevating feeling (presumably a female blessing) over “linear” thinking (presumably a male curse).
But the story soon became more complicated than that. Many feminists changed their minds about research on sex differences after realizing (beginning in the 1980s) that research might favor women, not men. In fact, they began to promote research on sex differences in the hope that science would demonstrate female superiority and male inferiority–notions that have long since prevailed not only in the sciences but also in the humanities and social sciences.
Feminists today have good reason to reject transgender ideology, but they should acknowledge on both moral and intellectual grounds that earlier feminist generations anticipated the current woke preference for ideology over science (or any kind of “white” or “male” reason). Woke ideology absorbed (and, in some ways, changed) feminist ideology along with various racist ideologies. At issue now is not only how to define “woman,” but also how to define “man” (and countless other words that can be attacked somehow on ideological grounds).The adversaries of feminism are not “misogynistic” men, per se, but the male and female politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and even scientists who are afraid to speak the obvious truth.
‘I am discovering that women were just as idiotic back then as they are now.’
I admire the boldness of that statement if nothing else.
Do you have a mother? Grandmother? Aunt? Or were you saved from being subjected to such idiocy? Delivered by stork were you?
My mother, likes to let her feelings out, so do I, I declare you a wa**er.
Woman up late in the UK, proliferation of weird American opinions going on here right now.
Jonas moze – you just get more out there every time.
Just been on the article about American politics encroaching, all of you people on here right now are just proving to me why this is bad, over and over again.
I’m old enough to remember when (beginning in the 1960s) feminists were viscerally opposed to any research that might find biological differences between men and women. They presumed that any differences would favor men, not women. (I write as an academic. There were no research grants in those days for anyone whose proposed “methodology” did not rely on that hypothesis.) Orthodox policy in ideological circles relied on the notion that men and women were interchangeable except for the physical mechanics of reproduction–after which, it made no difference who cared for children or did anything else. The task of feminism, therefore, was to get as many women as possible, including mothers, into offices for careers. This way of thinking had consequences that are still with us. And I refer not only to the stifled debate over fatherhood. (Are fathers necessary in family life or merely as luxuries or wallets at best and as liabilities at worst?) I refer also to the debate over transgender ideology. (If sexual differences amount to nothing significant, then why not claim that they don’t exist at all?) By the 1990s, feminists were advocating “alternative epistemologies,” moreover, which elevating feeling (presumably a female blessing) over “linear” thinking (presumably a male curse).
But the story soon became more complicated than that. Many feminists changed their minds about research on sex differences after realizing (beginning in the 1980s) that research might favor women, not men. In fact, they began to promote research on sex differences in the hope that science would demonstrate female superiority and male inferiority–notions that have long since prevailed not only in the sciences but also in the humanities and social sciences.
Feminists today have good reason to reject transgender ideology, but they should acknowledge on both moral and intellectual grounds that earlier feminist generations anticipated the current woke preference for ideology over science (or any kind of “white” or “male” reason). Woke ideology absorbed (and, in some ways, changed) feminist ideology along with various racist ideologies. At issue now is not only how to define “woman,” but also how to define “man” (and countless other words that can be attacked somehow on ideological grounds).The adversaries of feminism are not “misogynistic” men, per se, but the male and female politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and even scientists who are afraid to speak the obvious truth.
Welcome to the world, feminists. Now that they are turning the pejoratives on you, maybe you — in about a century — will start to understand how it feeels to be called a racist-sexist-homophobe.
Actually, I’ve only been called a racist twice in my life. Once by a black guy, son of a university professor, and once by a gay guy.
The whole point of leftist politics is that “we” are the Allies of the Oppressed fighting against the Oppressors. And don’t you forget it.
It started with the left fighting for the workers. But in about 1965 the left transitioned to race and feminism. Forget the workers! But then that became old hat and now the poor helpless victims are the transgenders.
Do you see the problem here?
No. I don’t suppose you do.
I’ve been rereading my Trollope recently, and I am discovering that women were just as idiotic back then as they are now.
I got the distinct impression that if Hadley Freeman finds an issue where those who disagree with her can be labelled “right wing bigots” then she will still discount whatever is said – regardless of the facts. Even today. In other words, only after an issue has passed her “hygiene filter” will it be considered on its merits. “Facts are sacred” seems to apply only after that.
And it’s curious how there are never any “left wing bigots”.
I suggest that this in itself is simply another form of bigotry – the inability to listen if you take exception to some peripheral thing which happens to offend you. If I believed in such things, I’d start banging on about unconcious bias.
So I struggled to get past paragraph six.
I can now start to imagine what the French Revolution was like as the extremists got ever more extreme and turned on each other in what we now call a purity spiral.
I was rather hoping that more serious – dare I say it real – problems this year like inflation, energy prices, economic slowdown, Russia./Ukraine might get more people back on track with reality. It seems not. We’ll just need to wait for the circular firing squad here to finish each other off.
Reality is coming for us – ready or not. And what do you need most when war approaches and all the critical infrastructure and economy begin to collapse? Right wing bigots!
We handled World War II pretty well, with the participation of almost everyone—but not especially with leadership from “right-wing bigots”.
We handled World War II pretty well, with the participation of almost everyone—but not especially with leadership from “right-wing bigots”.
“And it’s curious how there are never any “left wing bigots”.
You may not be familiar with the social[ist] formula:
LEFT = GOOD; RIGHT = BAD
Reality is coming for us – ready or not. And what do you need most when war approaches and all the critical infrastructure and economy begin to collapse? Right wing bigots!
“And it’s curious how there are never any “left wing bigots”.
You may not be familiar with the social[ist] formula:
LEFT = GOOD; RIGHT = BAD
I got the distinct impression that if Hadley Freeman finds an issue where those who disagree with her can be labelled “right wing bigots” then she will still discount whatever is said – regardless of the facts. Even today. In other words, only after an issue has passed her “hygiene filter” will it be considered on its merits. “Facts are sacred” seems to apply only after that.
And it’s curious how there are never any “left wing bigots”.
I suggest that this in itself is simply another form of bigotry – the inability to listen if you take exception to some peripheral thing which happens to offend you. If I believed in such things, I’d start banging on about unconcious bias.
So I struggled to get past paragraph six.
I can now start to imagine what the French Revolution was like as the extremists got ever more extreme and turned on each other in what we now call a purity spiral.
I was rather hoping that more serious – dare I say it real – problems this year like inflation, energy prices, economic slowdown, Russia./Ukraine might get more people back on track with reality. It seems not. We’ll just need to wait for the circular firing squad here to finish each other off.
“I also know that so many of the arguments that are happening in their name are not ones that they wish for at all; they are conducted largely by provocateurs who are just burnishing their online brands.”
Is that really the case though? How can we tell what the prevalent opinion among the trans people is these days? Yes I’ve seen reasonable, level-headed takes that do not deny biology, but the majority of them seem to come from old-school trans people who transitioned many years ago, when “trans” meant something completely different. Are these reasonable trans people the majority, or is the majority now more like Lia Thomas, whose interview expressed complete disinterest in your support or compassion unless you support Lia as a 100% full female?
Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term. If you’re using that word, you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a “woman, who is trans”; after that, it’s a natural progression to “trans women are women”. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”.
Just no to you too. It is not a ‘natural progression’ from being a ‘trans woman’ as you state – to a biological one. Full stop.
But see what you’re doing in your own post, with the language you’re using? You’re effectively saying that there are two kinds of “woman”, a “trans” one and a “biological” one. No they’re not the same thing, at least until the time trans-identifying males begin to insist that they’re biological women. But the language you use makes it sound as if they both come under the umbrella of “woman”.
What statement is easier to push through: “trans women are women”, or “trans-identifying males are women”? One thing greases the way for another.
Well-meaning people like myself believed that “trans women” was just meant to be a kind social lie, a bit like couples saying “we are pregnant”, a phrase that’s obviously not meant to be taken literally. Well now that the dictionaries revise the meaning of the word “woman”, it’s obvious we’ve been had.
No, you used that language. Sorry let me edit my post to indicate that.
You are walking yourself around in circles.
You also said: ‘Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term’
‘. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”’
So what, we don’t bother with the debate? We just roll over in the UK cos the dictionary says so?
Are you joking?
You’re deliberately misinterpreting my post for some reason. My point is about the language and how the use of the word “trans woman” paved the way for the statement “trans women are women”, and the utterly ridiculous distinction between “biological woman” and “trans woman”.
I myself no longer use the term “trans woman” to refer to the males who identify as women. But there’s no avoiding it if you want to talk about the problem with the language and distortion of the word “woman”.
A more honest word would be Twankey’s as no-one has ever confused a pantomime dame for an actual woman. Unfortunately it would be immediately deemed derogatory because of its honesty. Reality and truth have no place in this debate for the Trans activists.
Twankey. I like it.
Twankey. I like it.
A more honest word would be Twankey’s as no-one has ever confused a pantomime dame for an actual woman. Unfortunately it would be immediately deemed derogatory because of its honesty. Reality and truth have no place in this debate for the Trans activists.
It seems to me that Daria wrote nothing of the kind, about not bothering with the debate. In fact, Daria is debating. I’m not sure why you’ve misinterpreted what Daria wrote, because it seems to me you’re both essentially on the same side of the debate!
Yhat’s all we need: those who disagree with trans-activism arguing among themselves.
Second paragraph, of her first post:
Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term. If you’re using that word, you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a “woman, who is trans”; after that, it’s a natural progression to “trans women are women”. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”
I still disagree it’s a ‘natural progression’.
I disagree that the debate is lost already.
I disagree that using the term trans woman means ‘you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a woman who is is trans’
And your response? “So we don’t bother with the debate?” whilst debating with Daria.
I’m really not here to test the interpretative prowess of others, but that looks uncannily like a mis- . Using the phrase “already lost the debate” is a pretty standard way of saying that too much ground is being ceded by one side, in this case by using the terminology of those who seek to overturn the previously accepted definition of a woman.
Fair enough I suppose though, I still disagree with:
I still disagree it’s a ‘natural progression’. – it only is if people start saying so.
I disagree that using the term trans woman means ‘you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a woman who is is trans.’
Again, only if America starts saying its so.
Ascribing all these meanings to these phrases is part of the problem in my view. So now according to her – if anyone writes trans woman – they are referring to a woman who is trans and they agree that that is the same thing as a woman. I object to that. Its too non logical for my head space. Getting convoluted. I do think she’s talking in circles.
Honestly, I had no idea all this had come as far as this. I strayed on here from much more fringe places. Just so much confusion coming out of America right now.
Britain is tolerant towards all kinds of eccentric characters, we make eccentric better than anyone. I think America can keep its trans debates, dictionary definitions, and shove off. We are by and large pretty tolerant here. I know this.
It is an example of stretching the Overton Window.
It is an example of stretching the Overton Window.
Fair enough I suppose though, I still disagree with:
I still disagree it’s a ‘natural progression’. – it only is if people start saying so.
I disagree that using the term trans woman means ‘you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a woman who is is trans.’
Again, only if America starts saying its so.
Ascribing all these meanings to these phrases is part of the problem in my view. So now according to her – if anyone writes trans woman – they are referring to a woman who is trans and they agree that that is the same thing as a woman. I object to that. Its too non logical for my head space. Getting convoluted. I do think she’s talking in circles.
Honestly, I had no idea all this had come as far as this. I strayed on here from much more fringe places. Just so much confusion coming out of America right now.
Britain is tolerant towards all kinds of eccentric characters, we make eccentric better than anyone. I think America can keep its trans debates, dictionary definitions, and shove off. We are by and large pretty tolerant here. I know this.
Thing is, it’s much harder to argue that trans women are not women when the definition “trans woman” has the word “woman” right there in it. Even more so when you also use the expression “biological women” to indicate the group of people who previously were simply called women. “Biological women” basically implies that the word “women” is not necessarily always tied to biology, so we need to specify exactly which kind of women we’re talking about.
Language is important and the shift from “transsexual” to “transwoman” to “trans woman” was pushed through very very deliberately.
Visions of Americans in cubicles scanning and altering dictionaries to keep up with their own crazy.
This right here is the problem in the first place:
‘so we need to specify exactly which kind of women we’re talking about’
This is how America started out with this whole debacle.
I don’t understand the difference between transwoman and trans woman, what is the significance of the space? My dictionary is a 1950s Oxford version. I doubt it will help me out.
The space is there deliberately to place the emphasis on the word “woman”. So that “trans woman” can look the same as someone saying “tall woman”, “black woman”, etc., as if the “trans” part was merely a descriptor of a woman. You don’t have the same effect with “transwoman”.
Wow, you don’t give up do you? Points for effort I appreciate that. Now I’m going to subject you to British eccentricity and insanity, fuelled by wine. Because I can.
I just bought a kitten that requires my late night attention otherwise, I really wouldn’t bother or still be here right now. But hey ho, let’s keep going in the name of debate, it’s better than telly.
So. Let’s do this. The significance of the space.
Deliberately emphasises the word woman. OK.
Question: did the Americans have a dictionary with transwoman then they changed it to trans woman? With a space? And you actually debated this to get it changed in the dictionary?? If this is true I’m going to die laughing and be happy I don’t have to then actually commit suicide faced with this fact.
Legitimate question: do you really have nothing else to worry about?
So, help me out here, trans woman is more like woman than transwoman. Which because it has no space has less emphasis. And this justifies the fact that you accused me of accepting a transwoman or trans woman or whatever America says now is the same as a woman by the very use of my language? Have I got that right?
Wow, you don’t give up do you? Points for effort I appreciate that. Now I’m going to subject you to British eccentricity and insanity, fuelled by wine. Because I can.
I just bought a kitten that requires my late night attention otherwise, I really wouldn’t bother or still be here right now. But hey ho, let’s keep going in the name of debate, it’s better than telly.
So. Let’s do this. The significance of the space.
Deliberately emphasises the word woman. OK.
Question: did the Americans have a dictionary with transwoman then they changed it to trans woman? With a space? And you actually debated this to get it changed in the dictionary?? If this is true I’m going to die laughing and be happy I don’t have to then actually commit suicide faced with this fact.
Legitimate question: do you really have nothing else to worry about?
So, help me out here, trans woman is more like woman than transwoman. Which because it has no space has less emphasis. And this justifies the fact that you accused me of accepting a transwoman or trans woman or whatever America says now is the same as a woman by the very use of my language? Have I got that right?
The space is there deliberately to place the emphasis on the word “woman”. So that “trans woman” can look the same as someone saying “tall woman”, “black woman”, etc., as if the “trans” part was merely a descriptor of a woman. You don’t have the same effect with “transwoman”.
Visions of Americans in cubicles scanning and altering dictionaries to keep up with their own crazy.
This right here is the problem in the first place:
‘so we need to specify exactly which kind of women we’re talking about’
This is how America started out with this whole debacle.
I don’t understand the difference between transwoman and trans woman, what is the significance of the space? My dictionary is a 1950s Oxford version. I doubt it will help me out.
And your response? “So we don’t bother with the debate?” whilst debating with Daria.
I’m really not here to test the interpretative prowess of others, but that looks uncannily like a mis- . Using the phrase “already lost the debate” is a pretty standard way of saying that too much ground is being ceded by one side, in this case by using the terminology of those who seek to overturn the previously accepted definition of a woman.
Thing is, it’s much harder to argue that trans women are not women when the definition “trans woman” has the word “woman” right there in it. Even more so when you also use the expression “biological women” to indicate the group of people who previously were simply called women. “Biological women” basically implies that the word “women” is not necessarily always tied to biology, so we need to specify exactly which kind of women we’re talking about.
Language is important and the shift from “transsexual” to “transwoman” to “trans woman” was pushed through very very deliberately.
Second paragraph, of her first post:
Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term. If you’re using that word, you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a “woman, who is trans”; after that, it’s a natural progression to “trans women are women”. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”
I still disagree it’s a ‘natural progression’.
I disagree that the debate is lost already.
I disagree that using the term trans woman means ‘you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a woman who is is trans’
You’re deliberately misinterpreting my post for some reason. My point is about the language and how the use of the word “trans woman” paved the way for the statement “trans women are women”, and the utterly ridiculous distinction between “biological woman” and “trans woman”.
I myself no longer use the term “trans woman” to refer to the males who identify as women. But there’s no avoiding it if you want to talk about the problem with the language and distortion of the word “woman”.
It seems to me that Daria wrote nothing of the kind, about not bothering with the debate. In fact, Daria is debating. I’m not sure why you’ve misinterpreted what Daria wrote, because it seems to me you’re both essentially on the same side of the debate!
Yhat’s all we need: those who disagree with trans-activism arguing among themselves.
Exactly. Civil conversation, face to face, is one thing. Doesn’t change the fact that we’re talking about people who for whatever reason want to pretend they are the other sex. Some adults have a secret friend they talk to also.
No, you used that language. Sorry let me edit my post to indicate that.
You are walking yourself around in circles.
You also said: ‘Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term’
‘. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”’
So what, we don’t bother with the debate? We just roll over in the UK cos the dictionary says so?
Are you joking?
Exactly. Civil conversation, face to face, is one thing. Doesn’t change the fact that we’re talking about people who for whatever reason want to pretend they are the other sex. Some adults have a secret friend they talk to also.
But see what you’re doing in your own post, with the language you’re using? You’re effectively saying that there are two kinds of “woman”, a “trans” one and a “biological” one. No they’re not the same thing, at least until the time trans-identifying males begin to insist that they’re biological women. But the language you use makes it sound as if they both come under the umbrella of “woman”.
What statement is easier to push through: “trans women are women”, or “trans-identifying males are women”? One thing greases the way for another.
Well-meaning people like myself believed that “trans women” was just meant to be a kind social lie, a bit like couples saying “we are pregnant”, a phrase that’s obviously not meant to be taken literally. Well now that the dictionaries revise the meaning of the word “woman”, it’s obvious we’ve been had.
Just no to you too. It is not a ‘natural progression’ from being a ‘trans woman’ as you state – to a biological one. Full stop.
“I also know that so many of the arguments that are happening in their name are not ones that they wish for at all; they are conducted largely by provocateurs who are just burnishing their online brands.”
Is that really the case though? How can we tell what the prevalent opinion among the trans people is these days? Yes I’ve seen reasonable, level-headed takes that do not deny biology, but the majority of them seem to come from old-school trans people who transitioned many years ago, when “trans” meant something completely different. Are these reasonable trans people the majority, or is the majority now more like Lia Thomas, whose interview expressed complete disinterest in your support or compassion unless you support Lia as a 100% full female?
Also, I’m afraid that the whole “what does woman mean” debate was lost the minute “trans woman” became an accepted and commonly used term. If you’re using that word, you’ve already agreed that you’re talking about a “woman, who is trans”; after that, it’s a natural progression to “trans women are women”. I honestly don’t know how this can be reversed when the *dictionaries* have started to quietly revise the words “woman” and “man”.
I’ve wondered if the transexual fad in young females isn’t a recrudesence of the inexplicably popular anorexia in the similar demographic back in the seventies and eighties. That one seemed to have died down quite a bit. Or maybe the crisis media just got bored with it and stopped covering it.
“Crisis media” ! Love it. Did you coin that phrase ?
Sure. Why not? I don’t think I ever heard it before. Just seemed to fit.
Sure. Why not? I don’t think I ever heard it before. Just seemed to fit.
No, it’s a resurgence of bisexuality and androgyny in late 60s/early 70s popular music. I know a young woman of 23 who labels herself ‘queer’ (and a witch and a performance artist, amongst other things. She’s a rich, bored flake, is what it basically boils down to). She is going out with a self-identified ‘trans woman,’ i.e. a guy who has never transitioned, and probably never will. So what it basically means it that they’re both hetero, with some convoluted, trendy labels to ‘separate’ themselves in their ‘oppression’ and ‘otherness’ from the vulgar hetero common herd.
It’s totally laughable: she can say she’s ‘queer’ cos she’s f*****g a ‘woman.’ The young are confused these days because they have grown up in an era where every kind of human sexuality under the bored sun is laid out before them on the net before they even dip a finger in the tight virginal vagina of sexuality, and they don’t know who to say they are this week, or why. Massive con, and a halfwit circus. Boring beyond belief, and this horrifyingly tedious subject lost any kind of meaning or interest years ago.
Divide and conquer indeed.
“Crisis media” ! Love it. Did you coin that phrase ?
No, it’s a resurgence of bisexuality and androgyny in late 60s/early 70s popular music. I know a young woman of 23 who labels herself ‘queer’ (and a witch and a performance artist, amongst other things. She’s a rich, bored flake, is what it basically boils down to). She is going out with a self-identified ‘trans woman,’ i.e. a guy who has never transitioned, and probably never will. So what it basically means it that they’re both hetero, with some convoluted, trendy labels to ‘separate’ themselves in their ‘oppression’ and ‘otherness’ from the vulgar hetero common herd.
It’s totally laughable: she can say she’s ‘queer’ cos she’s f*****g a ‘woman.’ The young are confused these days because they have grown up in an era where every kind of human sexuality under the bored sun is laid out before them on the net before they even dip a finger in the tight virginal vagina of sexuality, and they don’t know who to say they are this week, or why. Massive con, and a halfwit circus. Boring beyond belief, and this horrifyingly tedious subject lost any kind of meaning or interest years ago.
Divide and conquer indeed.
I’ve wondered if the transexual fad in young females isn’t a recrudesence of the inexplicably popular anorexia in the similar demographic back in the seventies and eighties. That one seemed to have died down quite a bit. Or maybe the crisis media just got bored with it and stopped covering it.
Activists like to claim that the only people who have a problem with this are “Right-wing bigots”,
Yea, well whats wrong with being a Right-wing Bigot? Is Left-wing self-hating, ‘I believe in everything agenda dictates’ a more reasonable creed? That’s just a Left-wing Bigot, because it is holding beliefs.
BIGOT:
”A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious or other creed, opinion, practice, or ritual; a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, system of belief, or party organization; an intolerant dogmatist.”
OK, knowing wrong from right is being a bigot. Being against bad and for good is a bigot – as obviously bad is same as good, and right is same as wrong….. or do they say there is no right/wrong good/bad so it is moot to hold any view? (Well except for the approved agenda which exists pure and ex-nihilo; just because it does..)
”I’m currently writing a book about anorexia. Multiple doctors have confirmed to me what I already suspected, which is that there are obvious parallels between what gender dysphoric teenage girls say today — about their hatred of their body, their fear of sexualisation, their assumptions about what being a woman means — and what I said while in hospital as a teenager.”
If only they had celebrated your anorexia instead of stigmatizing you, you would not be the mess you are today. Thank God the young mentioned above are better understood.
OK, knowing wrong from right is being a bigot.
Did you miss the word ‘unreasonably’ in the definition of bigot?
OK, knowing wrong from right is being a bigot.
Did you miss the word ‘unreasonably’ in the definition of bigot?
Activists like to claim that the only people who have a problem with this are “Right-wing bigots”,
Yea, well whats wrong with being a Right-wing Bigot? Is Left-wing self-hating, ‘I believe in everything agenda dictates’ a more reasonable creed? That’s just a Left-wing Bigot, because it is holding beliefs.
BIGOT:
”A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious or other creed, opinion, practice, or ritual; a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, system of belief, or party organization; an intolerant dogmatist.”
OK, knowing wrong from right is being a bigot. Being against bad and for good is a bigot – as obviously bad is same as good, and right is same as wrong….. or do they say there is no right/wrong good/bad so it is moot to hold any view? (Well except for the approved agenda which exists pure and ex-nihilo; just because it does..)
”I’m currently writing a book about anorexia. Multiple doctors have confirmed to me what I already suspected, which is that there are obvious parallels between what gender dysphoric teenage girls say today — about their hatred of their body, their fear of sexualisation, their assumptions about what being a woman means — and what I said while in hospital as a teenager.”
If only they had celebrated your anorexia instead of stigmatizing you, you would not be the mess you are today. Thank God the young mentioned above are better understood.
Bravo well said. Again but no one’s listening even on this thread. Extraordinarily the lack of any common sense, intelligent humanity on this issue is mind boggling.
Somehow instead of the male sex giving up its persona of the first sex, the patriarchs, the stereotypical tropes of bravery and strength, instead of intelligently encompassing difference without humiliation they have managed to delude everyone that effeminate men aren’t men they are women. Why? How narrow minded how embarrassingly insecure. Instead as Hadley Freeman says women have been told to accept and shut up about a lie.
That is the shame of gender ideology, it’s cowardice, it’s lack of honesty and bravery.
That corporations, political parties follow fashion is no surprise.
For many reasons, some more laudable than others some men want to be seen as female, adopt the stereotype of femaleness, something feminists have been fighting against for decades. Feminists just want equal rights with men in society and the law. They are not receptacles of difference they are born a sex and have to deal with it and hopefully get a fair one. This is a massive step back to women and to fiddle around pretending it is not happening and preserving maleness as something else is a bullying fantasy.
“Somehow instead of the male sex giving up its persona of the first sex, the patriarchs, the stereotypical tropes of bravery and strength, instead of intelligently encompassing difference without humiliation they have managed to delude everyone that effeminate men aren’t men they are women.”
Which men are you referring to?
I have to admit I’ve only met 3 trans identifying men and none of them could be described as effeminate.
I thought I explained, men as in the sex class that have changed language and laws, that have deemed that trans women are women and not men. Who have caused the renaming of the women sex class to be inclusive but not men. Men are men. There are many female allies. I have no idea why. At first I thought it was good to dissolve gender identities but it has only dissolved women as a sex class along with their necessary rights for fairness and safety. No men’s rights have been expunged.
“men as in the sex class that have changed language and laws, that have deemed that trans women are women and not men. “
You still haven’t explained which men. Do you mean the men who call themselves women, or men in general?
gender ideology favours men over women. Women have got to stand up for themselves. That is what the article is saying. I have no idea where you are coming from. It’s not all about you.
You’re telling a man ‘it’s not all about you,’ (try having a discussion with men online about domestic violence from women to men, and see how quickly some woman will jump in to claim the oppression crown, saying ‘it’s not about you’), yet are saying ‘gender ideology favours men over women.’ So you’re telling a man that it IS all about him!
Christ, do you people even LISTEN to yourselves? This trans ‘debate is all MEANINGLESS, just a corporate distraction to keep the crabs in the bucket fighting amongst themselves and from fighting the REAL oppressor and planet-murderers, i.e. the elites.
You’re telling a man ‘it’s not all about you,’ (try having a discussion with men online about domestic violence from women to men, and see how quickly some woman will jump in to claim the oppression crown, saying ‘it’s not about you’), yet are saying ‘gender ideology favours men over women.’ So you’re telling a man that it IS all about him!
Christ, do you people even LISTEN to yourselves? This trans ‘debate is all MEANINGLESS, just a corporate distraction to keep the crabs in the bucket fighting amongst themselves and from fighting the REAL oppressor and planet-murderers, i.e. the elites.
gender ideology favours men over women. Women have got to stand up for themselves. That is what the article is saying. I have no idea where you are coming from. It’s not all about you.
Men as a sex class have not held a monopoly on the content of “language and laws” for decades now—if indeed they ever truly controlled the language at all.
“men as in the sex class that have changed language and laws, that have deemed that trans women are women and not men. “
You still haven’t explained which men. Do you mean the men who call themselves women, or men in general?
Men as a sex class have not held a monopoly on the content of “language and laws” for decades now—if indeed they ever truly controlled the language at all.
I have to admit I’ve only met 3 trans identifying men and none of them could be described as effeminate.
I thought I explained, men as in the sex class that have changed language and laws, that have deemed that trans women are women and not men. Who have caused the renaming of the women sex class to be inclusive but not men. Men are men. There are many female allies. I have no idea why. At first I thought it was good to dissolve gender identities but it has only dissolved women as a sex class along with their necessary rights for fairness and safety. No men’s rights have been expunged.
You lost me at ‘patriarchs.’ Whenever I hear anybody using that word now, I tune out, knowing they are talking crap.
“Somehow instead of the male sex giving up its persona of the first sex, the patriarchs, the stereotypical tropes of bravery and strength, instead of intelligently encompassing difference without humiliation they have managed to delude everyone that effeminate men aren’t men they are women.”
Which men are you referring to?
You lost me at ‘patriarchs.’ Whenever I hear anybody using that word now, I tune out, knowing they are talking crap.
Bravo well said. Again but no one’s listening even on this thread. Extraordinarily the lack of any common sense, intelligent humanity on this issue is mind boggling.
Somehow instead of the male sex giving up its persona of the first sex, the patriarchs, the stereotypical tropes of bravery and strength, instead of intelligently encompassing difference without humiliation they have managed to delude everyone that effeminate men aren’t men they are women. Why? How narrow minded how embarrassingly insecure. Instead as Hadley Freeman says women have been told to accept and shut up about a lie.
That is the shame of gender ideology, it’s cowardice, it’s lack of honesty and bravery.
That corporations, political parties follow fashion is no surprise.
For many reasons, some more laudable than others some men want to be seen as female, adopt the stereotype of femaleness, something feminists have been fighting against for decades. Feminists just want equal rights with men in society and the law. They are not receptacles of difference they are born a sex and have to deal with it and hopefully get a fair one. This is a massive step back to women and to fiddle around pretending it is not happening and preserving maleness as something else is a bullying fantasy.
“Women can no longer afford to sit out the gender wars”
If that’s the case and they have been sitting through it then why? Or is it still someone else’s fault?
Edit: this story reminds me a little of all the Germans at the end of the war who said they had given shelter to Jews,
I’m going to go one step further and suggest that some of these Guardian journalists were amongst the early enablers and cheerleaders for the madness of the gender cult – that they laid the foundations on which more extreme views would later flourish – before it all got beyond their control.
No disagreement there – but that story goes *way* back.One version I heard was that the first rebellion against the patriarchy was by men – younger sons against the patriarchs and the eldest sons. They wanted an equal share in the privileges of the more senior men – and were not at all happy when they found out that lower class men and even women wanted their share of the privileges too (is anyone reminded of Harry Windsor, BTW?).
it is not obvious exactly at what point the equalising ought to stop – though I would note that women are *not* a minority, where as the various sexual and (in the UK) racial minorities are.
No disagreement there – but that story goes *way* back.One version I heard was that the first rebellion against the patriarchy was by men – younger sons against the patriarchs and the eldest sons. They wanted an equal share in the privileges of the more senior men – and were not at all happy when they found out that lower class men and even women wanted their share of the privileges too (is anyone reminded of Harry Windsor, BTW?).
it is not obvious exactly at what point the equalising ought to stop – though I would note that women are *not* a minority, where as the various sexual and (in the UK) racial minorities are.
I think you missed the bit where she lists famous women and established professionals who have been de-platformed and fired for wrong-speak. When the ACLU demands a book’s censorship, reasonable women who have to keep their jobs understand only too well what the stakes are. I’ve been on the job market lately, and each job description is clearly written by young and woke HR people. It’s “pronouns in your email signature” or no job for you.
I think you missed my point.
I think you missed my point.
I’m going to go one step further and suggest that some of these Guardian journalists were amongst the early enablers and cheerleaders for the madness of the gender cult – that they laid the foundations on which more extreme views would later flourish – before it all got beyond their control.
I think you missed the bit where she lists famous women and established professionals who have been de-platformed and fired for wrong-speak. When the ACLU demands a book’s censorship, reasonable women who have to keep their jobs understand only too well what the stakes are. I’ve been on the job market lately, and each job description is clearly written by young and woke HR people. It’s “pronouns in your email signature” or no job for you.
“Women can no longer afford to sit out the gender wars”
If that’s the case and they have been sitting through it then why? Or is it still someone else’s fault?
Edit: this story reminds me a little of all the Germans at the end of the war who said they had given shelter to Jews,
On the subject of gender dysphoric teenage girls, in addition to the parallels with anorexia, many have witnessed – or been on the receiving end – of domestic violence. Whereas in the past, these girls may have grown up strongly feminist, determined never to be financially dependent on a man and trapped in a relationship, many now see being female as a weakness which they can avoid by becoming a boy. This is most pronounced in girls who have been assaulted by their mother’s partner, while their mother was present but did nothing to defend them.
Another observation – adults can do the mental gymnastics, but many young people actually believe this stuff with potentially catastrophic consequences. Here’s a little story: a 15 yr old lesbian got into a relationship with a 15 yr old trans girl. Although under the age of consent, they mutually consented to the relationship becoming sexual. The lesbian girl was expecting a “lesbian encounter”; what she actually experienced was full on heterosexual sex with an energetic teenage boy. Her question was – is this rape? She consented to sex, but did not expect what happened, despite knowing her partner was a trans girl. When asked later about whether or not they had used contraception, she said it wasn’t necessary – after all, a trans girl is a girl and two girls can’t make a baby. Confused?
These things used to be called “the facts of life” for a reason – and they haven’t changed. How much more responsibility can we abdicate?
I think you will find the domestic violence rates amongst biological lesbians is pretty damned impressive, too, if NEVER discussed. Cos only ONE sex commits domestic violence, RIGHT? 😉
Who says it’s never discussed?
Who says it’s never discussed?
I think you will find the domestic violence rates amongst biological lesbians is pretty damned impressive, too, if NEVER discussed. Cos only ONE sex commits domestic violence, RIGHT? 😉
On the subject of gender dysphoric teenage girls, in addition to the parallels with anorexia, many have witnessed – or been on the receiving end – of domestic violence. Whereas in the past, these girls may have grown up strongly feminist, determined never to be financially dependent on a man and trapped in a relationship, many now see being female as a weakness which they can avoid by becoming a boy. This is most pronounced in girls who have been assaulted by their mother’s partner, while their mother was present but did nothing to defend them.
Another observation – adults can do the mental gymnastics, but many young people actually believe this stuff with potentially catastrophic consequences. Here’s a little story: a 15 yr old lesbian got into a relationship with a 15 yr old trans girl. Although under the age of consent, they mutually consented to the relationship becoming sexual. The lesbian girl was expecting a “lesbian encounter”; what she actually experienced was full on heterosexual sex with an energetic teenage boy. Her question was – is this rape? She consented to sex, but did not expect what happened, despite knowing her partner was a trans girl. When asked later about whether or not they had used contraception, she said it wasn’t necessary – after all, a trans girl is a girl and two girls can’t make a baby. Confused?
These things used to be called “the facts of life” for a reason – and they haven’t changed. How much more responsibility can we abdicate?
#TransWomenAreConMen is trending on Twitter interestingly enough.
I have sympathy for someone who hates their body so much they want to chop perfectly healthy organs off. But for them to think they have the right to force their view of reality (that they’re in the “wrong” body) onto me is unacceptable, it’s pure narcissism. I believe in biology, someone’s opinion of themselves is nothing to do with me.
I suggest we borrow phraseology from other industries namely housing. My friend built a new home to look like an old one, it’s mock Tudor, it looks like Tudor but it will never be Tudor. The insides were done by a faux finisher to look Tudor, again the finishing looked old but they weren’t and never will be as old as the finishing they mimic.
So I propose Mock Male and Faux Female, instead of putting trans before because as someone else pointed out, that implies they’re actually the other sex, they aren’t and never will be.
#TransWomenAreConMen is trending on Twitter interestingly enough.
I have sympathy for someone who hates their body so much they want to chop perfectly healthy organs off. But for them to think they have the right to force their view of reality (that they’re in the “wrong” body) onto me is unacceptable, it’s pure narcissism. I believe in biology, someone’s opinion of themselves is nothing to do with me.
I suggest we borrow phraseology from other industries namely housing. My friend built a new home to look like an old one, it’s mock Tudor, it looks like Tudor but it will never be Tudor. The insides were done by a faux finisher to look Tudor, again the finishing looked old but they weren’t and never will be as old as the finishing they mimic.
So I propose Mock Male and Faux Female, instead of putting trans before because as someone else pointed out, that implies they’re actually the other sex, they aren’t and never will be.
Men competing in women’s sports is assault with deadly intent. Men demanding to use women’s bathrooms are sexual predators. Men demanding to be called by women’s pronouns are mentally ill and should be institutionalized.
All sane people know this. Sadly, too many are afraid to say it.
Men competing in women’s sports is assault with deadly intent. Men demanding to use women’s bathrooms are sexual predators. Men demanding to be called by women’s pronouns are mentally ill and should be institutionalized.
All sane people know this. Sadly, too many are afraid to say it.
This is a very insightful, thought-provoking and thoughtful essay. I think that it clearly characterizes the difficulties that have arisen for women. Many of these could be resolved easily if the activists took a reasoned approach to the issues. I’ve written a few essays on the dilemma in my sub- stack “Everything Is Biology.” For instance, “Women Don’t Produce Eggs.” https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/women-dont-produce-eggs
Perhaps, over time, reason will prevail… Hopefully.
Thank you for this great essay, Frederick
This is a very insightful, thought-provoking and thoughtful essay. I think that it clearly characterizes the difficulties that have arisen for women. Many of these could be resolved easily if the activists took a reasoned approach to the issues. I’ve written a few essays on the dilemma in my sub- stack “Everything Is Biology.” For instance, “Women Don’t Produce Eggs.” https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/women-dont-produce-eggs
Perhaps, over time, reason will prevail… Hopefully.
Thank you for this great essay, Frederick
Trans people are .003% of the human population. I think people should keep this in mind.
And that justifies changing the language and laws that affect 51%?
And that justifies changing the language and laws that affect 51%?
Trans people are .003% of the human population. I think people should keep this in mind.
The progressives are champions of all victims.Bravo for them! The only problem is that they make victims of so many that they have to prioritize due to conflicts like FGM (female genital mutilation) vrs Islamic cultural traditions and gay rights that don’t include gay men in middle eastern countries—you know the ones they throw off balconies and publicly execute.Now transgender trumps women’s rights that we fought for these many years. Just wondering where the author was years ago when other groups were not in favor with the progressives?
The progressives are champions of all victims.Bravo for them! The only problem is that they make victims of so many that they have to prioritize due to conflicts like FGM (female genital mutilation) vrs Islamic cultural traditions and gay rights that don’t include gay men in middle eastern countries—you know the ones they throw off balconies and publicly execute.Now transgender trumps women’s rights that we fought for these many years. Just wondering where the author was years ago when other groups were not in favor with the progressives?
Does any intelligent person still subscribe to The Guardian? Congratulations, Hadley, on your escape!
Does any intelligent person still subscribe to The Guardian? Congratulations, Hadley, on your escape!
I am utterly supportive of this article; well written.
But it is one example, if a very important one, of a much larger problem with the ‘rights’ agenda (which in general I support). This is the problem: all too often my ‘rights’ and your ‘rights’ clash. Other than the courts and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, both of whom entirely get the point, this is largely ignored. So in the article under examination, of course trans people have rights, but so do women (like the women in my family). And we cannot rely on the ‘media’ to report the issue.
I know it is long ago, and not much written about, but even as a non-Catholic, I felt that the closure of the Catholic adoption agencies when they did not feel they could place children with gay families was offensive. That had an easy resolution; people could go to adoption agencies which supported gay adoption and those which did not. But the government of the day decided to go for the easy solution, that one freedom trumped other.
So many liberals went along with this illiberal agenda of ranking ‘rights’ that it was easy for today’s activists to assume the postures they do today.
From which my take is that ‘good girls’ and other old fashioned liberals contributed to the unpleasant environment of today.
This whole area needs a rethink. All of us need to accept that people with views which the vast majority of us have rights to. And I would have much more sympathy with ‘good girls’ if they fronted up to that, before their own ‘rights’ got trampled.
I am utterly supportive of this article; well written.
But it is one example, if a very important one, of a much larger problem with the ‘rights’ agenda (which in general I support). This is the problem: all too often my ‘rights’ and your ‘rights’ clash. Other than the courts and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, both of whom entirely get the point, this is largely ignored. So in the article under examination, of course trans people have rights, but so do women (like the women in my family). And we cannot rely on the ‘media’ to report the issue.
I know it is long ago, and not much written about, but even as a non-Catholic, I felt that the closure of the Catholic adoption agencies when they did not feel they could place children with gay families was offensive. That had an easy resolution; people could go to adoption agencies which supported gay adoption and those which did not. But the government of the day decided to go for the easy solution, that one freedom trumped other.
So many liberals went along with this illiberal agenda of ranking ‘rights’ that it was easy for today’s activists to assume the postures they do today.
From which my take is that ‘good girls’ and other old fashioned liberals contributed to the unpleasant environment of today.
This whole area needs a rethink. All of us need to accept that people with views which the vast majority of us have rights to. And I would have much more sympathy with ‘good girls’ if they fronted up to that, before their own ‘rights’ got trampled.
I am so glad this was reposted as I missed it first time around and am reading it on the day the Scottish parliament is likely to vote for Self ID with virtually no limits. Hadley Freeman is an absolute hero. This should be required reading for trans activists. But blind ideology is blind ideology. For now. Let’s see who’s on the right side of history.
I am so glad this was reposted as I missed it first time around and am reading it on the day the Scottish parliament is likely to vote for Self ID with virtually no limits. Hadley Freeman is an absolute hero. This should be required reading for trans activists. But blind ideology is blind ideology. For now. Let’s see who’s on the right side of history.
The ‘I’ gender generation ! The article started with the word and it was repeated continuously like it was the most important word in the British dictionary; in an essay about over selfness ?
The ‘I’ gender generation ! The article started with the word and it was repeated continuously like it was the most important word in the British dictionary; in an essay about over selfness ?
‘But this should not be an either/or situation: both women and trans people should be able to speak out equally and honestly in progressive spheres’
Anyone see what she did there? For Hadley, men apparently don’t have the right to speak out equally and honestly in progressive spheres. Personally, I have no ambition to define what a woman is. I just want to enter a plea for a bit more toleration, for the idea that while we’re all free to have opinions, we don’t always need to slam them in each others faces. And I’ll try not to be too amused at Hadley Freeman being hoist by her own petard.
FWIW I agree with the gender-critical feminist position here, as I think the great majority of men do. That there are essential differences between male and female experiences of the world based on how their bodies work is of course blindingly obvious; it would be good if feminists such as Freeman realised that men aren’t necessarily the enemy and in fact most of us would see ourselves as allies to the basic common-sense positions that she is advocating.
‘But this should not be an either/or situation: both women and trans people should be able to speak out equally and honestly in progressive spheres’
Anyone see what she did there? For Hadley, men apparently don’t have the right to speak out equally and honestly in progressive spheres. Personally, I have no ambition to define what a woman is. I just want to enter a plea for a bit more toleration, for the idea that while we’re all free to have opinions, we don’t always need to slam them in each others faces. And I’ll try not to be too amused at Hadley Freeman being hoist by her own petard.
FWIW I agree with the gender-critical feminist position here, as I think the great majority of men do. That there are essential differences between male and female experiences of the world based on how their bodies work is of course blindingly obvious; it would be good if feminists such as Freeman realised that men aren’t necessarily the enemy and in fact most of us would see ourselves as allies to the basic common-sense positions that she is advocating.
You know, I always wonder how long it will be in an article before Hadley Freeman reminds us she is Jewish, like it has anything to do whatsoever with the subject she is discussing, mostly. Tiresome.
And. Ironically, it is decorticated scum rags like The Guardian that helped propagate all this American horseshit on this side of the Atlantic, and still do. Ms. Freeman was very happy until quite recently to accept their cash. It’s her and other middle class journo halfwit types that have helped perpetuate this preening, posing, pouting utter Yank shit. And there is no “right side of history.”
You know, I always wonder how long it will be in an article before Hadley Freeman reminds us she is Jewish, like it has anything to do whatsoever with the subject she is discussing, mostly. Tiresome.
And. Ironically, it is decorticated scum rags like The Guardian that helped propagate all this American horseshit on this side of the Atlantic, and still do. Ms. Freeman was very happy until quite recently to accept their cash. It’s her and other middle class journo halfwit types that have helped perpetuate this preening, posing, pouting utter Yank shit. And there is no “right side of history.”
reading these comments made me sad. some men saying women have had it too good and anything bad that was happening they could blame on feminism and themselves. sad. last night i dreamt of a world without sexual difference. no one read jane eyre. there were no women’s voices. no one read shakespeare. there were no men’s voices. love poetry had ceased to exist. there were no mothers. no fathers. there was no love. romance, fidelity, union were a historical charade. instead meat puppets preened in front of mirrors. taking photos of their latest surgical mutations. look. i have an arm coming from my forehead and a baby coming by fed ex. i will be posting a video of myself carving it into pieces. tune into my feed.
reading these comments made me sad. some men saying women have had it too good and anything bad that was happening they could blame on feminism and themselves. sad. last night i dreamt of a world without sexual difference. no one read jane eyre. there were no women’s voices. no one read shakespeare. there were no men’s voices. love poetry had ceased to exist. there were no mothers. no fathers. there was no love. romance, fidelity, union were a historical charade. instead meat puppets preened in front of mirrors. taking photos of their latest surgical mutations. look. i have an arm coming from my forehead and a baby coming by fed ex. i will be posting a video of myself carving it into pieces. tune into my feed.