Elsewhere, activists have also infiltrated anti-discrimination boards, which are now prioritising transphobia over racism. Consider Dilcrah, the Interministerial Delegation for the Fight Against Racism, Antisemitism and Anti-LGBT Hatred, a government body responsible for guiding public policy on discrimination. In January, it was quietly closed down. The party line is that it was dissolved because the team was inefficient. Certainly, it was inefficient when it came to finding common ground on gender ideology. Former president, Smaïn Laacher, is a member of L’Observatoire de la Petite Sirène an association set up by psychiatrists and researchers concerned about the number of children being given hormone treatment, and — despite its name: The Little Mermaid’s Observatory — absolutely not to be confused with the UK’s controversial child transgender group, Mermaids.
This proved problematic for the transactivist sociologist Karine Espineira, who dramatically resigned from Dilcrah last May to protest against Laacher’s membership. There then came a welter of accusations of transphobia against L’Observatoire, after which, in September, Dilcrah decided to file a complaint against the organisation for their recommendation of a cautious approach towards trans children — something deemed to be “conversion therapy”, now forbidden by French law. This complaint was rejected. But in January, Dilcrah was disbanded. Its dissolution arguably exemplifies the French government’s response to the current identity debate — having been captured, they fold.
Amid this growing scandal, in which any attempts at scientific discussion or any urging of caution against accepting the new status quo are shut down, where is the resistance? And where, with our grand tradition of feminist thought, are the feminists? In the UK, you have Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock and J.K. Rowling. In France, it seems, we no longer have feminists in the traditional sense: we have neo-feminists and “queerists”. They aren’t worried about women’s spaces being kept safe, they don’t blink an eye at women’s sports being debauched, and they think it’s perfectly fine for lesbians to date women with penises. These feminists are, as Germaine Greer said, “being persuaded to deny their own existence”.
Since 2019, “Nous Toutes” — a group with the specific aim of stopping violence against women and girls — have organised feminist marches in towns across France. But their Instagram feed is now alive with anger and posts reading “Terfs out of our fights” and “You don’t need a vagina to be a woman”. It seems even they have lost sight of what our universalist feminism was about — a collective struggle, not an individual one. Such is the vehemence of their feeling against old-school feminist views that when Marguerite Stern, a prominent gender-critical activist and colleague of mine, marched with the sign “Female Sex Matters”, an egg was thrown in her face. This struggle is not a collective one.
How did French feminism become corrupted? Perhaps because of our obsession with Simone de Beauvoir. She believed that female biology was real, but also that it hampered women; she saw it as a constraint. She also believed that women are shaped by society and men into accepting a passive, subjugated position. In Le Deuxième Sexe (1949), she writes: “One is not born but, rather becomes, a woman.” She talked about how we are forced into becoming housewives or mothers. But neofeminists, led by Butler, have deconstructed this and now brandish the slogan as though de Beauvoir were talking about transwomen.
These neofeminists have also co-opted Monique Wittig, the French radical feminist and lesbian who wrote: “There is no sex. There is but sex that is oppressed, and sex that oppresses. It is the oppression that creates sex, and not the contrary.” The neofeminists parrot the handy Instagrammable statement “there is no sex” out of context and without understanding.
Resist these misreadings, though, and you will be tarred as a Terf. And it is dangerous to be a Terf in France. In March, on International Women’s Day, the walls of Paris were daubed with “Kill the Terfs” graffiti. A conference in Nantes was cancelled because transactivists threatened speakers with eggs and baseball bats, and cowardly local politicians bowed to that pressure. Last year, a class given at the prestigious Sciences Po school was shelved amid concerns over its topic: Darwinism, evolutive psychology and differences between the sexes. If our scientists have been captured, what hope is there?
At last, though, there are signs of a French resistance. In January — after three years of harassment, insults and cancellations – Marguerite Stern and I launched Femelliste, an online platform and NGO for “the female of the species”, a place where women can voice their concerns about transgenderism. Here we assert things such as: being a human female is neither a shame nor a weakness; it is not a feeling but a biological and sexual reality. We truly sympathise with those dealing with gender dysphoria, but see transgender activism, and its language, as an attempt to reduce women’s rights.
We are fighting for freedom of expression and pluralism of ideas. And for this, we are currently being sued, accused of “hate speech”. But we Femellistes are not transphobes. On the contrary, in our manifesto, we state explicitly that we recognise the suffering of dysphoric people, as well as the violence that trans people experience. We absolutely understand that.
But we also understand that, in France, feminism is dying. In France, today, if you dare to go on a feminist march and protest for women’s rights, you will be abused. In France, if you write or talk about women’s rights, you will be blacklisted. In France, the birthplace of philosophical feminism, the answer to the question “What is it to be a woman?” is no longer obvious to everyone. But in France, some women are finally daring to fight back.
Main Edition
US
FR
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeGender is the social expression of sex. Ordered or disordered. We are what we are. And do not call me a “cis-gender” male.. I am a man. The social construct absurd theory of sex and gender is a statement of insanity. Literally. The west suffers from a terminal disease.
Whilst i can agree with your main point, i absolutely disagree with your assertion that “the west suffers from a terminal disease”. It’s just plain wrong to give in to such a despairing narrative.
Do as the author of this article is doing: fight back. Don’t give in to the “terminal” agenda, or it becomes a fait accompli. The disease does not have to be terminal. This phase will pass, but only if you refuse to give in to it.
The generation being brainwashed will revolt against it; as they reach a different stage in their lives, and see the devastation caused by those seduced by transgender ideology, they will change course. Just as many young people have flirted with communism in their youth, life experience tempers their outlook and they look back with a sense of amused disbelief at their younger selves.
Above all, the right to free speech must be fought for. The price was, and always will be vigilance. It’s not a cliché.
You are the community now. Be a lamp for yourselves. Be your own refuge. Seek for no other. All things must pass. Strive on diligently. Don’t give up.
Gautama Buddha
“This too shall pass” (Persian: این نیز بگذرد, romanized: īn nīz bogzarad) is a Persian adage translated and used in several languages.[citation needed] It reflects on the temporary nature, or ephemerality, of the human condition — that neither the bad, nor good, moments in life ever indefinitely last. The general sentiment is often expressed in wisdom literature throughout history and across cultures, but the specific phrase seems to have originated in the writings of the medieval Persian Sufi poets.
It is known in the Western world primarily due to a 19th-century retelling of a Persian fable by the English poet Edward FitzGerald:[1]
Tricky aphorism in this context. So too shall traditional and intrinsically binding gender realities and values if we don’t develop arguments for such.
Probably, but we have to make it pass. These paedos and racists have come for our children, and now they’re coming for our bank accounts. We have to stop them.
Tricky aphorism in this context. So too shall traditional and intrinsically binding gender realities and values if we don’t develop arguments for such.
Probably, but we have to make it pass. These paedos and racists have come for our children, and now they’re coming for our bank accounts. We have to stop them.
Unfortunately PB is correct. The West does suffer from a terminal disease. We, Westerners, might beat this disease but we will never be living in the West again. Something new will have to take its place.
Change happens. The West will have to redesign itself but this is very different from wallowing in a “terminal decline” narrative.
Change is necessary due to many factors; technology, globalisation, all the familiar reasons plus some we don’t know about yet. It’s the West’s ability to adapt – evolve – that will keep it strong. That’s why declinism is just useless emoting. Be part of the future rather than rose-tinting the past. We can be better than that.
Thank you Steve, I find your comment strangely uplifting.
Steve’s comment is uplifting, although I don’t think there’s anything particularly strange about this. It’s simply, and rightly, an exhortation not to interpret necessities as impossibilities, i.e. not to despair.
Steve’s comment is uplifting, although I don’t think there’s anything particularly strange about this. It’s simply, and rightly, an exhortation not to interpret necessities as impossibilities, i.e. not to despair.
Yet every civilization dies sooner or later. It does not follow that we don’t go down fighting tho, and who’s can be sure that, against all odds, we don’t somehow save ourselves? IOW one can be gloomy about the situation and still be determined to resist to the last.
That’s right. Pessimism isn’t despair.
That’s right. Pessimism isn’t despair.
What I lacking is the spirit required to temper one’s mind and body . The women engineer who plays hockey, rows or man engineer who boxes or plays rugby have tempered their minds to solve technical problems and their bodies to overcome pain: fortitude has been developed. This makes people resilient, robust, balanced and stable, which affords security. Insecure people cause problems in life.
Two women who have come out against Transgenderism are two top athletes; Davies and Gaines. In Sharon Davies a lady who won a silver and it should have been a gold in Olympics swimming. Sharon Davies used to go out with an Olympic judoka.
Riley Gaines captains a university swimming team which is one of the best in the USA and is married to the captain of the men swimming team. Both women are top athletes yet accept that men have an advantage in sports. Both women are also beautiful.
I would suggest that the women who support Transgenderism in sport have never competed at the top level and therefore do not appreciate the advantage men have.Womens leg have about half the strength of men but their arms about a third. This means men have a massive advantage where upper body strength is required.
Narcissists, Frauds, and Enablers: Trans Women and Women’s Sports | Riley Gaines | EP 356 – YouTube
If we take rugby, judo and boxing , men competeing against women could result in them being killed or crippled.
I would suggest that Transgenderism is about men having a lack respect for themselves as men and women lacking respect for themselves as women due to their lack of accomplishments.
“Riley Gaines … is married to the captain of the men swimming team. Both women are top athletes yet accept that men have an advantage in sports.”
Indeed, I’ve seen footage of her pointing out that her husband would beat her in a race.
“If we take rugby, judo and boxing , men competeing against women could result in them being killed or crippled.”
I don’t think judo would be quite as dangerous as rugby and boxing, but the underlying point is sound. Although there are probably sports in which men and women can compete on more or less equal terms, and which are therefore more accessible to “trans women” – jockeys, darts, snooker, shooting? – nevertheless for many if not most sports men including “trans women” have advantages over women rendering mixed competition unfair and often actively dangerous for women.
“Riley Gaines … is married to the captain of the men swimming team. Both women are top athletes yet accept that men have an advantage in sports.”
Indeed, I’ve seen footage of her pointing out that her husband would beat her in a race.
“If we take rugby, judo and boxing , men competeing against women could result in them being killed or crippled.”
I don’t think judo would be quite as dangerous as rugby and boxing, but the underlying point is sound. Although there are probably sports in which men and women can compete on more or less equal terms, and which are therefore more accessible to “trans women” – jockeys, darts, snooker, shooting? – nevertheless for many if not most sports men including “trans women” have advantages over women rendering mixed competition unfair and often actively dangerous for women.
Demographers report that westerners will reach the critical point of 20% in about one and a half lifetimes. No people has returned from that brink. We are literally a cult devoted to opposing and even killing generations. A cult of death. Narcissistic hedonism was preferred.
You point this out to people and they seem incapable of taking it onboard, you push them and they bluster that it is not true and denounce you as a racist
You point this out to people and they seem incapable of taking it onboard, you push them and they bluster that it is not true and denounce you as a racist
Thank you Steve, I find your comment strangely uplifting.
Yet every civilization dies sooner or later. It does not follow that we don’t go down fighting tho, and who’s can be sure that, against all odds, we don’t somehow save ourselves? IOW one can be gloomy about the situation and still be determined to resist to the last.
What I lacking is the spirit required to temper one’s mind and body . The women engineer who plays hockey, rows or man engineer who boxes or plays rugby have tempered their minds to solve technical problems and their bodies to overcome pain: fortitude has been developed. This makes people resilient, robust, balanced and stable, which affords security. Insecure people cause problems in life.
Two women who have come out against Transgenderism are two top athletes; Davies and Gaines. In Sharon Davies a lady who won a silver and it should have been a gold in Olympics swimming. Sharon Davies used to go out with an Olympic judoka.
Riley Gaines captains a university swimming team which is one of the best in the USA and is married to the captain of the men swimming team. Both women are top athletes yet accept that men have an advantage in sports. Both women are also beautiful.
I would suggest that the women who support Transgenderism in sport have never competed at the top level and therefore do not appreciate the advantage men have.Womens leg have about half the strength of men but their arms about a third. This means men have a massive advantage where upper body strength is required.
Narcissists, Frauds, and Enablers: Trans Women and Women’s Sports | Riley Gaines | EP 356 – YouTube
If we take rugby, judo and boxing , men competeing against women could result in them being killed or crippled.
I would suggest that Transgenderism is about men having a lack respect for themselves as men and women lacking respect for themselves as women due to their lack of accomplishments.
Demographers report that westerners will reach the critical point of 20% in about one and a half lifetimes. No people has returned from that brink. We are literally a cult devoted to opposing and even killing generations. A cult of death. Narcissistic hedonism was preferred.
You are right, Rob, something new shall take place. We must move on,
Change happens. The West will have to redesign itself but this is very different from wallowing in a “terminal decline” narrative.
Change is necessary due to many factors; technology, globalisation, all the familiar reasons plus some we don’t know about yet. It’s the West’s ability to adapt – evolve – that will keep it strong. That’s why declinism is just useless emoting. Be part of the future rather than rose-tinting the past. We can be better than that.
You are right, Rob, something new shall take place. We must move on,
Steve, I admire your hope (unless it’s merely optimism or complacency) and courage. I applaud you for reminding everyone of the need to keep fighting against the barbarians (who are no longer at the gate but within the city). And that’s exactly what I intend to do. Unfortunately, though, I’m not convinced that time is on our side. The interval between moral panics decreases after each one. What follows is not an argument against your advice, only a confession of despair.
I have a friend who tries to avoid taking sides on wokism, let alone transgenderism, by fixating on the rhetoric per se–regardless of its content. She’s fascinated by rhetorical strategies, which ones work and which don’t. Actually, I’m grateful to her for requiring me to think carefully about my own rhetorical strategies, which I could certainly improve. But I want to take this discussion with her a bit further.
My friend often asks me what frightens me about wokism, where exactly it might lead us. In other words, she implies, I’m an alarmist, I’m exaggerating the problem, I’m Chicken Little announcing that the sky is falling. And maybe I am. Maybe I’ll find all of this amusing twenty years from now (if I should live that long). But I can’t help noticing that this argument leaves my friend with no need to take wokism and transgenderism seriously as urgent profound moral problems. Instead, it leaves her feeling justified in assuming that they amount to nothing more than intellectual puzzles or diversions.
I try to explain that the “end”—and I’m not ashamed to admit that I do fear an approaching end—might not come suddenly, like a comet crashing onto Earth (or, for that matter, like a climate apocalypse). Profound cultural change, even civilizational collapse, is often more and more noticeable only after the fact, sometimes generations or even centuries after the fact—and even then mainly to bards, chroniclers, historians or archaeologists. If you lived in Britain during the fourth century, for instance, you might sigh in despair now and then that things must have better or easier in the old days, when grandpa visited the prosperous Roman city of Londinium, or when it was easier to find foreign goods or foods in the market, but you’d still put that aside and carry on with business as usual. Two centuries later, you’d know that the old Roman aqueduct was no longer bringing fresh water to the local well and that magistrates were unable to prevent conflicts between neighbors, but you’d still put that aside and carry on with business as usual. Four centuries later, the Roman Empire was a vague collective memory, foreign marauders were coming ashore every year, Latin was no longer spoken by anyone except the local priest and so forth, but you’d still carry on with business as usual (for want of anything else to do). My point is that disintegration can be a slow process (and doesn’t occur at the same speed in all places), not a sudden catastrophe that destroys everything within the course of one day or one lifetime. But this doesn’t mean that signs of irremediable decline are illusory. Not everything about the past is worth keeping, it’s true, but some things surely are–notably, centuries of collective experience, wisdom and beauty.
And yet my friend replies that, after all, everything is always changing. That’s true, of course, but also trite and evasive in this context. Does “change” really mean nothing more than “new” or “different”? Would a German Jew have thought so in 1933? Is everything new also “improved”? Do things always change for the better? If not, then it’s our duty to warn others of danger.
Of course, there is another possible end to our story: conquest by a more brutal but more dynamic civilization. And this scenario, too, has been common throughout history. I suspect that the Chinese bigwigs are already licking their lips with delight over the West’s bizarre collective suicide. But I can do nothing about that. I can only observe deteriorating conditions here at home.
“Change is inevitable” strikes me as an unserious cop-out as well, a way to bury one’s head in the sand. I’ve never in my life encountered anybody who wants to avoid any changes whatsoever, in their life or in society, so it’s kind of tilting at a non-existent alternative with nobody on the other side.
It’s true in all cases that some things will change, and other things will not – both change and continuity are both inevitable. The question is and always has been about which things to change, and which to retain; and about what direction of change is desirable.
Some degree and kind of change is inevitable, but that doen’t give any guidance on whether a given proposed or actual change is helpful or harmful, or even inevitable versus avoidable.
——
> “no need to take wokism and transgenderism seriously as urgent profound moral problems”
I very much share your concern about what you call wokism (and I call Critical Social Justice ideology). But my focus is less on it as a moral problem – and more on functionality.
I accept that my cultural concept of fairness can differ from somebody else’s, and that a new generation can define what they think is fair. I might find “equal pay for equal work” to be fair, while somebody else might feel that “equal pay for all work” is more fair. My preferences are not sacred and it’s OK for others to differ and change the society over time.
But are they building a new society which will “work”, even for themselves in their own terms?
The new ideology seeking to displace liberalism (whatever one calls it) does not value objectivity, mutual benefit, reciprocity, negotiation, compromise or any degree of “live and let live”. It is deeply based on employing guilt and shame to justify unilateral power and control with no need to be concerned about giving any benefit to the designated oppressors; all benfits must flow to the oppressed. Different rules apply, what’s sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander. It’s OK when our side does it, but not if your side does, because we have the unquestionable moral high ground. The way to get power over others and society is to emphasize your weakness and victimhood, which confers higher status and moral stature, to which others are supposed to yield their own interests and power.
That to me is not a foundation upon which to build a sustainable society. It’s building in the seeds of its own destruction. Every tribe will define its own reality, countenancing no compromise with other tribes. If they can achieve their fantasy of banding all the oppressed tribes together to take down the cis het white male master oppressor – they will turn on each other immediately, and use the same destructive tools against each other that they specialize in. If the former allies have a disagreement, they will strive for the power to silence the other tribe as bigots, rather than engaging with them. The revolution will definitely eat its own.
So I see this new ideology in existential terms, not because they have different preference than I might (no big deal), but because as best I can tell, they are going to bring the whole system crashing down because their simplistic “having the moral high ground trumps reality” orientation will not be able to materially or politically sustain the system which feeds and houses them. Their resistance to reality feedback insures they won’t learn lessons until it’s too late.
I believe that humans as individuals and in small groups are very adaptable, but that today’s highly technological and social mechanisms are much more fragile. Humans will survive, but civilizations may not, and billions will die if the systems fail.
I hope this is too pessimistic, and I’m not saying it’s inevitable that this ideology will win. But if it does win, I think nations and humans are in for a terrible future.
In short it’s their deeply ingrained detachment from reality and reliance on symbolic moral superiority which will (likely) cause collapse if they succeed in taking over, not just different preferences and tastes.
One of my framings is “a dysfunctional and counter-productive policy does not become functional and productive just because somebody devises a way to frame its goals as a high moral cause”. For example, if a policy intended to reduce racial bias in practice is causing it to increase instead, then yelling about how important it is to eliminate racism is not a justification for continuing on a bad course.
If anybody can point to signs that the Critical Social Justice movement is moving towards, say, seeking win/win or mutually respectful compromises, or is adapting well to reality feedback, I’m glad to hear of it.
Thank you so very much Zeph. You haven’t solved the titanic problems that confront our civilization–who can?–but I do feel encouraged nonetheless. I feel less alone than I often do even in the relatively helpful “pages” of UnHerd. Maybe that’s what I want most as a member: not only the pleasure of arguing for its own sake, although I do indeed enjoy that, but the reassurance that I’m not insanely imagining a world that is both morally and intellectually corrupt to a shocking and dangerous degree–that I have contact with other people who actually care about what’s happening.
I’m glad, too, that you draw attention to the practical dimension of, well, survival. I’ve done so many times on UnHerd and always hesitate now before repeating yet again that we do need to think of “change” or social engineering prudently in the context of countless other historical and cross-cultural experiments. We need to build on human experience, not to imagine that we must keep reinventing the wheel. Some cultural strategies have worked better, or worse, than others have.
My only qualm is what looks to me (unless I’ve misinterpreted your words or your emphasis) like relativism. You say that you don’t mind disagreements over “preferences.” Okay, that really is a practical approach to many of the conflicts that are part of daily life for everyone. And yet, as I see it, some preferences really are destructive and therefore dangerous enough to be fought, not tolerated. Allowing neuroticism or stupidity or sentimentality or intimidation to undermine scholarship, for instance, is surely dangerous enough to require defiance. So is allowing revenge to masquerade as justice. Or allowing clinicians to experiment on children in the name of compassion. But you know all this.
I agree with your diagnosis of relativism which is an inheritance of the the overhyped so called “enlightenment” which has , as a significantly materialist philosophy, ignored Aristotle’s two other causes beyond efficient and material causality .
I speak of formal and Final causality. We are in fact only intelligible …and indeed all intelligibility is a function of our formal cause ordered towards the ends and purposes that literally form us.
As in our word “in-form-ation”. Form and matter, the foundations of western sanity and progress in the first European universities , about fifty of them who ushered in the faith inspired respect for reason and the intelligibility of existence.
This formed the basis for science in the west, a wonderful tool that , as we consciously and unconsciously adopt naive materialist views, ironically became an end in itself in the mind of many. The new atheism is a trite example of this naive overgushing.
It is indeed in final causality and a metaphysical grasp of reality that is the only hope for a rational apprehension of being in BEING… God.
It is not an accident , but essential that existence is intelligible and that its intelligibility can be seen in what .. rather who.. .Aquinas rightly named , actus purus.. Pure Act.. the ground of all finite being.
Hume was wrong. His fork rule broke his silly fork rule. Materialism is incoherent by definition. Nothing coheres. Final causality is where we will find Love waiting for us to arrive.
Here philosopher Ed Feser, a former materialist addresses this formal and final causality in the field of neuroscience and how the materialist view is simply inadequate. Great interview. Feser has a real gift of exposition.
https://mindmatters.ai/podcast/ep043/
https://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Revenge-Metaphysical-Foundations-Biological/dp/3868382003?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-osx-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=3868382003#customerReviews
Gosh, Paul, I can hardly believe that this conversation has continued so long! I’m inclined to agree with your critique of relativism from a theological point of view, but I don’t assume that theology—or philosophy, for that matter—is acceptable or even accessible to many readers. Consequently, I rely on a combination of history or anthropology and common sense (although the latter can, of course, present philosophical problems). But I’ll definitely go to those links that you suggest, for which I thank you.
Hi Paul. Thanks for the comment. You mention common sense. Aristotle and Aquinas are our foundation of “common sense”; how we make sense of things.
Postmodernism is literal madness. They spend tens of thousands of words telling us words are only weapons used in power struggles.
Except for their words apparently. Literal insanity. Culture is indeed downstream from philosophy and religion or the absence thereof.
I find western monotheism to be the only radically coherent view. Deism for instance rests upon a naive sense of the nature of time as something linear.
We live the Chinese curse that wishes our lives to be lived in “interesting times.”.
We are literally disintegrating in the fullest sense of that term.
It must be too late by now for a reply, Tom, but here goes–just in case you’re still there.
Yes, postmodernism (and the ideologies that it enables) is a curse.
As for Western monotheism, it is indeed a coherent worldview, as you say, but it’s also much more than a worldview. That’s because religion itself is always more than cognitive. It’s also non-cognitive and therefore experiential. This applies even to Buddhism, which is entirely cognitive (and as wordy as postmodernism) but only at the elite level of philosophers–and even they hope to attain the non-cognitive state of nirvana. I’ve mentioned all this in other comments, but if you want to explore the topic more fully, you can reach me at [email protected]
It must be too late by now for a reply, Tom, but here goes–just in case you’re still there.
Yes, postmodernism (and the ideologies that it enables) is a curse.
As for Western monotheism, it is indeed a coherent worldview, as you say, but it’s also much more than a worldview. That’s because religion itself is always more than cognitive. It’s also non-cognitive and therefore experiential. This applies even to Buddhism, which is entirely cognitive (and as wordy as postmodernism) but only at the elite level of philosophers–and even they hope to attain the non-cognitive state of nirvana. I’ve mentioned all this in other comments, but if you want to explore the topic more fully, you can reach me at [email protected]
Hi Paul. Thanks for the comment. You mention common sense. Aristotle and Aquinas are our foundation of “common sense”; how we make sense of things.
Postmodernism is literal madness. They spend tens of thousands of words telling us words are only weapons used in power struggles.
Except for their words apparently. Literal insanity. Culture is indeed downstream from philosophy and religion or the absence thereof.
I find western monotheism to be the only radically coherent view. Deism for instance rests upon a naive sense of the nature of time as something linear.
We live the Chinese curse that wishes our lives to be lived in “interesting times.”.
We are literally disintegrating in the fullest sense of that term.
Gosh, Paul, I can hardly believe that this conversation has continued so long! I’m inclined to agree with your critique of relativism from a theological point of view, but I don’t assume that theology—or philosophy, for that matter—is acceptable or even accessible to many readers. Consequently, I rely on a combination of history or anthropology and common sense (although the latter can, of course, present philosophical problems). But I’ll definitely go to those links that you suggest, for which I thank you.
I agree with your diagnosis of relativism which is an inheritance of the the overhyped so called “enlightenment” which has , as a significantly materialist philosophy, ignored Aristotle’s two other causes beyond efficient and material causality .
I speak of formal and Final causality. We are in fact only intelligible …and indeed all intelligibility is a function of our formal cause ordered towards the ends and purposes that literally form us.
As in our word “in-form-ation”. Form and matter, the foundations of western sanity and progress in the first European universities , about fifty of them who ushered in the faith inspired respect for reason and the intelligibility of existence.
This formed the basis for science in the west, a wonderful tool that , as we consciously and unconsciously adopt naive materialist views, ironically became an end in itself in the mind of many. The new atheism is a trite example of this naive overgushing.
It is indeed in final causality and a metaphysical grasp of reality that is the only hope for a rational apprehension of being in BEING… God.
It is not an accident , but essential that existence is intelligible and that its intelligibility can be seen in what .. rather who.. .Aquinas rightly named , actus purus.. Pure Act.. the ground of all finite being.
Hume was wrong. His fork rule broke his silly fork rule. Materialism is incoherent by definition. Nothing coheres. Final causality is where we will find Love waiting for us to arrive.
Here philosopher Ed Feser, a former materialist addresses this formal and final causality in the field of neuroscience and how the materialist view is simply inadequate. Great interview. Feser has a real gift of exposition.
https://mindmatters.ai/podcast/ep043/
https://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Revenge-Metaphysical-Foundations-Biological/dp/3868382003?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-osx-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=3868382003#customerReviews
“equal pay for equal work”
The trouble is this is just a slogan and the implementation is always equal pay for unequal work.
“The new ideology …, is deeply based on employing guilt and shame to justify unilateral power and control…”
That is until they are secure enough to employ violence
“If they can achieve their fantasy of banding all the oppressed tribes together to take down the cis het white male master oppressor – they will turn on each other immediately”
This is what we are now witnessing with the left and the feminists.
Thank you so very much Zeph. You haven’t solved the titanic problems that confront our civilization–who can?–but I do feel encouraged nonetheless. I feel less alone than I often do even in the relatively helpful “pages” of UnHerd. Maybe that’s what I want most as a member: not only the pleasure of arguing for its own sake, although I do indeed enjoy that, but the reassurance that I’m not insanely imagining a world that is both morally and intellectually corrupt to a shocking and dangerous degree–that I have contact with other people who actually care about what’s happening.
I’m glad, too, that you draw attention to the practical dimension of, well, survival. I’ve done so many times on UnHerd and always hesitate now before repeating yet again that we do need to think of “change” or social engineering prudently in the context of countless other historical and cross-cultural experiments. We need to build on human experience, not to imagine that we must keep reinventing the wheel. Some cultural strategies have worked better, or worse, than others have.
My only qualm is what looks to me (unless I’ve misinterpreted your words or your emphasis) like relativism. You say that you don’t mind disagreements over “preferences.” Okay, that really is a practical approach to many of the conflicts that are part of daily life for everyone. And yet, as I see it, some preferences really are destructive and therefore dangerous enough to be fought, not tolerated. Allowing neuroticism or stupidity or sentimentality or intimidation to undermine scholarship, for instance, is surely dangerous enough to require defiance. So is allowing revenge to masquerade as justice. Or allowing clinicians to experiment on children in the name of compassion. But you know all this.
“equal pay for equal work”
The trouble is this is just a slogan and the implementation is always equal pay for unequal work.
“The new ideology …, is deeply based on employing guilt and shame to justify unilateral power and control…”
That is until they are secure enough to employ violence
“If they can achieve their fantasy of banding all the oppressed tribes together to take down the cis het white male master oppressor – they will turn on each other immediately”
This is what we are now witnessing with the left and the feminists.
Good exposition of current matters across a former millennium. Thank you.
I thank you, Alan. My comment included a kind of “thought experiment,” which makes it easier than it would be otherwise to see the current situation in a larger perspective. I didn’t mention the “up” side of Rome’s collapse. Eventually, after all, the West revived much of what had been lost. But the prototype of “resurrection” is not easy to sustain for those who reject theology.
I thank you, Alan. My comment included a kind of “thought experiment,” which makes it easier than it would be otherwise to see the current situation in a larger perspective. I didn’t mention the “up” side of Rome’s collapse. Eventually, after all, the West revived much of what had been lost. But the prototype of “resurrection” is not easy to sustain for those who reject theology.
I have been thinking along these same lines, plus my “gut instinct” is telling me loudly and clearly that there is a death happening. I have lost loved ones, and I know what grieving feels like.
Yes, Apo, and that’s a significant addition to the very point that I was trying to make. Even if we could assume that some brilliant new civilization were now in its embryonic stage (which is not self-evident), that would still not prevent many of us from grieving over what is being lost. And grief over the loss of wisdom and beauty (or friends and family) is hardly to be explained away as sentimentality, neuroticism or cowardice. On the contrary, it’s surely a measure of value. And that, in turn, is measure of our humanity. I don’t like even to imagine a world in which transience, or “change,” becomes an end in itself.
Yes, Apo, and that’s a significant addition to the very point that I was trying to make. Even if we could assume that some brilliant new civilization were now in its embryonic stage (which is not self-evident), that would still not prevent many of us from grieving over what is being lost. And grief over the loss of wisdom and beauty (or friends and family) is hardly to be explained away as sentimentality, neuroticism or cowardice. On the contrary, it’s surely a measure of value. And that, in turn, is measure of our humanity. I don’t like even to imagine a world in which transience, or “change,” becomes an end in itself.
“Change is inevitable” strikes me as an unserious cop-out as well, a way to bury one’s head in the sand. I’ve never in my life encountered anybody who wants to avoid any changes whatsoever, in their life or in society, so it’s kind of tilting at a non-existent alternative with nobody on the other side.
It’s true in all cases that some things will change, and other things will not – both change and continuity are both inevitable. The question is and always has been about which things to change, and which to retain; and about what direction of change is desirable.
Some degree and kind of change is inevitable, but that doen’t give any guidance on whether a given proposed or actual change is helpful or harmful, or even inevitable versus avoidable.
——
> “no need to take wokism and transgenderism seriously as urgent profound moral problems”
I very much share your concern about what you call wokism (and I call Critical Social Justice ideology). But my focus is less on it as a moral problem – and more on functionality.
I accept that my cultural concept of fairness can differ from somebody else’s, and that a new generation can define what they think is fair. I might find “equal pay for equal work” to be fair, while somebody else might feel that “equal pay for all work” is more fair. My preferences are not sacred and it’s OK for others to differ and change the society over time.
But are they building a new society which will “work”, even for themselves in their own terms?
The new ideology seeking to displace liberalism (whatever one calls it) does not value objectivity, mutual benefit, reciprocity, negotiation, compromise or any degree of “live and let live”. It is deeply based on employing guilt and shame to justify unilateral power and control with no need to be concerned about giving any benefit to the designated oppressors; all benfits must flow to the oppressed. Different rules apply, what’s sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander. It’s OK when our side does it, but not if your side does, because we have the unquestionable moral high ground. The way to get power over others and society is to emphasize your weakness and victimhood, which confers higher status and moral stature, to which others are supposed to yield their own interests and power.
That to me is not a foundation upon which to build a sustainable society. It’s building in the seeds of its own destruction. Every tribe will define its own reality, countenancing no compromise with other tribes. If they can achieve their fantasy of banding all the oppressed tribes together to take down the cis het white male master oppressor – they will turn on each other immediately, and use the same destructive tools against each other that they specialize in. If the former allies have a disagreement, they will strive for the power to silence the other tribe as bigots, rather than engaging with them. The revolution will definitely eat its own.
So I see this new ideology in existential terms, not because they have different preference than I might (no big deal), but because as best I can tell, they are going to bring the whole system crashing down because their simplistic “having the moral high ground trumps reality” orientation will not be able to materially or politically sustain the system which feeds and houses them. Their resistance to reality feedback insures they won’t learn lessons until it’s too late.
I believe that humans as individuals and in small groups are very adaptable, but that today’s highly technological and social mechanisms are much more fragile. Humans will survive, but civilizations may not, and billions will die if the systems fail.
I hope this is too pessimistic, and I’m not saying it’s inevitable that this ideology will win. But if it does win, I think nations and humans are in for a terrible future.
In short it’s their deeply ingrained detachment from reality and reliance on symbolic moral superiority which will (likely) cause collapse if they succeed in taking over, not just different preferences and tastes.
One of my framings is “a dysfunctional and counter-productive policy does not become functional and productive just because somebody devises a way to frame its goals as a high moral cause”. For example, if a policy intended to reduce racial bias in practice is causing it to increase instead, then yelling about how important it is to eliminate racism is not a justification for continuing on a bad course.
If anybody can point to signs that the Critical Social Justice movement is moving towards, say, seeking win/win or mutually respectful compromises, or is adapting well to reality feedback, I’m glad to hear of it.
Good exposition of current matters across a former millennium. Thank you.
I have been thinking along these same lines, plus my “gut instinct” is telling me loudly and clearly that there is a death happening. I have lost loved ones, and I know what grieving feels like.
Thank you for this comment, Steve. I feel despaired sometimes when I think how harmful this compelled speech is to our youth and future children especially, but I will take this perspective and keep going.
I have to disagree with them revolting when they reach a certain age. Every generation since Millennials has been thoroughly indoctrinated in the public education system; not merely influenced but indoctrinated like a cult does. Because of this they don’t have what’s necessary to break free at least not on their own. if anything we need to vastly expand the number of mental institutions and get these people into those so they can get help. If we don’t stop them they will destroy society from within via incompetence.
Well said, sir! I have a tendency to terminal gloom – but respond to folks like you who show spirit and a determination to fight against the evil that has enshrouded us all.
We are a degenerate cult-ure. Literally against generation. We literally kill the next generation in our “hospitals” which used to be places of hospitable nurture and care.
Degenerate cults like ours… degenerate. Die. By self inflicted and mortal wounds. “Gender, genitals , generation, degenerate.. all derive from the literal generation of life. We are a culture of degenerates.
One rather hoped that with Britain’s exit from the EU Europe would be free of American poison
You are the community now. Be a lamp for yourselves. Be your own refuge. Seek for no other. All things must pass. Strive on diligently. Don’t give up.
Gautama Buddha
“This too shall pass” (Persian: این نیز بگذرد, romanized: īn nīz bogzarad) is a Persian adage translated and used in several languages.[citation needed] It reflects on the temporary nature, or ephemerality, of the human condition — that neither the bad, nor good, moments in life ever indefinitely last. The general sentiment is often expressed in wisdom literature throughout history and across cultures, but the specific phrase seems to have originated in the writings of the medieval Persian Sufi poets.
It is known in the Western world primarily due to a 19th-century retelling of a Persian fable by the English poet Edward FitzGerald:[1]
Unfortunately PB is correct. The West does suffer from a terminal disease. We, Westerners, might beat this disease but we will never be living in the West again. Something new will have to take its place.
Steve, I admire your hope (unless it’s merely optimism or complacency) and courage. I applaud you for reminding everyone of the need to keep fighting against the barbarians (who are no longer at the gate but within the city). And that’s exactly what I intend to do. Unfortunately, though, I’m not convinced that time is on our side. The interval between moral panics decreases after each one. What follows is not an argument against your advice, only a confession of despair.
I have a friend who tries to avoid taking sides on wokism, let alone transgenderism, by fixating on the rhetoric per se–regardless of its content. She’s fascinated by rhetorical strategies, which ones work and which don’t. Actually, I’m grateful to her for requiring me to think carefully about my own rhetorical strategies, which I could certainly improve. But I want to take this discussion with her a bit further.
My friend often asks me what frightens me about wokism, where exactly it might lead us. In other words, she implies, I’m an alarmist, I’m exaggerating the problem, I’m Chicken Little announcing that the sky is falling. And maybe I am. Maybe I’ll find all of this amusing twenty years from now (if I should live that long). But I can’t help noticing that this argument leaves my friend with no need to take wokism and transgenderism seriously as urgent profound moral problems. Instead, it leaves her feeling justified in assuming that they amount to nothing more than intellectual puzzles or diversions.
I try to explain that the “end”—and I’m not ashamed to admit that I do fear an approaching end—might not come suddenly, like a comet crashing onto Earth (or, for that matter, like a climate apocalypse). Profound cultural change, even civilizational collapse, is often more and more noticeable only after the fact, sometimes generations or even centuries after the fact—and even then mainly to bards, chroniclers, historians or archaeologists. If you lived in Britain during the fourth century, for instance, you might sigh in despair now and then that things must have better or easier in the old days, when grandpa visited the prosperous Roman city of Londinium, or when it was easier to find foreign goods or foods in the market, but you’d still put that aside and carry on with business as usual. Two centuries later, you’d know that the old Roman aqueduct was no longer bringing fresh water to the local well and that magistrates were unable to prevent conflicts between neighbors, but you’d still put that aside and carry on with business as usual. Four centuries later, the Roman Empire was a vague collective memory, foreign marauders were coming ashore every year, Latin was no longer spoken by anyone except the local priest and so forth, but you’d still carry on with business as usual (for want of anything else to do). My point is that disintegration can be a slow process (and doesn’t occur at the same speed in all places), not a sudden catastrophe that destroys everything within the course of one day or one lifetime. But this doesn’t mean that signs of irremediable decline are illusory. Not everything about the past is worth keeping, it’s true, but some things surely are–notably, centuries of collective experience, wisdom and beauty.
And yet my friend replies that, after all, everything is always changing. That’s true, of course, but also trite and evasive in this context. Does “change” really mean nothing more than “new” or “different”? Would a German Jew have thought so in 1933? Is everything new also “improved”? Do things always change for the better? If not, then it’s our duty to warn others of danger.
Of course, there is another possible end to our story: conquest by a more brutal but more dynamic civilization. And this scenario, too, has been common throughout history. I suspect that the Chinese bigwigs are already licking their lips with delight over the West’s bizarre collective suicide. But I can do nothing about that. I can only observe deteriorating conditions here at home.
Thank you for this comment, Steve. I feel despaired sometimes when I think how harmful this compelled speech is to our youth and future children especially, but I will take this perspective and keep going.
I have to disagree with them revolting when they reach a certain age. Every generation since Millennials has been thoroughly indoctrinated in the public education system; not merely influenced but indoctrinated like a cult does. Because of this they don’t have what’s necessary to break free at least not on their own. if anything we need to vastly expand the number of mental institutions and get these people into those so they can get help. If we don’t stop them they will destroy society from within via incompetence.
Well said, sir! I have a tendency to terminal gloom – but respond to folks like you who show spirit and a determination to fight against the evil that has enshrouded us all.
We are a degenerate cult-ure. Literally against generation. We literally kill the next generation in our “hospitals” which used to be places of hospitable nurture and care.
Degenerate cults like ours… degenerate. Die. By self inflicted and mortal wounds. “Gender, genitals , generation, degenerate.. all derive from the literal generation of life. We are a culture of degenerates.
One rather hoped that with Britain’s exit from the EU Europe would be free of American poison
Parents of children are far less radical. Europe’s demographic decline is feeding its social decline. One is the terminal disease. The other is a symptom.
There is no such thing as gender, only sex. Of which there are two. No one can change their sex.
We should not use the vocabulary of the other side.
Thanks Matt. We are in agreement. Gender is the social expression of one’s sex. It is not a freefloating “identity”. To illustrate; boys don’t wear dresses or carry sanitary pads in a purse. And they don’t look for women who are taller than they are. These are sex based gender differences. Its the only legitimate understanding I am aware of. I understand your cautionary advice. The ultimate answer lies in what Aquinas called, Final Causality, the end or purpose of things that also explains interrelated ness and why beauty is a function of purpose.
Thanks Matt. We are in agreement. Gender is the social expression of one’s sex. It is not a freefloating “identity”. To illustrate; boys don’t wear dresses or carry sanitary pads in a purse. And they don’t look for women who are taller than they are. These are sex based gender differences. Its the only legitimate understanding I am aware of. I understand your cautionary advice. The ultimate answer lies in what Aquinas called, Final Causality, the end or purpose of things that also explains interrelated ness and why beauty is a function of purpose.
Whilst i can agree with your main point, i absolutely disagree with your assertion that “the west suffers from a terminal disease”. It’s just plain wrong to give in to such a despairing narrative.
Do as the author of this article is doing: fight back. Don’t give in to the “terminal” agenda, or it becomes a fait accompli. The disease does not have to be terminal. This phase will pass, but only if you refuse to give in to it.
The generation being brainwashed will revolt against it; as they reach a different stage in their lives, and see the devastation caused by those seduced by transgender ideology, they will change course. Just as many young people have flirted with communism in their youth, life experience tempers their outlook and they look back with a sense of amused disbelief at their younger selves.
Above all, the right to free speech must be fought for. The price was, and always will be vigilance. It’s not a cliché.
Parents of children are far less radical. Europe’s demographic decline is feeding its social decline. One is the terminal disease. The other is a symptom.
There is no such thing as gender, only sex. Of which there are two. No one can change their sex.
We should not use the vocabulary of the other side.
Gender is the social expression of sex. Ordered or disordered. We are what we are. And do not call me a “cis-gender” male.. I am a man. The social construct absurd theory of sex and gender is a statement of insanity. Literally. The west suffers from a terminal disease.
As a man, I’m not sure what I personally can do about this. Even the women in my family believe men can be women, but when I ask how they get to that conclusion, I am met with vitriolic fury and branded a hateful person. For some reason this issue seems to skip over female logic processes and slide straight into their amygdala.
I’m now left with the question that if we can’t trust women to defend their own sex, what can we actually trust them with?
Overall I have lost my faith in women and pretty much avoid them whenever I can. I no longer feel safe to express any honest thought or opinion around them. I’m not sure how it came about but I’m beginning to find a lot of them alien and totalitarian in their way of thinking.
Hysteria and hyperbole are shared equally by both sexes unfortunately.
Perhaps. It is hard to to be objective when you fundamentally disagree with loved ones on what were once considered basic biological facts. This nonsense has sown so much division between people.
Perhaps that is the aim?
I don’t think that there is a malign intelligence pulling the strings from behind a curtain. Nonetheless, the woke scum do always seem to be utterly sociopathic.
I don’t think that there is a malign intelligence pulling the strings from behind a curtain. Nonetheless, the woke scum do always seem to be utterly sociopathic.
Perhaps that is the aim?
Perhaps. It is hard to to be objective when you fundamentally disagree with loved ones on what were once considered basic biological facts. This nonsense has sown so much division between people.
Perhaps the women in your life are responding to your sense of misplaced superiority? It’s not called patronising for nothing.
Don’t ask me why many women are allies to men aping women, perhaps they at a glance are superficially flattered and are warned off looking deeper as they can see where that gets them. Perhaps many see identifying as men legally gives them rights they have failed to get fighting? Perhaps by becoming transmen girls avoid the unwanted attentions of men. I can assure you that when I was a girl I was very scared of strange men who could behave in a mysterious manner both laughing and imposing. It’s hard to explain the fear.
I don’t know why some celebrated women obsess with their looks, but there is the clue.. humans are vain and females get more attention for behaving that way from men.
The sex we are born with is a very basic fact of life which we have to deal with, in the same way we have no control on when or where or if we are born. We don’t choose our sex. You can be sure of one thing though, none of us would be living without the care of a woman. Grow up have some respect.
Those points are almost certainly the psychological drivers behind the trans phenomenon. It’s the realisation of this on the part of men that needs to happen.
Sorry, I’m not following.
Could you summarize more specifically what “men” need to realize, which will end the trans phenomenon?
For example, are you suggesting that if more men realized that they would never have been born without the help of (biological) women, that would somehow remove the motivation behind the whole trans movement? Or if not that, what are you suggesting as the realization that men need to have, and the mechanism by which that would reduce or eliminate the “trans phenomenon”?
Sorry, I’m not following.
Could you summarize more specifically what “men” need to realize, which will end the trans phenomenon?
For example, are you suggesting that if more men realized that they would never have been born without the help of (biological) women, that would somehow remove the motivation behind the whole trans movement? Or if not that, what are you suggesting as the realization that men need to have, and the mechanism by which that would reduce or eliminate the “trans phenomenon”?
I am not sure what point you are making, but I think I agree with you, except for the part about girls wanting to be men. From what I gather much of it stems from personal trauma or need for negative attention.
It was your decision to dismiss women in future. How you have lost your faith in them. Such a sweeping statement which I found exasperating.
I’m trapped in it too. Largely for rational reasons ( eg my design work is political, the outlets I sell to will not dare to accept gender critical work though they contact me privately to say how difficult it is).
It’s time women tried to claw back respect for their sex, at the moment being a girl looks terrifying and sexually humiliating. Just don’t give up on women Julian, that’s all I meant. It’s tough.
Both sexes are floundering at present. Gender stereotyping is largely to blame, but so popular and monetised. Perhaps out of the chaos reality will re-emerge. We can only hope.
Even a book about the silence of the bloodiness of childbirth, recently published, had the caveat in the review that it was for women …and any other person male or female! Totally bonkers and no one speaks.
Both sexes of bullies must be challenged somehow, to blame it just on women is so wrong though. In fact it is male TRA’s who are masked and at the forefront of the aggression, the mockery and misogyny.
We have to help each other over this and I’m glad you are trying to express your views to your nearest and dearest. I have the same problem. Silenced by my daughter who gets angry with me, politely ignored by friends and son…I’m sorry I responded at the end by being equally dismissive.
Good withdrawal in the last sentence. Males are frequently not the misandrists that some people (not you) find it convenient to paint them.
.
I am one of many males who have reluctantly concluded that the recent trans/gender melee was probably a product of feminism 3.0 and we don’t really understand why it was predominantly women (writers?) that kicked it off.
“fact it is male TRA’s who are masked and at the forefront of the aggression, the mockery and misogyny.”
And that highlights another problem commonly displayed by women and their “white knights” – a lack of accountability.
“Misogynist” men put in place women’s sports, spaces, separate toilets a century back or more.
Why do you think it’s only NOW that masked men are barging into these spaces?
The power behind them, the reason a few trans “women” can get away with it?
Just like the grooming gangs in Britain, the otherwise most loudmouthed and cocky women in society are the ones supporting the worst of men en masse….
“time women tried to claw back respect for their sex”
Just like men, respect has to be earned, not granted.
Tommy Robinson, Andrew Norfolk, Matt Walsh, the ordinary guys who no longer drink Bud light…all men.
And what about the women? Maybe 80% of upper class college educated women support trans, and the other 20% are still whining about “misogyny”.
Thanks to all the above men for an interesting discussion.
The reason many women support the trans movement is we are psychologically pre -disposed to think of others feelings. Feelings being the operative word. The Woke are about feelings, not reason. The trans use feelings as a weapon to recruit women into their camp. Unfortunately it works.
Many women do understand what is happening. When we stand against the current erasure of women we fight back. In doing so we are attacked by the trans mobs, mostly men but sadly too many are women.
Misogyny must be recognized as a factor in the attack on women. So I ask those of you who care about women and the truth of biology to stand with us. We are outnumbered. We need you.
Good withdrawal in the last sentence. Males are frequently not the misandrists that some people (not you) find it convenient to paint them.
.
I am one of many males who have reluctantly concluded that the recent trans/gender melee was probably a product of feminism 3.0 and we don’t really understand why it was predominantly women (writers?) that kicked it off.
“fact it is male TRA’s who are masked and at the forefront of the aggression, the mockery and misogyny.”
And that highlights another problem commonly displayed by women and their “white knights” – a lack of accountability.
“Misogynist” men put in place women’s sports, spaces, separate toilets a century back or more.
Why do you think it’s only NOW that masked men are barging into these spaces?
The power behind them, the reason a few trans “women” can get away with it?
Just like the grooming gangs in Britain, the otherwise most loudmouthed and cocky women in society are the ones supporting the worst of men en masse….
“time women tried to claw back respect for their sex”
Just like men, respect has to be earned, not granted.
Tommy Robinson, Andrew Norfolk, Matt Walsh, the ordinary guys who no longer drink Bud light…all men.
And what about the women? Maybe 80% of upper class college educated women support trans, and the other 20% are still whining about “misogyny”.
Thanks to all the above men for an interesting discussion.
The reason many women support the trans movement is we are psychologically pre -disposed to think of others feelings. Feelings being the operative word. The Woke are about feelings, not reason. The trans use feelings as a weapon to recruit women into their camp. Unfortunately it works.
Many women do understand what is happening. When we stand against the current erasure of women we fight back. In doing so we are attacked by the trans mobs, mostly men but sadly too many are women.
Misogyny must be recognized as a factor in the attack on women. So I ask those of you who care about women and the truth of biology to stand with us. We are outnumbered. We need you.
It was your decision to dismiss women in future. How you have lost your faith in them. Such a sweeping statement which I found exasperating.
I’m trapped in it too. Largely for rational reasons ( eg my design work is political, the outlets I sell to will not dare to accept gender critical work though they contact me privately to say how difficult it is).
It’s time women tried to claw back respect for their sex, at the moment being a girl looks terrifying and sexually humiliating. Just don’t give up on women Julian, that’s all I meant. It’s tough.
Both sexes are floundering at present. Gender stereotyping is largely to blame, but so popular and monetised. Perhaps out of the chaos reality will re-emerge. We can only hope.
Even a book about the silence of the bloodiness of childbirth, recently published, had the caveat in the review that it was for women …and any other person male or female! Totally bonkers and no one speaks.
Both sexes of bullies must be challenged somehow, to blame it just on women is so wrong though. In fact it is male TRA’s who are masked and at the forefront of the aggression, the mockery and misogyny.
We have to help each other over this and I’m glad you are trying to express your views to your nearest and dearest. I have the same problem. Silenced by my daughter who gets angry with me, politely ignored by friends and son…I’m sorry I responded at the end by being equally dismissive.
“ Perhaps by becoming transmen girls avoid the unwanted attentions of men.”
Maybe but a lot of mental disorders in pubescent girls are related to puberty. Supporting this ideology means that a confused girl who thinks she’s a trans girl has to be treated like one.
“ I can assure you that when I was a girl I was very scared of strange men who could behave in a mysterious manner both laughing and imposing. It’s hard to explain the fear.”
Well those guys are in female spaces now. Well done.
Your response is why I don’t take feminism, or women’s attitudes to trans, seriously. Or rather, in public life, I bow out. Most men in private conversation are opposed to this nonsense, but many don’t yell their wives and female friends because of the fear of a hysterical reaction.( No doubt if it blows over the patriarchy will be blamed.)
But I see it as a female fight, and in response here you attacked a guy, rather than the females who are largely pushing this ideology (along with very weird men).
Luckily I have no daughters.
When I see someone suggesting another person should “grow up” and accuses them of being “patronising” my initial reaction is that they should probably look in a mirror.
Those points are almost certainly the psychological drivers behind the trans phenomenon. It’s the realisation of this on the part of men that needs to happen.
I am not sure what point you are making, but I think I agree with you, except for the part about girls wanting to be men. From what I gather much of it stems from personal trauma or need for negative attention.
“ Perhaps by becoming transmen girls avoid the unwanted attentions of men.”
Maybe but a lot of mental disorders in pubescent girls are related to puberty. Supporting this ideology means that a confused girl who thinks she’s a trans girl has to be treated like one.
“ I can assure you that when I was a girl I was very scared of strange men who could behave in a mysterious manner both laughing and imposing. It’s hard to explain the fear.”
Well those guys are in female spaces now. Well done.
Your response is why I don’t take feminism, or women’s attitudes to trans, seriously. Or rather, in public life, I bow out. Most men in private conversation are opposed to this nonsense, but many don’t yell their wives and female friends because of the fear of a hysterical reaction.( No doubt if it blows over the patriarchy will be blamed.)
But I see it as a female fight, and in response here you attacked a guy, rather than the females who are largely pushing this ideology (along with very weird men).
Luckily I have no daughters.
When I see someone suggesting another person should “grow up” and accuses them of being “patronising” my initial reaction is that they should probably look in a mirror.
I am a woman and yet to a great extent I agree with you.
Same here – I’m a woman (I have a cervix – I don’t need a prefix!) who despairs at what other women now seem to be supporting, and don’t get me started on “feminists” …
That’s funny
I thought so too, and it’s catchy!
I thought so too, and it’s catchy!
That’s funny
Same here – I’m a woman (I have a cervix – I don’t need a prefix!) who despairs at what other women now seem to be supporting, and don’t get me started on “feminists” …
I used to be flummoxed, as to why women were cheering this on. It was only slowly that I understood as I got deeper into the Terf wars myself. Women are very fond of being seen as not only, the fairer sex, but also the sweeter. If you are a TERF as I most certainly am, then getting into regular scraps is part of it. You are now seen a nasty rough sort, not a nice girl at all really.
Who wants to be a nice girl. People walk all over you. Be a dragon lady.
That’s what we women have to do now to keep our rights from being annihilated by a very small, noisy and violent minority that isn’t really representing the majority of their group.
I have nothing against transsexuals quietly leading their own lives free of harassment, etc. On the other hand, the strident and violent minority, along with their accomplices, doesn’t have the right to destroy all the hard earned rights of biological women and reshape the reality of two biological sexes to the ideals of their fantasy world.
Hopefully this is a phase that will pass. There are far more important and urgent issues in the personal and public arenas than require immediate attention.
Well said.
Those same French post-modern philosophers (Sartre, De Beauvoir, Derrida, Foucault…) who signed a pro-paedophilia petition in the respectable Le Monde in the 70s! The intellectual “laissez-faire” philosophy is still alive and well in France and feeds directly into the egregious trans ideology.Bon courage, Madame Doutot, in your fight against this scourge. I support you.
Postmodernism is the literal expression of insanity. And harnessed to power. As utterly antirational it is all about the will. Narcissism. Narcissistic materialism.
The antidote can only be natural law. We are rational free willed beings in a meaningful cosmos.
Western monotheism is the road to sanity for indeed our cosmos is no accident and indeed freedom is seen even in quantum action at a distance.
We have free wills and intellect whose acts are not reducible to material causes. This is what “spiritual” means. Active powers which are not reducible to matter. Our minds and will are, as we experience, the ordering principle of the material.
Religious sanity is the real world and therefor its only hope.
Postmodernism is the literal expression of insanity. And harnessed to power. As utterly antirational it is all about the will. Narcissism. Narcissistic materialism.
The antidote can only be natural law. We are rational free willed beings in a meaningful cosmos.
Western monotheism is the road to sanity for indeed our cosmos is no accident and indeed freedom is seen even in quantum action at a distance.
We have free wills and intellect whose acts are not reducible to material causes. This is what “spiritual” means. Active powers which are not reducible to matter. Our minds and will are, as we experience, the ordering principle of the material.
Religious sanity is the real world and therefor its only hope.
Well said.
Those same French post-modern philosophers (Sartre, De Beauvoir, Derrida, Foucault…) who signed a pro-paedophilia petition in the respectable Le Monde in the 70s! The intellectual “laissez-faire” philosophy is still alive and well in France and feeds directly into the egregious trans ideology.Bon courage, Madame Doutot, in your fight against this scourge. I support you.
“Women are very fond of being seen as not only, the fairer sex, but also the sweeter.”
That’s just half the answer.
The other part is, down to their true nature.
What kind of person would support something like this? Brutish men beating up or injuring women in “sports”, allowing rapists in female jails, mutilation of young girls?
It’s the same kind of people who would disparage male contributions to society or families, disrespect men who die fighting for country, mock male suicides, gloss over male victims of DV….
If a bunch of people don’t have any loyalty towards their own sons, fathers, husbands….why should they have any sympathy for some random woman who just happens to have the same chromosomes and genitals?
So what is women’s “true nature”, pray tell, since you seem to be a (male) expert? Why don’t you leave the business of women to women and the men who support them out of respect for other human beings?! Jugding by your, hummm, knowledge, “you know nothing, Samir Iker”.
So what is women’s “true nature”, pray tell, since you seem to be a (male) expert? Why don’t you leave the business of women to women and the men who support them out of respect for other human beings?! Jugding by your, hummm, knowledge, “you know nothing, Samir Iker”.
Who wants to be a nice girl. People walk all over you. Be a dragon lady.
That’s what we women have to do now to keep our rights from being annihilated by a very small, noisy and violent minority that isn’t really representing the majority of their group.
I have nothing against transsexuals quietly leading their own lives free of harassment, etc. On the other hand, the strident and violent minority, along with their accomplices, doesn’t have the right to destroy all the hard earned rights of biological women and reshape the reality of two biological sexes to the ideals of their fantasy world.
Hopefully this is a phase that will pass. There are far more important and urgent issues in the personal and public arenas than require immediate attention.
“Women are very fond of being seen as not only, the fairer sex, but also the sweeter.”
That’s just half the answer.
The other part is, down to their true nature.
What kind of person would support something like this? Brutish men beating up or injuring women in “sports”, allowing rapists in female jails, mutilation of young girls?
It’s the same kind of people who would disparage male contributions to society or families, disrespect men who die fighting for country, mock male suicides, gloss over male victims of DV….
If a bunch of people don’t have any loyalty towards their own sons, fathers, husbands….why should they have any sympathy for some random woman who just happens to have the same chromosomes and genitals?
Women tend to be high in the trait of agreeableness. And women more than men derive their sense of purpose and status from belonging to an in-group.
As such, I’d argue they’ve always been key in setting purity tests for belonging and in creating social penalties for transgressors.
And all evidence is that, as a group, there is a critical mass of women useful idiots that will support the prevailing consensus and undermine their own autonomy and freedom, and do so in exchange for being “validated by the group”
It’s not a coincidence that the biggest supporters of FGM are women earning their status and belonging in society by enforcing compliance and suffering among young girls.
I’m a woman with a very low level of agreeableness as a trait :). Perhaps this explains my stance on all of this – as in I have no time for any of it.
I second that.
Make that three of us.
Make that three of us.
I second that.
As a Jordan Peterson admirer I am inclined to agree with the idea that women tend to be high on trait agreeableness but the vitriolic fury which Julian Farrows faces when he seeks to debate whether a man can become a woman from the women in his life rather suggests that his women are not high in agreeableness.
Again although my wife tends to complain if I express an unconventional view she and I are of the same view on the absurdity of the idea that people can actually become the sex they were not born to by self declaration or self mutilation. While it is particularly curious that women will support an ideology that potentially disadvantages them and their sex I think both men and women are conformists within the particular groups they identify with. Clearly Julian Farrows’s women identify with a different group to my wife and the fact that they are women may not be particularly significant in the respective sides of the Trans argument they adopt.
I think it has to do with the niceness Sally mentions in her comment above. Most women I speak to just think it’s men wearing dresses and where is the harm in that?
However a few weeks ago I accidentally happened to find myself in the middle of a gay pride parade. The whole thing was awful, but what really turned my stomach was the float with the transmen. It was full of young girls proudly baring their mastectomy scars. It quite literally turned my stomach. They would have been quite pretty otherwise and I wondered how many of them would experience deep regret in later years.
“They would have been quite pretty otherwise”. Male gaze
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I’m not talking about me finding them pretty or not; I mean that they would have been beautiful in their own right.
Thanks for clarifying Julian.
Thanks for clarifying Julian.
Well maybe. But you will find out if that is the only issue in decades to come.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I’m not talking about me finding them pretty or not; I mean that they would have been beautiful in their own right.
Well maybe. But you will find out if that is the only issue in decades to come.
“They would have been quite pretty otherwise”. Male gaze
hayden eastwood mentioned not only agreeableness but also women more than men deriving their sense of purpose and status from belonging to an in-group. That would account for the vitriol Julian has received. It’s a strange situation where being agreeable only applies to in-group high status viewpoints, and my sex spits like cats at outsiders.
One piece of research I found very interesting, is that people who rate high on some empathy scales, can be especially vicious – when they perceive themselves as defending perceived weak members of their in-group (where the in-group could be “on the same side” rather than “same group as the person in question”).
That is, they are operating out of what I call “tribal empathy” rather than universal empathy. In fact, I suspect (but do not have studies to support) that perceiving oneself as acting on somebody else’s behalf rather than from self-interest may potentiate the dynamic, by framings it as more pure.
The same people can both be very empathetic towards one group, and very good at numbing their empathy when dealing with dehumanized opponents in another group.
I’ve come to believe that any movement which promotes that one’s superior moral status exempts one from reciprocity, is dangerous.
I’ve heard it said that over-sentimentality and cruelty often go hand-in-hand.
That’s very apt, and explains a lot.
I’ve heard it said that over-sentimentality and cruelty often go hand-in-hand.
That’s very apt, and explains a lot.
Exactly. We’re all different personality types.
As a Jordan Peterson admirer…. that is exactly where I stopped reading your comment. I have NO time for that quack.
I think it has to do with the niceness Sally mentions in her comment above. Most women I speak to just think it’s men wearing dresses and where is the harm in that?
However a few weeks ago I accidentally happened to find myself in the middle of a gay pride parade. The whole thing was awful, but what really turned my stomach was the float with the transmen. It was full of young girls proudly baring their mastectomy scars. It quite literally turned my stomach. They would have been quite pretty otherwise and I wondered how many of them would experience deep regret in later years.
hayden eastwood mentioned not only agreeableness but also women more than men deriving their sense of purpose and status from belonging to an in-group. That would account for the vitriol Julian has received. It’s a strange situation where being agreeable only applies to in-group high status viewpoints, and my sex spits like cats at outsiders.
One piece of research I found very interesting, is that people who rate high on some empathy scales, can be especially vicious – when they perceive themselves as defending perceived weak members of their in-group (where the in-group could be “on the same side” rather than “same group as the person in question”).
That is, they are operating out of what I call “tribal empathy” rather than universal empathy. In fact, I suspect (but do not have studies to support) that perceiving oneself as acting on somebody else’s behalf rather than from self-interest may potentiate the dynamic, by framings it as more pure.
The same people can both be very empathetic towards one group, and very good at numbing their empathy when dealing with dehumanized opponents in another group.
I’ve come to believe that any movement which promotes that one’s superior moral status exempts one from reciprocity, is dangerous.
Exactly. We’re all different personality types.
As a Jordan Peterson admirer…. that is exactly where I stopped reading your comment. I have NO time for that quack.
I’m a woman with a very low level of agreeableness as a trait :). Perhaps this explains my stance on all of this – as in I have no time for any of it.
As a Jordan Peterson admirer I am inclined to agree with the idea that women tend to be high on trait agreeableness but the vitriolic fury which Julian Farrows faces when he seeks to debate whether a man can become a woman from the women in his life rather suggests that his women are not high in agreeableness.
Again although my wife tends to complain if I express an unconventional view she and I are of the same view on the absurdity of the idea that people can actually become the sex they were not born to by self declaration or self mutilation. While it is particularly curious that women will support an ideology that potentially disadvantages them and their sex I think both men and women are conformists within the particular groups they identify with. Clearly Julian Farrows’s women identify with a different group to my wife and the fact that they are women may not be particularly significant in the respective sides of the Trans argument they adopt.
Your comment reminds me of a joke I was sent recently :
.
There are two types of people ….. avoid them both !
Not just women, but certain young people in general (the blue haired types). The sense of loathing that wafts off them is palpable.
Jeez!!
Do females have logic processes? Seriously, hystericism seems all too easily to overwhelm the “logical thought processes” of women today. I have repeatedly told my liberal family and friends that the public behavior of today’s women has turned me into a misogynist. “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Isaiah 3:12
Seriously? Talking about “hysteron”: “He who hath not a uterus should shut the fucketh up” Fallopians 13″:13
Seriously? Talking about “hysteron”: “He who hath not a uterus should shut the fucketh up” Fallopians 13″:13
You clearly need to start associating with a better quality of female! Statistically, the majority of biological females do not agree with gender theory, and the numbers skew larger with more advanced age.
Hysteria and hyperbole are shared equally by both sexes unfortunately.
Perhaps the women in your life are responding to your sense of misplaced superiority? It’s not called patronising for nothing.
Don’t ask me why many women are allies to men aping women, perhaps they at a glance are superficially flattered and are warned off looking deeper as they can see where that gets them. Perhaps many see identifying as men legally gives them rights they have failed to get fighting? Perhaps by becoming transmen girls avoid the unwanted attentions of men. I can assure you that when I was a girl I was very scared of strange men who could behave in a mysterious manner both laughing and imposing. It’s hard to explain the fear.
I don’t know why some celebrated women obsess with their looks, but there is the clue.. humans are vain and females get more attention for behaving that way from men.
The sex we are born with is a very basic fact of life which we have to deal with, in the same way we have no control on when or where or if we are born. We don’t choose our sex. You can be sure of one thing though, none of us would be living without the care of a woman. Grow up have some respect.
I am a woman and yet to a great extent I agree with you.
I used to be flummoxed, as to why women were cheering this on. It was only slowly that I understood as I got deeper into the Terf wars myself. Women are very fond of being seen as not only, the fairer sex, but also the sweeter. If you are a TERF as I most certainly am, then getting into regular scraps is part of it. You are now seen a nasty rough sort, not a nice girl at all really.
Women tend to be high in the trait of agreeableness. And women more than men derive their sense of purpose and status from belonging to an in-group.
As such, I’d argue they’ve always been key in setting purity tests for belonging and in creating social penalties for transgressors.
And all evidence is that, as a group, there is a critical mass of women useful idiots that will support the prevailing consensus and undermine their own autonomy and freedom, and do so in exchange for being “validated by the group”
It’s not a coincidence that the biggest supporters of FGM are women earning their status and belonging in society by enforcing compliance and suffering among young girls.
Your comment reminds me of a joke I was sent recently :
.
There are two types of people ….. avoid them both !
Not just women, but certain young people in general (the blue haired types). The sense of loathing that wafts off them is palpable.
Jeez!!
Do females have logic processes? Seriously, hystericism seems all too easily to overwhelm the “logical thought processes” of women today. I have repeatedly told my liberal family and friends that the public behavior of today’s women has turned me into a misogynist. “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Isaiah 3:12
You clearly need to start associating with a better quality of female! Statistically, the majority of biological females do not agree with gender theory, and the numbers skew larger with more advanced age.
As a man, I’m not sure what I personally can do about this. Even the women in my family believe men can be women, but when I ask how they get to that conclusion, I am met with vitriolic fury and branded a hateful person. For some reason this issue seems to skip over female logic processes and slide straight into their amygdala.
I’m now left with the question that if we can’t trust women to defend their own sex, what can we actually trust them with?
Overall I have lost my faith in women and pretty much avoid them whenever I can. I no longer feel safe to express any honest thought or opinion around them. I’m not sure how it came about but I’m beginning to find a lot of them alien and totalitarian in their way of thinking.
TL;DR – the French invented critical theory and Simone de Beauvoir was overly nihilistic about her sex. This heady brew hit America where it became profitable and culturally high-status. It was then thrown back at its originators who are now having buyer’s remorse.
Look, we all know the political left are bonkers. Now they’ve finally realised it as well. Probably too late to do anything about it but hunker down for the predictably horrible backlash. Hey, the French might have Foucalt but we have Netwon. Who was right when he declared every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Such as a wave of very right-wing, culturally conservative ‘populist’ politics which although I don’t personally approve of, the left probably deserve.
The only problem is that the “very” right wing cultural conservatives who actually ride that wave, may not be the same stock as the benign Christian white culture who feminists hate so much, but the real deal who treat women exactly how Western women claim they are treated.
Very true. A common refrain on the terminally online right these days is the phrase “Islam is right about women”, a statement designed to anger multiple groups at once.
The “benign” Christian white culture… There is absolutely nothing benign about it. What planet do you live on?
Very true. A common refrain on the terminally online right these days is the phrase “Islam is right about women”, a statement designed to anger multiple groups at once.
The “benign” Christian white culture… There is absolutely nothing benign about it. What planet do you live on?
As I’ve semi-jokingly said to friends, the backlash could include women being put in burkas!
Burkas…No doubt that will send the number of young girls who choose to get “trans’ed” SOARING!
Burkas…No doubt that will send the number of young girls who choose to get “trans’ed” SOARING!
I think they have “sellers’ remorse” since they sold this heap of horse pucks to halfwit English speaking intellectuals who weaponized it and sent it back. I have zero sympathy for France but much sympathy for French Adult Human Females.
The only problem is that the “very” right wing cultural conservatives who actually ride that wave, may not be the same stock as the benign Christian white culture who feminists hate so much, but the real deal who treat women exactly how Western women claim they are treated.
As I’ve semi-jokingly said to friends, the backlash could include women being put in burkas!
I think they have “sellers’ remorse” since they sold this heap of horse pucks to halfwit English speaking intellectuals who weaponized it and sent it back. I have zero sympathy for France but much sympathy for French Adult Human Females.
TL;DR – the French invented critical theory and Simone de Beauvoir was overly nihilistic about her sex. This heady brew hit America where it became profitable and culturally high-status. It was then thrown back at its originators who are now having buyer’s remorse.
Look, we all know the political left are bonkers. Now they’ve finally realised it as well. Probably too late to do anything about it but hunker down for the predictably horrible backlash. Hey, the French might have Foucalt but we have Netwon. Who was right when he declared every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Such as a wave of very right-wing, culturally conservative ‘populist’ politics which although I don’t personally approve of, the left probably deserve.
Another depressing report from another Western nation. I note most, if not all, the gender academics and activists mentioned are white and middle / upper class, much like the UK. It seems this mostly is a madness infecting a secular class who no longer believe in anything so literally believe anything.
I see very few Western Muslims accepting of this madness, and there is evidence of increasing numbers of conversions to Islam. In years to come, Islam might be seen by many more as offering refuge and protection from the madness infecting secular societies, a madness organised Christianity aids and abets. Ironically the threat Islam poses might be our salvation. Feminism seems destined to be squeezed either way.
And yet in Shia Iran transgenderism of a sort is established. To Western eyes it seems like anti-homosexuality: gay people acting as the opposite sex so they are no longer considered gay. Feminism of a sort is established in Iran too: female emancipation but only so far as is necessary to produce a large and compliant workforce to power Iran’s global ambitions. Perhaps there will be no refuge from the transgender madness, only the certainty that the Western feminism that led the Western social revolution will eliminated by the same revolution.
The old revolutionaries silenced the voice of men on all matters pertaining to women. Women will have to find their voice soon or they too will be silenced by the new revolutionaries on all matters pertaining to women.
“Increasing numbers of conversions to Islam” god forbid.
It’s estimated to be 10,000 conversions per year, from practically nothing 2 decades ago. Prisons are a particular hotbed because it gives those converting a form of sanctuary from the endemic violence, sexual abuse and drugs our weak and permissive prison service tolerates. Prison is, after all, a microcosm of its host society. Frankly, out of all the gangs operating in UK prisons, joining the Islamic gang feels like the least worst option.
It’s estimated to be 10,000 conversions per year, from practically nothing 2 decades ago. Prisons are a particular hotbed because it gives those converting a form of sanctuary from the endemic violence, sexual abuse and drugs our weak and permissive prison service tolerates. Prison is, after all, a microcosm of its host society. Frankly, out of all the gangs operating in UK prisons, joining the Islamic gang feels like the least worst option.
“Increasing numbers of conversions to Islam” god forbid.
Another depressing report from another Western nation. I note most, if not all, the gender academics and activists mentioned are white and middle / upper class, much like the UK. It seems this mostly is a madness infecting a secular class who no longer believe in anything so literally believe anything.
I see very few Western Muslims accepting of this madness, and there is evidence of increasing numbers of conversions to Islam. In years to come, Islam might be seen by many more as offering refuge and protection from the madness infecting secular societies, a madness organised Christianity aids and abets. Ironically the threat Islam poses might be our salvation. Feminism seems destined to be squeezed either way.
And yet in Shia Iran transgenderism of a sort is established. To Western eyes it seems like anti-homosexuality: gay people acting as the opposite sex so they are no longer considered gay. Feminism of a sort is established in Iran too: female emancipation but only so far as is necessary to produce a large and compliant workforce to power Iran’s global ambitions. Perhaps there will be no refuge from the transgender madness, only the certainty that the Western feminism that led the Western social revolution will eliminated by the same revolution.
The old revolutionaries silenced the voice of men on all matters pertaining to women. Women will have to find their voice soon or they too will be silenced by the new revolutionaries on all matters pertaining to women.
Feminists have been spouting moronic nonsense for years, now the same stuff is being aimed back against them and they don’t like it.All of it is temporary anyway.Once muslims are the majority in the western world this whole debate will end.
and it will start in France-which is only fair really.
When the great cathedrals light up the sky. “Brindilles pour rallumer la Foi” as Francis Jammes wrote a century ago.
“Submission” might turn out to be reality.
“Once muslims are the majority in the western world” god forbid.
and it will start in France-which is only fair really.
When the great cathedrals light up the sky. “Brindilles pour rallumer la Foi” as Francis Jammes wrote a century ago.
“Submission” might turn out to be reality.
“Once muslims are the majority in the western world” god forbid.
Feminists have been spouting moronic nonsense for years, now the same stuff is being aimed back against them and they don’t like it.All of it is temporary anyway.Once muslims are the majority in the western world this whole debate will end.
Corruption of feminism started when female libertarian intellectuals refused to fit in the ancestral biological role of mother. Thus Simone de Beauvoir started a process that led to the development of unchained feminism, we experience nowadays. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. As long as women refuse to consider their biological role as being part of their identity, they will have trouble finding harmony.
In our highly competitive capitalistic societies of individuals defined by their job it is no wonder motherhood and family have been devalued for being a hindrance to self-determination and business.
As Science Po, France Culture and other french institutions have been hit by this wave of libertarian feminism, it seems as if women’s rights have been swamped. Let’s hope that the “femelliste” resistance sabotages this trend.
Simone de Beauvoir – Wikipedia
In 1977, Beauvoir signed a petition seeking to
completely remove the age of consent in France, a
move which would ultimately lead to the loss of her teaching license.[45] She,along with other French intellectuals, supported the freeing of three arrested
paedophiles.[46][11] The petition also explicitly addresses the ‘Affaire de Versailles’, where three adult men, Dejager (age 45), Gallien (age 43), and Burckhardt (age 39) raped minors from both genders aged 12–13.[47][4
When WW2 started, De Beauvoir was 31 years of age: what did she do ?Girls went to death camps for escorting aircrew to freedom; for example The Comet Line.
Comet Line – Wikipedia
Simone de Beauvoir – Wikipedia
In 1977, Beauvoir signed a petition seeking to
completely remove the age of consent in France, a
move which would ultimately lead to the loss of her teaching license.[45] She,along with other French intellectuals, supported the freeing of three arrested
paedophiles.[46][11] The petition also explicitly addresses the ‘Affaire de Versailles’, where three adult men, Dejager (age 45), Gallien (age 43), and Burckhardt (age 39) raped minors from both genders aged 12–13.[47][4
When WW2 started, De Beauvoir was 31 years of age: what did she do ?Girls went to death camps for escorting aircrew to freedom; for example The Comet Line.
Comet Line – Wikipedia
Corruption of feminism started when female libertarian intellectuals refused to fit in the ancestral biological role of mother. Thus Simone de Beauvoir started a process that led to the development of unchained feminism, we experience nowadays. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. As long as women refuse to consider their biological role as being part of their identity, they will have trouble finding harmony.
In our highly competitive capitalistic societies of individuals defined by their job it is no wonder motherhood and family have been devalued for being a hindrance to self-determination and business.
As Science Po, France Culture and other french institutions have been hit by this wave of libertarian feminism, it seems as if women’s rights have been swamped. Let’s hope that the “femelliste” resistance sabotages this trend.
I am somewhat perplexed as to why ‘feminists’ see this as THEIR fight, indeed I see that as part of the problem, one ‘radical’ activist campaigning group set against another ideologically driven activist campaigning group. Certainly TERF is a great moniker, easy to remember, easy to say and easy to pronounce in a vile, spittle flecked way, but why do ‘some’ women allow their opponents to define them that way, rather than JUST women (obviously in Bindel’s and Stock’s case, in comfortable shoes 🙂 or indeed the population at large ? The fight against, against ……reality ( as it was defined by almost all of humanity, since the beginning of human existence) surely is the concern of everyone who believes in a world grounded in …………. anything, other than fluffy kittens, rainbows and unicorns !
Tongue firmly in cheek (a little), I blame the over education, and under employment of women (and their allies), which, oddly enough, seems to bring us all the way back around to ‘feminists’ ( I use ‘feminists’ in parenthesis because they seem to define a radical, rather than rational, end of the women’s rights movement, that isn’t always, or seem to be, grounded in reason (the image of hysterical women pops into my mind, for some bizarre reason) or reality.
Feminists have been invading and cancelling ‘men’s’ spaces for decades, I don’t have a lot of sympathy (not really) for them now that they find ‘their’ spaces being cancelled and invaded, although that said, I am starting to run out of popcorn. My only consolation is that it distracts them (feminists) from assaulting men and maleness, more generally. My only concern being their triumphalism if, and when, we return to a saner world.
I wonder, if belatedly, that something of the venom, expressed on both sides of the TERF/TRANS argument is that ‘many’ of the ‘actors’ at the forefront of the battle are considered sellouts, or scabs, former allies turned bitter enemies by their perceived betrayal?
I have never considered myself a feminist and one of the reasons is the hypocrisy of the movement. This and the idea a woman could not really be a feminist if she was not a lesbian (prevalent in the eighties).
Feminism is ideologically driven and seeks to produce arguments to support its aims. The term feminist philosopher is an oxymoron: a true philosopher follows an argument wherever it leads in the pursuit of truth and a feminist philosopher is selective in the use and application of arguments as the purpose is not to seek truth but to further the cause.
As I am not a feminist, I cannot be a terf. The pejorative has absolutely no effect on me.
Thank you so much, Aphrodite. I couldn’t have said that better myself. In fact, being a man, I couldn’t have said it at all without being attacked. I tried to do so last week and received down-votes instead of arguments.
Downvotes just indicate you have touched a raw nerve, included something in your comment that threatens the belief system of the down-voters; it’s the equivalent of screaming transphobe at dissenters. It shouldn’t matter what sex you are, the only thing that should matter is the content of your comment. I have Been the recipient of many downvotes. I wouldn’t be surprised if I hold the record for the number of downvotes below a comment. The comment was actually misinterpreted and when I attempted to defend myself, I was criticised for ambiguity (though not all thought the comment ambiguous) and received demands to declare what my actual position was regarding the issue which I didn’t consider relevant to the discussion. Kathleen Stock claims the reason some Guardianistas are willing to listen to her is because she is a lesbian and retained her accent despite going to Oxford. To paraphrase Martin Luther King: judge not a comment by the sex, sexual orientation or accent of the commenter but by the content of the comment. I shall repost below a previous comment of mine that received many downvotes but is currently +3. I have asked Unherd to record upvotes and downvotes separately to identify contentious issues but so far there has been no response.
I agree the article is informative. I have been mystified for a long time now as to what constitutes the left and what constitutes the right. Kathleen Stock is listened to and accepted by the left as she is a lesbian. (Plus her accent which she has no doubt nurtured as it is an asset). It seems the right is now those who uphold traditional family values and the left those who seek to undermine them. I do wonder at Kathleen Stock’s conversion to lesbianism. Did she suddenly discover she was really a lesbian? Did she, like Julie Bindel, choose to be a Lesbian? Did she realise she had greater authority at Sussex university as a Lesbian as until recently lesbians would have been at the forefront of progressivism? Does she know why she decided to be a lesbian? Her true motives could well be buried deep in her unconscious which is an extremely powerful slave to self interest. Does it matter? I used to think not but now my thoughts are changing. Now I am leaning towards truth matters absolutely or not at all. Philip Scofield was lauded for announcing his homosexuality on TV, nobody spared a thought for his wife and children. As to who is doing the most to fight trans ideology, it is probably Matt Walsh whose ‘What is a woman?’ documentary was watched over 170 million times when posted on Twitter. Initially it was blocked for inciting hatred of transgender people, then Elon Musk stepped in. It seems universities are now in the business of brainwashing as only the totally indoctrinated could actually believe the total BS highlighted by Matt Walsh.
“Now I am leaning towards truth matters absolutely or not at all.”
Exactly, Aphrodite. I can’t imagine justice, for example, being based on anything but truth. And if we can’t know the truth in any absolute sense, because we’re finite beings, we can at least insist on persevering in our search for truth.
Your examples are useful. Here’s one more. People keep expressing shock and outrage that I, a gay man, could possibly oppose gay marriage (though not gay relationships). Their clear assumption–that sane people always support what is in their own personal or collective self-interest–is a very cynical one. And cynicism did more than anything else to undermine democracy, which relies on some concern for the common good, until the advent, in addition, of woke nihilism.
Disagreement is often perceived as betrayal of the group when it could be the start of interesting discussions. The purpose and function of marriage used to be a binding contract intended to protect mothers and children.
Without truth there are no fixed points, it’s not surprising mental and emotional instability is on the rise.
Disagreement is often perceived as betrayal of the group when it could be the start of interesting discussions. The purpose and function of marriage used to be a binding contract intended to protect mothers and children.
Without truth there are no fixed points, it’s not surprising mental and emotional instability is on the rise.
“Now I am leaning towards truth matters absolutely or not at all.”
Exactly, Aphrodite. I can’t imagine justice, for example, being based on anything but truth. And if we can’t know the truth in any absolute sense, because we’re finite beings, we can at least insist on persevering in our search for truth.
Your examples are useful. Here’s one more. People keep expressing shock and outrage that I, a gay man, could possibly oppose gay marriage (though not gay relationships). Their clear assumption–that sane people always support what is in their own personal or collective self-interest–is a very cynical one. And cynicism did more than anything else to undermine democracy, which relies on some concern for the common good, until the advent, in addition, of woke nihilism.
Downvotes just indicate you have touched a raw nerve, included something in your comment that threatens the belief system of the down-voters; it’s the equivalent of screaming transphobe at dissenters. It shouldn’t matter what sex you are, the only thing that should matter is the content of your comment. I have Been the recipient of many downvotes. I wouldn’t be surprised if I hold the record for the number of downvotes below a comment. The comment was actually misinterpreted and when I attempted to defend myself, I was criticised for ambiguity (though not all thought the comment ambiguous) and received demands to declare what my actual position was regarding the issue which I didn’t consider relevant to the discussion. Kathleen Stock claims the reason some Guardianistas are willing to listen to her is because she is a lesbian and retained her accent despite going to Oxford. To paraphrase Martin Luther King: judge not a comment by the sex, sexual orientation or accent of the commenter but by the content of the comment. I shall repost below a previous comment of mine that received many downvotes but is currently +3. I have asked Unherd to record upvotes and downvotes separately to identify contentious issues but so far there has been no response.
I agree the article is informative. I have been mystified for a long time now as to what constitutes the left and what constitutes the right. Kathleen Stock is listened to and accepted by the left as she is a lesbian. (Plus her accent which she has no doubt nurtured as it is an asset). It seems the right is now those who uphold traditional family values and the left those who seek to undermine them. I do wonder at Kathleen Stock’s conversion to lesbianism. Did she suddenly discover she was really a lesbian? Did she, like Julie Bindel, choose to be a Lesbian? Did she realise she had greater authority at Sussex university as a Lesbian as until recently lesbians would have been at the forefront of progressivism? Does she know why she decided to be a lesbian? Her true motives could well be buried deep in her unconscious which is an extremely powerful slave to self interest. Does it matter? I used to think not but now my thoughts are changing. Now I am leaning towards truth matters absolutely or not at all. Philip Scofield was lauded for announcing his homosexuality on TV, nobody spared a thought for his wife and children. As to who is doing the most to fight trans ideology, it is probably Matt Walsh whose ‘What is a woman?’ documentary was watched over 170 million times when posted on Twitter. Initially it was blocked for inciting hatred of transgender people, then Elon Musk stepped in. It seems universities are now in the business of brainwashing as only the totally indoctrinated could actually believe the total BS highlighted by Matt Walsh.
Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greene, and Jane Fonda to name but three were not lesbians or even bisexual.
That’s true, Clare, but those women (unlike Andrea Dworkin) chose another form of identity to support their feminist claims.
It was Kathleen Stock who claimed she is listened to by transgender ideologues because she is a lesbian with a regional accent. Also in the 1980s, the idea only lesbians were real feminists was prevalent. There was the slogan: a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Allegedly, Julie Bindel claims she chose to be a lesbian and she is proud of her choice. She was not born that way. Her misandry is revealed in her writing. The women you name were all the previous generation. Their focus was sexual liberation.
That’s true, Clare, but those women (unlike Andrea Dworkin) chose another form of identity to support their feminist claims.
It was Kathleen Stock who claimed she is listened to by transgender ideologues because she is a lesbian with a regional accent. Also in the 1980s, the idea only lesbians were real feminists was prevalent. There was the slogan: a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Allegedly, Julie Bindel claims she chose to be a lesbian and she is proud of her choice. She was not born that way. Her misandry is revealed in her writing. The women you name were all the previous generation. Their focus was sexual liberation.
Thank you so much, Aphrodite. I couldn’t have said that better myself. In fact, being a man, I couldn’t have said it at all without being attacked. I tried to do so last week and received down-votes instead of arguments.
Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greene, and Jane Fonda to name but three were not lesbians or even bisexual.
‘Certainly TERF is a great moniker, easy to remember, easy to say and easy to pronounce in a vile, spittle flecked way,’
Indeed, but easier to understand if you think of it as standing for ‘Tired of Explaining Reality to Fwits.’ *
[* an acronym shamelessly but happily nicked from someone in this place; I am only sorry I cannot remember whose it was.]
I have never considered myself a feminist and one of the reasons is the hypocrisy of the movement. This and the idea a woman could not really be a feminist if she was not a lesbian (prevalent in the eighties).
Feminism is ideologically driven and seeks to produce arguments to support its aims. The term feminist philosopher is an oxymoron: a true philosopher follows an argument wherever it leads in the pursuit of truth and a feminist philosopher is selective in the use and application of arguments as the purpose is not to seek truth but to further the cause.
As I am not a feminist, I cannot be a terf. The pejorative has absolutely no effect on me.
‘Certainly TERF is a great moniker, easy to remember, easy to say and easy to pronounce in a vile, spittle flecked way,’
Indeed, but easier to understand if you think of it as standing for ‘Tired of Explaining Reality to Fwits.’ *
[* an acronym shamelessly but happily nicked from someone in this place; I am only sorry I cannot remember whose it was.]
I am somewhat perplexed as to why ‘feminists’ see this as THEIR fight, indeed I see that as part of the problem, one ‘radical’ activist campaigning group set against another ideologically driven activist campaigning group. Certainly TERF is a great moniker, easy to remember, easy to say and easy to pronounce in a vile, spittle flecked way, but why do ‘some’ women allow their opponents to define them that way, rather than JUST women (obviously in Bindel’s and Stock’s case, in comfortable shoes 🙂 or indeed the population at large ? The fight against, against ……reality ( as it was defined by almost all of humanity, since the beginning of human existence) surely is the concern of everyone who believes in a world grounded in …………. anything, other than fluffy kittens, rainbows and unicorns !
Tongue firmly in cheek (a little), I blame the over education, and under employment of women (and their allies), which, oddly enough, seems to bring us all the way back around to ‘feminists’ ( I use ‘feminists’ in parenthesis because they seem to define a radical, rather than rational, end of the women’s rights movement, that isn’t always, or seem to be, grounded in reason (the image of hysterical women pops into my mind, for some bizarre reason) or reality.
Feminists have been invading and cancelling ‘men’s’ spaces for decades, I don’t have a lot of sympathy (not really) for them now that they find ‘their’ spaces being cancelled and invaded, although that said, I am starting to run out of popcorn. My only consolation is that it distracts them (feminists) from assaulting men and maleness, more generally. My only concern being their triumphalism if, and when, we return to a saner world.
I wonder, if belatedly, that something of the venom, expressed on both sides of the TERF/TRANS argument is that ‘many’ of the ‘actors’ at the forefront of the battle are considered sellouts, or scabs, former allies turned bitter enemies by their perceived betrayal?
Activism, first refuge of the dilettante
When the Overton Window gets too big, they fall out of it.
When the Overton Window gets too big, they fall out of it.
Activism, first refuge of the dilettante
“We’ve got Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault to thank for the idea that there is no objective truth.”
And as Richard Dawkins rightly said, show me a postmodern philosopher on a plane and I’ll show you a hypocrite. The plane stays in the air because there is such a thing as objective truth, in this case the laws of physics which the engineers understand and make use of when designing the plane.
But yes, the author is quite right that the “holiday from thought” we call postmodernism originated in France, and is now returning home after all but destroying academic life in America. Fun fact of the day – genocidal dictator Pol Pot not only learned his revolutionary ideas in Paris, his nom de guerre is an abbreviation of “Politique Potentiale” .
I was originally going to make exactly the same comment regarding Pol Pot. The ideas in circulation around Parisian academia had – and continue to have – real-world consequences, regardless of how French philosophers actually believed them.
In the 1980s, I was in grad school for Cultural Studies, and taught undergrads as T.A. Poststructuralism (Foucault, Derrida, etc.) was the “latest and greatest” back then, and all the cool kids were completely captured.
Inevitably, at some point in the semester, an undergrad would take the concept of “no objective truth” far too literally. In answer, I would always say — to give them all some perspective — “Debates on objectivity are all well and good, but if you try to walk through that wall over there, you’re going to come up against an objective reality. As the author points out, theory and praxis are two different things!
What scares me the most nowadays is that science, which SHOULD be the last bastion of “objective reality” is becoming increasingly captured by poststructuralist claptrap.
I was originally going to make exactly the same comment regarding Pol Pot. The ideas in circulation around Parisian academia had – and continue to have – real-world consequences, regardless of how French philosophers actually believed them.
In the 1980s, I was in grad school for Cultural Studies, and taught undergrads as T.A. Poststructuralism (Foucault, Derrida, etc.) was the “latest and greatest” back then, and all the cool kids were completely captured.
Inevitably, at some point in the semester, an undergrad would take the concept of “no objective truth” far too literally. In answer, I would always say — to give them all some perspective — “Debates on objectivity are all well and good, but if you try to walk through that wall over there, you’re going to come up against an objective reality. As the author points out, theory and praxis are two different things!
What scares me the most nowadays is that science, which SHOULD be the last bastion of “objective reality” is becoming increasingly captured by poststructuralist claptrap.
“We’ve got Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault to thank for the idea that there is no objective truth.”
And as Richard Dawkins rightly said, show me a postmodern philosopher on a plane and I’ll show you a hypocrite. The plane stays in the air because there is such a thing as objective truth, in this case the laws of physics which the engineers understand and make use of when designing the plane.
But yes, the author is quite right that the “holiday from thought” we call postmodernism originated in France, and is now returning home after all but destroying academic life in America. Fun fact of the day – genocidal dictator Pol Pot not only learned his revolutionary ideas in Paris, his nom de guerre is an abbreviation of “Politique Potentiale” .
Denise Fahmy has just won her employment case against the Arts Council. Meanwhile the BBC insists on calling the trans killer of gays and lesbians in Colorado, convicted yesterday, as ‘they’ and ‘Mx’ so as not to offend the murderer.
And sadly ABC news just caved to the, found guilty murderer of seven, at the Colorado Springs gay nightclub, by using his prefered pronoun of “them”.
And sadly ABC news just caved to the, found guilty murderer of seven, at the Colorado Springs gay nightclub, by using his prefered pronoun of “them”.
Denise Fahmy has just won her employment case against the Arts Council. Meanwhile the BBC insists on calling the trans killer of gays and lesbians in Colorado, convicted yesterday, as ‘they’ and ‘Mx’ so as not to offend the murderer.
As soon as you see “fight” you are dealing in politics. And politics is about defeating the enemy. Today, our educated ruling class experiences itself as Allies of the Oppressed Peoples fighting against the White Oppressors. Bless its heart.
And I’m sorry, feminists, but you are now the enemy.
I’m reading a biography of William Godwin, husband of Mary Wollstonecraft (of A Vindication of the Rights of Women) and father of Mary Shelley (of Frankenstein). And let me tell you, there ain’t no such thing as a liberated woman. All women need protection, mostly from men. And now from transgenders. That is what we call progress.
That is our obvious role in nature; in life. In love.
Thank you for this – you’re appreciated.
Seconded.
Seconded.
I wish you could have told that to my father.
Thank you for this – you’re appreciated.
I wish you could have told that to my father.
That is our obvious role in nature; in life. In love.
As soon as you see “fight” you are dealing in politics. And politics is about defeating the enemy. Today, our educated ruling class experiences itself as Allies of the Oppressed Peoples fighting against the White Oppressors. Bless its heart.
And I’m sorry, feminists, but you are now the enemy.
I’m reading a biography of William Godwin, husband of Mary Wollstonecraft (of A Vindication of the Rights of Women) and father of Mary Shelley (of Frankenstein). And let me tell you, there ain’t no such thing as a liberated woman. All women need protection, mostly from men. And now from transgenders. That is what we call progress.
The best thing in this essay is the grudging acknowledgement of the role that feminist theory (‘you are not born a woman but become one’ etc) has played in the development of the entire LGBTQ ideological ascendance. But the authoress seems to think some kind of moderated ‘feminism’ could somehow retain the bits she likes (freedom from domesticity, I assume) while dispensing with the ‘excesses’ she does not. But this is not possible.
The only path forward for the ‘liberated’ woman is the same path forward for today’s feckless, unemployed men – to acknowledge that they have distinctive and separate purposes which are ignored (or actively suppressed) by modern society. And they make us fit for different things.
This doesn’t mean women must be barefoot and pregnant. But it does mean that there’s nothing wrong with some professions being dominated by women and others by men, and that there’s nothing wrong with women raising children while men keep working, and that there’s nothing wrong with women providing nursing care on the frontlines while men do the fighting, etc. It means that ‘the patriarchy’ is a myth… it means that women have long controlled men in ways different from, but no less effective than, the ways men have controlled women.
The best thing in this essay is the grudging acknowledgement of the role that feminist theory (‘you are not born a woman but become one’ etc) has played in the development of the entire LGBTQ ideological ascendance. But the authoress seems to think some kind of moderated ‘feminism’ could somehow retain the bits she likes (freedom from domesticity, I assume) while dispensing with the ‘excesses’ she does not. But this is not possible.
The only path forward for the ‘liberated’ woman is the same path forward for today’s feckless, unemployed men – to acknowledge that they have distinctive and separate purposes which are ignored (or actively suppressed) by modern society. And they make us fit for different things.
This doesn’t mean women must be barefoot and pregnant. But it does mean that there’s nothing wrong with some professions being dominated by women and others by men, and that there’s nothing wrong with women raising children while men keep working, and that there’s nothing wrong with women providing nursing care on the frontlines while men do the fighting, etc. It means that ‘the patriarchy’ is a myth… it means that women have long controlled men in ways different from, but no less effective than, the ways men have controlled women.
I can not understand this. You can walk like a man, talk like a man, dress like a man- but if you have a bleeding vagina, you are not a dude. That is how we are born. Vice versa. It is simple.
I can not understand this. You can walk like a man, talk like a man, dress like a man- but if you have a bleeding vagina, you are not a dude. That is how we are born. Vice versa. It is simple.
It’s the bloody women joining in that obscenity that really, really make me so angry.
It’s the bloody women joining in that obscenity that really, really make me so angry.
French feminists dug their own grave. They are welcome to it.
And Simone de Beauvoir is turning in hers
And Simone de Beauvoir is turning in hers
French feminists dug their own grave. They are welcome to it.
Just returned from Portland, Oregon and the madness is in full bloom there. Men, barely disguised men, in high heels and mini skirts with five o’clock shadows. Women with shaved heads and black work pants with chained wallets…I had no idea whom or what I was speaking to half the time! “They” or “them” and rainbow flags all over…craziness….
Just returned from Portland, Oregon and the madness is in full bloom there. Men, barely disguised men, in high heels and mini skirts with five o’clock shadows. Women with shaved heads and black work pants with chained wallets…I had no idea whom or what I was speaking to half the time! “They” or “them” and rainbow flags all over…craziness….
“The corruption of French feminism”
Hmm… Another interesting article about how some feminists are corrupting the meaning of Feminism in support of women, but actually they mean trans women, to protect trans women’s rights which crashes into normie-women’s rights, their personal spaces and their place in the world with respect to the multiple waves of feminist thought that they initiated about 40 years ago or so and let’s not forget to remind ourselves of the absolutely Brilliant Judith Butler (not just normal brilliant, she’s the capital B type) who decided that the very meaning of the term ‘Woman’ needed to be re-thought awhile back and a lot of feminists thought that was a good idea and now maybe aren’t so sure since intersectional feminists and trans feminists (others, too?) are doing things normie-feminists want no part of. There’s a theme here.
Thanks, ladies! Well done on the Feminist thing! Can I use that term? I was going to say, ‘Thanks, Guys!’ because up until a few years ago you could use ‘guys’ as a general term when referring to a group of individuals to whom you were referring – girls, women and ladies included. It was a pretty harmless term but now I’m not so sure. Is ‘ladies’ harmful now? Hmm… I dunno… We’ll see what the censors say. Thanks, again!
It all makes me want to offer up (sarcastically! I’m joking!) to all the feminists of the various brands of Feminism a possible solution (I didn’t know if ‘French Feminism’ was a thing so I looked up ‘types of feminists’ and WOW! I didn’t know there were so many!!!): How about we put you all in a locked room with a bunch of pool cues and let you sort it out. Kinda like in The Dark Night. You created this mess. Knock three times on the door when you’re done. Have at it, ladies.
Seriously, though – You Feminists need to sort this gender stuff out, soon. Real, normal people (women and men and girls and boys have been sucked into this mess you created. Men? We guys can only play a certain role before a Feminist like Julie Bindell will jump in to remind everyone just how horrible men still are or a Feminist like Julie Burchill will chime in about how men have ‘fetishised the erasure of women.’
However! A suggestion for a start! Stop referring to yourselves as Feminists of any sort when you write about Women’s issues wrt trans issues. Call yourselves Women. Reclaim the term! Use Posie Parker’s definition (not the honorable Ms Butler’s) and fight for it! We’ll be there with you!
“The corruption of French feminism”
Hmm… Another interesting article about how some feminists are corrupting the meaning of Feminism in support of women, but actually they mean trans women, to protect trans women’s rights which crashes into normie-women’s rights, their personal spaces and their place in the world with respect to the multiple waves of feminist thought that they initiated about 40 years ago or so and let’s not forget to remind ourselves of the absolutely Brilliant Judith Butler (not just normal brilliant, she’s the capital B type) who decided that the very meaning of the term ‘Woman’ needed to be re-thought awhile back and a lot of feminists thought that was a good idea and now maybe aren’t so sure since intersectional feminists and trans feminists (others, too?) are doing things normie-feminists want no part of. There’s a theme here.
Thanks, ladies! Well done on the Feminist thing! Can I use that term? I was going to say, ‘Thanks, Guys!’ because up until a few years ago you could use ‘guys’ as a general term when referring to a group of individuals to whom you were referring – girls, women and ladies included. It was a pretty harmless term but now I’m not so sure. Is ‘ladies’ harmful now? Hmm… I dunno… We’ll see what the censors say. Thanks, again!
It all makes me want to offer up (sarcastically! I’m joking!) to all the feminists of the various brands of Feminism a possible solution (I didn’t know if ‘French Feminism’ was a thing so I looked up ‘types of feminists’ and WOW! I didn’t know there were so many!!!): How about we put you all in a locked room with a bunch of pool cues and let you sort it out. Kinda like in The Dark Night. You created this mess. Knock three times on the door when you’re done. Have at it, ladies.
Seriously, though – You Feminists need to sort this gender stuff out, soon. Real, normal people (women and men and girls and boys have been sucked into this mess you created. Men? We guys can only play a certain role before a Feminist like Julie Bindell will jump in to remind everyone just how horrible men still are or a Feminist like Julie Burchill will chime in about how men have ‘fetishised the erasure of women.’
However! A suggestion for a start! Stop referring to yourselves as Feminists of any sort when you write about Women’s issues wrt trans issues. Call yourselves Women. Reclaim the term! Use Posie Parker’s definition (not the honorable Ms Butler’s) and fight for it! We’ll be there with you!
And there was I wondering if I should apologise to France on behalf of the sane living in this Anglo-Saxon asylum. Turns out the French helped build the cursed thing!
And there was I wondering if I should apologise to France on behalf of the sane living in this Anglo-Saxon asylum. Turns out the French helped build the cursed thing!
I like your terminology “transfeminine man”. I resent having to use the term “transwoman”, which strongly connotes run-of-the-mill womanhood.
When learning French at school, I had to commit to memory that a table was masculine an a chair was feminine. Presumably I was wasting my time: it is just a matter of time before trans activists take over L’Académie française and allow tables and chairs to be non-binary.
I like your terminology “transfeminine man”. I resent having to use the term “transwoman”, which strongly connotes run-of-the-mill womanhood.
When learning French at school, I had to commit to memory that a table was masculine an a chair was feminine. Presumably I was wasting my time: it is just a matter of time before trans activists take over L’Académie française and allow tables and chairs to be non-binary.
Brilliant, agonizingly detailed article. I wish I could see an exit from this. Our son, from Miami, a fairly pink city, is currently studying in London and gobsmacked by Pride month and the gender identity fanaticism he is encountering. I had wondered how France was being impacted. Sadly, now I know.
Brilliant, agonizingly detailed article. I wish I could see an exit from this. Our son, from Miami, a fairly pink city, is currently studying in London and gobsmacked by Pride month and the gender identity fanaticism he is encountering. I had wondered how France was being impacted. Sadly, now I know.
Very interesting, thank you Dora. I had no idea this was infecting France too. Though I was always wondered why the French were so disinterested in popular feminism it never seemed to escape academia.
But of course I am much saddened by it. How can such revelations as de Beauvoir’s, become so wrongfully understood. The Second Sex exposed the depth of patriarchy and it was hard to take, but necessary. That one’s sex had become a gender performance was her critique not a recommendation!
Thank you for your writing and your work. I will follow it, share and encourage as much as anyone can.
What did de Beauvoir say about the gender performance required of men?
Depth of patriarchy? Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
What did de Beauvoir say about the gender performance required of men?
Depth of patriarchy? Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Very interesting, thank you Dora. I had no idea this was infecting France too. Though I was always wondered why the French were so disinterested in popular feminism it never seemed to escape academia.
But of course I am much saddened by it. How can such revelations as de Beauvoir’s, become so wrongfully understood. The Second Sex exposed the depth of patriarchy and it was hard to take, but necessary. That one’s sex had become a gender performance was her critique not a recommendation!
Thank you for your writing and your work. I will follow it, share and encourage as much as anyone can.
We must wish Moutot and her comrades success in their struggle against the valueless social fascism, metastasised from academic postmodernist gameplaying, that the collective transgenderist madness now embodies. Not since the days of the Stasi has we seen such a violent movement to enforce a fantasy on a whole population. Such repression of reason is a betrayal of all that is admirable in European culture. Given half a chance, the chanting fantasists will soon be holding rallies at Nuremburg, marching in the streets, smashing windows, and burning both books and the witches that wrote them.
We must wish Moutot and her comrades success in their struggle against the valueless social fascism, metastasised from academic postmodernist gameplaying, that the collective transgenderist madness now embodies. Not since the days of the Stasi has we seen such a violent movement to enforce a fantasy on a whole population. Such repression of reason is a betrayal of all that is admirable in European culture. Given half a chance, the chanting fantasists will soon be holding rallies at Nuremburg, marching in the streets, smashing windows, and burning both books and the witches that wrote them.
It’s so human to want to be seen as the pioneer of a resistance movement, but the fact is that there is a large and growing commmunity of academics and professionals in the worlds of law and medicine who are organising the resistance to gender ideology in France. A major conference was also recently held in Finland attended by medical professionals from across Europe (and GB) who are seeking to establish the proper parameters for the care of gender distressed youth. The wheel is turning slowly but it is turning thanks to the collective efforts of these women and men.
It feels like it’s turning quickly.
It feels like it’s turning quickly.
It’s so human to want to be seen as the pioneer of a resistance movement, but the fact is that there is a large and growing commmunity of academics and professionals in the worlds of law and medicine who are organising the resistance to gender ideology in France. A major conference was also recently held in Finland attended by medical professionals from across Europe (and GB) who are seeking to establish the proper parameters for the care of gender distressed youth. The wheel is turning slowly but it is turning thanks to the collective efforts of these women and men.
Simply stated: sex defines humans, male or female. Gender is for words/pronouns to reference the sex of the male or female. Any other use of the words – sex & gender – are mere constructs. France tragically lost its soul & sense in the Revolution when it burned down the churches. Hence, this article though sad is unsurprising.
Simply stated: sex defines humans, male or female. Gender is for words/pronouns to reference the sex of the male or female. Any other use of the words – sex & gender – are mere constructs. France tragically lost its soul & sense in the Revolution when it burned down the churches. Hence, this article though sad is unsurprising.
It’s one thing to take note of the violence that transgender people experience, but where is the reciprocal concern for the violence women and girls suffer at the hands of transgender people. While the violence sustained by transgenders is usually visited on them by other trans males or average men there are also thousands of trans males who kill, rape, assault, stalk, and threaten women with such actions, as well as job loss, loss of reputation and more. Serial killers, rapists, et al like Marcal Harvey, Dana Rivers, Douglas Donna Perry, Haddon Clark, Archie Tally, Darrell Marager, Allison Hale, Robert Kosilek and numerless others, but there is no female equivalent who kill, rape and threaten trans males in this wholesale fashion. Yet you never hear a male in womanface plead for a stop to the threats, murders and rapes of women. So why are women always placating trans men with declarations of their undying sympathy, empathy for the hurts trans suffer at the hands of other men? Fear? An indifference to, or trivialization of the much more severe and numerous attacks on women? Why aren’t women acknowledging the disproportionate hate and violence trans males inflict on females?!?
It’s one thing to take note of the violence that transgender people experience, but where is the reciprocal concern for the violence women and girls suffer at the hands of transgender people. While the violence sustained by transgenders is usually visited on them by other trans males or average men there are also thousands of trans males who kill, rape, assault, stalk, and threaten women with such actions, as well as job loss, loss of reputation and more. Serial killers, rapists, et al like Marcal Harvey, Dana Rivers, Douglas Donna Perry, Haddon Clark, Archie Tally, Darrell Marager, Allison Hale, Robert Kosilek and numerless others, but there is no female equivalent who kill, rape and threaten trans males in this wholesale fashion. Yet you never hear a male in womanface plead for a stop to the threats, murders and rapes of women. So why are women always placating trans men with declarations of their undying sympathy, empathy for the hurts trans suffer at the hands of other men? Fear? An indifference to, or trivialization of the much more severe and numerous attacks on women? Why aren’t women acknowledging the disproportionate hate and violence trans males inflict on females?!?
A rare example of an admission of the circumstances between feminism and Gender. If feminists hadn’t initially been tolerant of men suffering from gender dysphoria, as if they are women, their ideology could never have corrupted their movement. Most TERFs on Twitter talk as if Gender is a load of old-fashioned misogynist men dressing up as women in order to assault real ones.
A rare example of an admission of the circumstances between feminism and Gender. If feminists hadn’t initially been tolerant of men suffering from gender dysphoria, as if they are women, their ideology could never have corrupted their movement. Most TERFs on Twitter talk as if Gender is a load of old-fashioned misogynist men dressing up as women in order to assault real ones.
These sorts of issues make me think that being an intellectual makes one stupid.
These sorts of issues make me think that being an intellectual makes one stupid.
The madness of crowds reaches new depths.
The madness of crowds reaches new depths.
French corruption? Paris seems to be on fire. Not much mainstream news on it. Is that something to be unheard? There appears to be a coup underway against the establishment… Do you think it will weaken Macron?
French corruption? Paris seems to be on fire. Not much mainstream news on it. Is that something to be unheard? There appears to be a coup underway against the establishment… Do you think it will weaken Macron?
We’re so sorry.
-Americans who remain sane
Women have been invading men’s spaces for the past few decades so there should be no sympathy from men.
What you sow you reap.
What might those spaces be?
What might those spaces be?
Women have been invading men’s spaces for the past few decades so there should be no sympathy from men.
What you sow you reap.