The misogyny of trans activists
In Portsmouth they behaved like they wanted a war, not dialogue
To the annual FiLiA conference in Portsmouth. A 1,000-strong gathering of women of all ages and viewpoints, united by a desire and commitment to ending male violence, oppression and domination of women and girls.
Everyone there is interested in dipping their toes in the water of the women’s liberation movement. A big focus is the campaign to end rape, domestic abuse, commercial sexual exploitation, and femicide, the killing of women and girls by men because they are women and girls.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
As I approach the Guildhall where the conference is taking place I hear the now only-too familiar chants by trans activists: “Trans women are women!”, “No TERFS on Pompey”. One sign reads: “Imagine calling yourself a feminist while trying to dismantle the rights of a marginalised group of women and girls.”
The protesters are talking about a subset of men and boys who identify as transgender. During my session on the themes in my book on feminism, trans activists positioned themselves directly outside the windows, and attempted to drown out my words with “Blow jobs are real jobs” (they also object to any critique of the sex trade). Amnesty, whose work is supposed to empower and protect people, was also sponsoring these aggressively anti-female protests, as could be seen from the placards plastered with their logo.
Afterwards, I approached some of the activists to ask whether we could engage in respectful dialogue. I said it would be better than being at war with each other, and that the feminists inside the building were no danger or threat to them whatsoever. They told me, barely able to look me in the eye, that when feminists talk about single sex spaces, such as prisons and refuges, that this leads to transphobic bigotry, which, in turn, leads to trans people being murdered.
A feminist journalist I know came along to join in the conversation, suggesting that the signs being held up by some of their comrades telling the conference attendees to “Suck my dick you transphobic cunts” was not acceptable, and certainly not suggestive of an oppressed group protesting their oppressor. It looked rather more like plain old-fashioned misogyny. They said something along the lines of, “that’s how young people talk these days”. I told them that the last time I was attacked by a man (he punched me in the face when I told him to “sod off”) the last words I heard before being knocked out cold was “Suck my dick you cunt”.
We at least tried to engage in dialogue with the protesters. Unfortunately, as we heard in the session, “Feminist fightback: beyond the gender wars in the academy” with Professors Selina Todd and Jo Phoenix, students are currently being given permission to trot out mantras, and adopt Orwellian opinions as opposed to engage in critical thinking.
At the end of today’s conference, there will be a vigil to honour the many victims of femicide. The plan was to be outside, in the weak autumn sunshine, reading out the names of the women who died at the hands of men and to call for an end to deadly male violence. The fact that we will have to do this on a pavement defaced with such misogynistic graffiti is as heart-breaking as it is infuriating.
There are trans activists who are up for a sensible evidence based discussion of the issues.
But sadly they seem to be a minority.
Of the remainder I’d argue you can distinguish three types.
First, old fashioned misogynists of the knuckle-headed variety described in this article; the sort waving the ‘suck my d**k’ placards and sending rape threats to the likes of JK Rowling.
Second, and I think these can also fairly be classed as misogynists, the smug superior mansplaining male liberal famous Guardian columnist/progressive barrister types of the ‘I am an intelligent and superior person and, in my own estimation, a good person. And therefore, if you disagree with me, not only must you be wrong, by definition. But you’re probably a bad person with bad motives as well. And stupid. Especially if you are a women.’
Third, and here I depart a bit from Julie, are what I suspect are the most numerous category whom I wouldn’t call misogynist, not least as around half are women, viz the childish narcissistic performative echo chamber radicals that plague so many areas of modern discourse, not just the Trans debate.
Take a look at the twitter feeds of the students abusing Kathleen Stock, for example, and the pattern never varies. First, construct a ludicrous straw man ‘evil other’. Second, endlessly denounce your straw man in your tweets: Terf! Bigot!! Transphobe!!!. In so doing garner lots of upticks and likes from your fellow inhabitants of your echo chamber to assuage your needy childish personality. In addition, through your performative utterances, as Judith Butler might put it, create for yourself, in this virtual world, a faux heroic/faux virtuous persona for yourself so you can feel good about yourself and give significance and meaning to your otherwise sadly insignificant and meaningless existence as it is in the real, non-virtual, world.
What’s striking is how many of the twitter bios of these pound shop Robespierre’s are self identified as ‘kind’ and ‘compassionate’ at the top – while presaging an endless stream of hate, tweet after obsessive tweet. Hilarious? Yes. Ridiculous? Certainly. Contradiction? Not for them. Understand – in echo chamber virtual reality, the more extreme you are, the more virtuous you are.
That’s also why they single out liberal and radical women like Bindel, Stock and Moore for especial abuse. In the competitive echo chamber virtue signalling stakes, attack a conservative man and even a conservative woman like Truss or Patel and it’s a bit ‘ho hum’. But attack someone like Bindel/Stock/Moore? Now you’re talking! That’s a high value target!!! Now you must be a real heroic radical!!
God it’s childish.
What all three of these categories have in common, though, is that none of them are in any real sense concerned with the substantive issues concerning trans rights. The relationship instead is strictly that of parasite and host, the trans debate simply a forum for them to achieve their different and separate ends.
And obviously, no one should make the mistake of thinking it is worthwhile debating the substantive issues involved in trans rights with these idiots. They just aren’t interested. That’s not what any of them are here for. Have they read any of the arguments on either side? Have they read Stock’s book? Get real. Have they hell. Why would they bother?
And remember always Hitchen’s aphorism: that which is not asserted with reason does not need to be dismissed with reason. None of them are worth wasting your time on. They all say they are not interested in debate. Take them at their word. The only thing to do is beat them.
That is a very good analysis. You should expand this and submit it for possible publication.
Loved this…’ the childish narcissistic performative echo chamber radicals that plague so many areas of modern discourse, not just the Trans debate.‘ partly because it is a clever and accurate description of the blue-fringe mob and their mates. But I have been wondering about the effect of the cultural elevation of young people to the point where their opinion is deemed equivalent to decades of knowledge and experience, the insistence to young people that ‘you can be whatever you want to be’ setting up a belief in infallibility of desires and the fear of offending or upsetting our children and young adults. Fuzzy thinking I know, but something I’m keeping an eye on to see if it has any relevance.
One of the best short and understandable analyses of the whole “woke” phenomenon that I’ve read – well done. I hadn’t heard Hitchin’s aphorism before, but I think that I shall bear it in mind and save myself a lot of heart-ache in trying to be rational in my arguments with some people. I remember a number of years ago when I was studying the post-structural philosophers, that they stipulated that argument was just another form of power posturing and should be eschewed as such (needless to say classical philosphers disagreed, they’d be out of a job otherwise), so all we’re left with is shouting and punching. I think that it’s worth remembering that all the philosophical underpinning for the present angry brigades came from French academia decades ago, was transmuted in US academia, and exported to us.
They told me, barely able to look me in the eye, that when feminists talk about single sex spaces, such as prisons and refuges, that this leads to transphobic bigotry, which, in turn, leads to trans people being murdered.
Does anybody have any figures on this? How many trans people get murdered each year, and how many of those murders do we reasonably assume that happened because they are trans? (i.e. if you attempt to hold up a liquor store in the USA, and the owner shoots you dead with her legally concealed firearm, then I do not think that transphobic bigotry had a lot to do with your demise) .
Good points and good questions, which also apply to JB’s views on femicide.
As far as I know most trans people are killed by their partners
It is merely a rhetorical trick to pretend something perfectly reasonable leads inevitably to something terrible happening so the reasonable statement has to be abandoned to prevent the terrible outcome. Because no one wants transgender people murdered they have to accept the transgender analysis. The transgender movement is an aggressive totalitarian cult that seeks to bully reasonable people into agreeing unreasonable demands for fear of being thought to be succouring attacks on trans people. You see it also in BLM propaganda. If you don’t take the knee you are in favour of dark skinned people being chocked to death when all you are against is adopting a symbolic support for a movement that makes a number of unreasonable demands. Rhetorical tricks.
And all used by feminists before them.
Maybe you would have preferred 50% of the population to continue without a vote?
I don’t take it that way. It’s possible for successful lobby groups to gain ground that society as a whole comes to recognise as justified, but then continue to lobby and eventually seek to suppress dissent. Then other groups see that that works and do the same – or worse.
That does seem to be what happens. Many people aren’t satisfied with just being equal. They decide they want superiority. Also, they enjoy activism and need an excuse to keep going.
Human nature, I suppose. Unfortunately. Just because you are a member of a group that is discriminated against doesn’t make you morally superior, despite the fact that so many want to believe that.
Yep… spot on.
Please don’t equate trans ideological hysteria with Black social justice warriors. It’s reductive & ignorant. Look up the statistics. Many more than 39 Black people were killed by white supremacists every single year. The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Also, trans ideology seeks to disappear any other oppression including Black. So…
Black “social justice warriors” are NOT in favor of social justice. They’re black supremacists. They don’t want equality and justice. They want power and domination over people they classify as ‘white’. They’re just as prejudiced as white supremacists are against black people. Hate is hate. Those distinctions aren’t even based on actual ethnicity or biology. They’re social constructs.
Statistics exist. Just an example, from:
“39 individuals described as transgender or gender-diverse have been murdered in the US in 2021. Data from the federal government and human rights organization shows that, compared with other groups, trans-identifying individuals have one of the lowest per capita rates of deaths by homicide. Most trans-identifying individuals who are murdered were not shown to be murdered in hate crimes. Rather, most of the murder victims were involved in the prostitution trade, a highly deadly industry.”
Rather, most of the murder victims were involved in the prostitution trade, a highly deadly industry.”
well yes, but would feminists discount female deaths in the same way because they were involved in prostitution?
Useful to see data that clearly punctures the rhetorical trick. It seems being transgender is in fact remarkably safe unless you engage In prostitution which is comparatively dangerous for all engaged in it regardless of sex or gender.
More dangerous for pre-op trans prostitutes who are often involved in a deception very likely to be discovered by the client , who may kill in a rage
One wonders how many crimes are committed against actual women by 1/ surgically and hormonally mutilated men aping females and 2/ how many by unaltered men in frocks claiming to be female.
If it’s more than the count of assaults on transsexuals it would say women have more to fear from them than vice versa.
I looked at those stats – some of the victims were also transmen or non-binary, so not even all 39 were transwomen.
Careful of world -wide figures , A lot of trans homicides happen in countries with many trans prostitutes like Brazil when customers suddenly find they were misled about the person’s gender .
I checked that, too, on the Human Rights Campaign website. 39 US 2 Puerto Rico
Kathleen Stock analyses some of these statistics in her book Material Girls (pages 220 onwards). She points out that, in 2019, according to the Trans Murder Monitoring Project, there were 331 murders of trans and gender-diverse people globally, of which 160 occurred in Brazil, 63 in Mexico, 31 in the U.S., 14 in Colombia, 13 in Argentina and… one in the U.K. However, Brazil has more than 63,000 murders a year (2017 figure).
This is not say that trans people do not suffer violence, of course. However, the link between feminists like Julie Bindel and the murders of trans people in countries that are already plagued with all kinds of violence… seems rather tenuous to say the least.
I remember when I was an uni my bedroom opened onto a passage with a Greek restaurant. One night a very drunk Indian wanted a kebab but the owner said he was just closing. “This is colour bar! Discrimination!”
This may be useful, and it includes links to its claims. The murder rates of trans identified people is negligible.
“Maybe misogyny is not the word, but it takes such a deep, deep disrespect of women for any man to believe that they can choose to be a woman and that they have the right to demand women believe they are women.”
I started a post on this subject a day or so ago and abandoned it for being woolly, but this is the kernel of the argument. “How can men who want to ‘be’ women, be misogynists?” asks another. Well, unintentionally would be the generous interpretation.
How can anyone ‘be’ something they are not? They can only imagine, act ‘as if’, wear the gear, adopt superficial mannerisms or observed characteristics. It could be seen as admiration, or flattery, but is insulting precisely because it reduces womanhood to a superficial display of secondary sexual characteristics.
A woman with breast cancer can have a double mastectomy; others have hysterectomies; many do not dress in ‘feminine’ attire; many wear no make up and have short hair. They do not become men, ever.
Can we have an article on the r*pe of the girl by a boy claiming to be transgender, in the high school bathroom at a high school in Virginia?
And making this case worse is the accusation that the school tried to cover it up, and sent the offender to another school in the group, where he/she/they sexually assaulted another female pupil!
Meanwhile, the poor father was taken away by police from a school board meeting about adopting a transgender toilet policy because he spoke up to protest the a**l rape of his 15 year old daughter when he wasn’t on the list of speakers. Democrats then used the meme of him nationwide as an example of a domestic terrorist – and the national board of schools wrote to the Education Secretary, using this father as an example, to get a bill passed to treat people who speak up at school board meetings treated as domestic terrorists.
Its now likely to affect the election taking place in Virginia.
You cannot engage with closed minds. It’s a power struggle and our job is to make sure they lose.
Spot on! A pithy comment, but extremely important. They must lose–no respectful disagreement, no shaking of hands, they must LOSE. I did my bit by exposing this fake “journalism,” (see my post), and as you suggest, this must be called out for what it is–advocacy, not journalism, in every case.
Well done, you!
The power struggle is particularly evident at Sussex University. I think I’ve replied to you before that I believe trans issues are a power-play on the part of students (or certainly their leaders) – a wedge or a trojan horse. It’s the beginning of term and they’re establishing who is boss: who can and who can’t teach; what they demand in return for ‘their’ fees.
Moderators are banning links to these articles. so some googling on your own is required.
Nov 2nd 2006 JB penned a guardian article titled – Why i hate men
Aug 29 2015 JB interview on rad fem collective .org.
mid page, speaking on all men. ” i would put them all in some kind of camp.”
Aug 15 2016 on twitter, (i think now deleted). captured by dailywire
“all men are R”P1S*’s and should be S&£T”
(im posting this as a continuation from the discussion on JB’s last article posted 1 day ago but since the news cycle and community engagement on articles moves on so fast the discussion on that page are effectively already over, there are further links on that article to a BBC documentary called Lefties: Angry Wimmin on which JB is featured)
by the way, criticism of Julie Bindel isn’t an endorsement of the trans activist position. Identity politics are toxic and divisive whether it’s coming from a misandrist bigot or autogynephilic-misogynists.
But that is your response to anything written by JB. Rather than talk about what she has written, you always write about her and claim misandry.
Very good point. This of course highlights how easy it is for us to fall into the trap of judging the person instead of the information or position presented by the person. Something that the radical left do as matter of course.
Indeed, and because this trans conflict is in my view not something niche, but about the ‘queering’ of our whole culture (for which trans is a trojan horse), we should welcome any allies we can get. Especially those as forceful and resilient as JB.
Agreed. Anyone read ‘Cynical Theories’ by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay? It would appear that the ‘queering’ of our hegemonic culture is underway. The intended abolition of women (by a rabid minority) marks a new level of insanity in human history.
thank you Gia and Lesley for you responses, i guess we agree to disagree. Broadly we are on the same page on the issue discussed in the article, violence threatening men in dresses are not good for society. JB is not a good champion for this cause, we are in agreement but not in common cause because she is a divisive figure. As a radical feminist activist (her description of herself , not mine) she called for death and violence to her hated outgroup (men) “Kill men now, ask me how” and was an advocate for political lesbianism, that heterosexual women in the feminist movement should sleep with lesbian activists whether they were attracted to women or not. These transactivist are threatening violence and say women should have to sleep with them whether they are attracted to them or not. If there a difference between these attitudes and behaviours , then I don’t see it.
rather than argue about it, here’s something different, Freddie Sawyer posted it on an article on here weeks ago, its about internet argument culture, its very insightful. Now, im off to pick a pumpkin with the wee man, have a good sunday.
As a heterosexual woman I certainly did not feel threatened by radical feminists. As a heterosexual woman I certainly do feel threatened by the notion of men who wake up in the morning in girl mode and who have access to my public bathroom. Please stop with your attempts to conflate the two issues… my husband certainly can tell the difference. My takeaway is that you and a couple of others in the comments section simply don’t like women much. That is 50% of the population.
For your consideration,
its not related to trans, womens rights anything on this topic, its about the futility of internet argument culture. Lesley i am not the mook you are looking for.
Lesley, I agree with you taht there is a world of difference between disagreeing with someone, and boy do I disagree with JB on many things, and feeling threatened by them. However, perhaps there are some on this site who do feel threatened by JB, hence the predictable reactions whenever an article of hers appears.
You wrote (A):
This of course highlights how easy it is for us to fall into the trap of judging the person instead of the information or position presented by the person.
You also wrote (B):
My takeaway is that you and a couple of others in the comments section simply don’t like women much.
Isn’t there a danger that by suggesting (in B) that some purveyors of comments that you don’t like are misogynists, you are falling foul of your point A?
Which is a disappointment, because your posts are normally well reasoned.
Maybe she should take a minute to disawow or clarify her previous remarks? These articles always focus on the aggressive male TRAs – and avoid looking at the massive support from female TRAs, all avowed feminists.
Yes, we do need an analysis of the female TRAs and where they are coming from. I reckon it’s probably a mix of 4th wave ‘feminism’ (yes, the quotes are to indicate scepticism as its claim to this moniker), the middle class wokies looking for a popular cause to hang their bona fides on whilst appearing hip and edgy, a route to channel their anger through, and a normal sense of compassion and protectiveness towards those they see as vulnerable – the man or boy they know who identifies as a woman or girl is sweet, troubled and dependent on them for support and so their political view of gender is framed around their experience of this person. Anyone who attacks gender ideology is therefore attacking their friend and themselves.
An acquaintance’s daughter is very proud of her transXXson at 10 years of age. Touting her own Cis/Bi/Feminist status, having once kissed a woman for free drinks from a barman. The child had no ‘gender disphoria’, before the mother went to uni. The mother does have mental health issues. The wider family are all to worried to say anything about their concerns, not least because the mother has mental health problems.
Well it is rather the pot calling the kettle black. And if you reject rational discourse when it suits you, you can’t really assert it when it doesn’t.
But it’s highly relevant. In fact, her misandry animates her entire worldview. If you were told that Netflix causes cancer by someone who also thinks space aliens killed JFK, it would be an important data point in evaluating whether the Netflix claim was likely to be true.
Anybody at risk of swallowing anything JB writes needs to be health-warned about her generally crazy outlook.
The BBC do this all the time; any time they quote someone from a Conservative think tank they warn viewers that it’s “right wing” whereas left wing think tanks are quoted as though neutral.
wee further point, question to the moderators, why do the links to these websites automatically put a post in to “pending approval” unherd are obviously aware of JB’s output on these sites and determined for it not to be shared here.
Perhaps Unheard should have an article, or several for balance on the misandry of Julie Bindel
I went looking for BBC Angry Women, it says episodes not available, out of date I’m guessing.
Misogyny is misogyny no matter how you dress it up.
I don’t understand why men who want more than anything to be women are misogynistic.
From my observation and experience, male transexuals (different to transgender) were not/are not antagonistic towards women and did just want to live their lives as women.
Gender ideology is very different, in so many ways and impacts. I think it is more that transactivism acts as a lightning rod for those men, especially men on the Left, who dislike women and feminism. It is acceptable for these men to deride women as TERFs, transphobes, bigots, threaten them with assault, rape, etc and to be praised for it or to have their abuse ignored by most of the Left.
Part of the ideology demands that women actually believe that men can be a woman by identifying as a woman and that anything less than this belief is transphobic etc. This compelled thinking creates the demand that our language be changed to prioritise these men’s identity preference and subsume actual women’s biology as a footnote or subcategory to these men.
Hence the terms chest feeders, cervix owners, menstruators etc. All terms that only apply to women or girls. Also in many other smaller, unpublicised ways eg: in Melbourne, a man who identifies as a woman demanded that a woman only event remove the word ‘p***y’ be removed from its name because he felt it excluded him.
Maybe misogyny is not the word, but it takes such a deep, deep disrespect of women for any man to believe that they can choose to be a woman and that they have the right to demand women believe they are women. A particularly odious incursion – by straight men who identify as women – is into lesbian dating apps and the demand that lesbians have sex with them, and the cultural pressure on young lesbians in particular to ‘be inclusive’ of these men.
Women must not lose the right to owning their own sex, their own sex-based rights and the right to exclude men from our spaces such as changing rooms, language that is unique to women and female-only experiences such as pregnancy and lactation.
Concise, clear and right. The descent into ludicrous name calling: “chest feeders”, etc, reveals the infantile malice behind gender ideology. The attempt to turn women into anti-matter, (by employing a rhetorical slight of hand) simply won’t wash with the majority of the population. However, our lawmakers and ‘cultural influencers’, (universities, etc.) remain a breed apart and many have fallen under the ‘Woke’ spell.
The idea of changing language in order to change thoughts and force people to comply is not limited to women. It is standard left-wing practice and goes all the way back to ‘non-sexist english’ (chairman->chair, ‘people of colour’, ‘enslaved people’, …)
“such a deep, deep disrespect for women”
I think that is a mistake, I think it might be a deep, deep FEAR of women. The majority of men live with the rise of women in public life either straightforwardly, or with humour, or with resignation, but for some it may be threatening. Therefore promoting trans ideology could be a way of undermining women fundamentally. I doubt whether this is a conspiracy as such, it is more likely unconscious drives gathering like minds together, backed up with interested capital.
They are not misogynistic. But the radical activists screaming transphobe and refusing to engage in discussion certainly are (or they are terminally stupid). And the men claiming to be trans simply to gain access to traditionally female spaces certainly are.
No, they are not. But the activists surely are. Don’t you think the language and sentiments expressed on the placards and pavement are misogynistic? Particularly the obsession with how the ‘male member’ can humiliate a woman.
Since the creation of the UN in 1946 and their well meaning Declaration on Human Rights, the West has increasingly attempted to legislate Hate out of existence. It cannot be done.
The battle with Hate (eg, misogyny) can only ever be a personal one. Peace, effective political and social organisation and prosperity make Hate less likely to occur.
Fighting between groups of activists, ie, trans, feminists, LGBTQ+, BLM, seem to be indicative of national instability and lack of confidence.
I cannot help thinking that only some kind of major catharsis will get us back on an even keel. I don’t want that, but history seems to suggest that is the most likely outcome.
All this sillyness will be ending soon enough. Fat times with massive government and private debt spending has made for easy times where all have a safety net and free handouts and entitlements, rights, and no responsibilities, even to themselves.
But hard times are soon to be here. Inflation, a huge stock market crash, depression, seemingly inevitable from the crazy debt government has run up buying votes.
In hard times people have to worry about practicle matters, and not such things as woke nonsense.
““Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.””
I hope it is seen as sillyness soon, and not too much damage is done in the process, although thousands of children will have suffered appalling medical interventions in the interim.
But to your point – yes, there is a reason why the gender ideology movement is concentrated in the comfortable middle class.
I’m starting to think the extremism of the trans activists is so unusual that it must be a bunch of organised misogynist blokes using this as a platform for attacking women.
I know this is somewhat conspiratorial, but it’s just so much more extreme than other political activists.
Not really. It’s maybe got ramped up as the years have gone on, with feminists turning it up a notch and others following suit.
Transgender activists have achieved astonishing success in persuading young people that any expression of opinion that they do not agree with is transphobic, which means that they feel “unsafe” to participate in public life. In fact, this is how I got banned from a UK Facebook politics forum recently. One of the moderators was trans and all the others were equally convinced about the right to “safe space”. I saw this idea of “safe” cited also by Sussex Uni students at the link below. It’s such an amazing development in free speech in such a short time. It’s brilliantly effective lobbying but utterly undemocratic.
Against my religion, but because it’s my alma mater, I read the Guardian link. Tragic, overgrown toddlers demanding ‘safety’ as if they were back in nursery. So we protect a supposedly vulnerable group (who wage open warfare and threaten violence to academics)? I don’t believe it. These young people are
Sorry, didn’t mean to send. These young people are self censoring and ‘being kind’. Just to be hoped they don’t learn the hard way that not everyone is.
They have not only convinced young people that comments they disagree with are transfobic, they have convinced young people that men can be women.
If I read Julie Bindel right, she sees the violence inherent to trans activism as being just another manifestation of the inherent pigness of men. Way to win friends and influence people.
I don’t think you can ignore those men who identify as women, and then abuse women for not accepting them in their spaces or for not agreeing that they are women or for lesbians who refuse to f**k them or any woman who says only women menstruate, give birth etc. These men do exist. I have been abused (suck my girld**k is a favorite especially with a picture to go with it) by such men.
Yes, it is #notallmen. But it is another variation on the very wide spectrum of harassment, abuse, intimidation, threats etc (and up to actual assault) that girls and women experience from men. Again, if girls & boys and women knew who was ‘safe’ and who wasn’t that would be great, but until then we all teach our kids what behaviours or signals to be wary of, and to ALWAYS trust your instincts if something doesn’t seem right.
Also, gaslighting girls that they must believe that men who identify as women are ‘safe’ is pretty sick and classic grooming behavior because it tells them their instincts are transphobic.
After the murder of David Ames’s I think the police would have been more proactive about dealing with protesters using such threatening sexual insults.
Did anyone report it to the police? I live locally and certainly will write to ask them what they did to ensure the safety of those attending the conference.
As I understand it, there was a “police presence”. Which is to say, they stood there and watched and did nothing.
… Bit of a sidebar. Yesterday I rewatched an engaging encounter between Joe Rogan & Russell Brand. At one point, transgenderism came up. Joe made the remark that vehement ‘feminists’ look down upon women in short skirts & plunging necklines who they believe continue to cater to the ‘patriarchy’, yet they generally cheer on ‘dolled up’ transgender men who want to be women. It was an astute observation.
Both Russell & he have daughters. They’re trying to sensibly navigate the waters of being ‘strong father figures’ to their girls without imposing ‘sexual’ expectations. To wit, Russell remarked how it freaked him out when someone gave him a bikini for his 3 year old daughter. He objected to the ‘sexualization’ of his child.
Neither gent is perfect. Both add to the on-going discussion. ~ Will supply link as an add-on in a minute.
Can someone please tell me what is and is not acceptable to post and what is going on with the censor? I attempted to post, quoting directly, word for word, from the article. It was “pending approval” for some time and then disappeared. How is a comment not acceptable if it is taken word for word from the article? I just don’t get it…..
The system is mediocre and relies on word matches, which is why it bowdlerises names like Cressida D**k and Ed B*lls. Don’t let it get you down.
Well I’ve reported it to the local police and asked the county Police and Crime Commissioner about the police handling of this threatening behaviour by protesters – referencing the Sir David Amess murder and the need to stop violent language, especially in public.
How do you despise who you claim you wish to be?
Jealousy is one route to hate.
Another is a belief in one’s inherent superiority over the sex you claim to be. One can be a ‘better’ version or more ‘authentic’ version of a woman.
Or an upbringing fed with demonstrations of contempt of anything female, colliding with one’s autogynephillia.
I wonder what Plato would think
I joined UNherd today because Julie Bindel posts here.
They told me, barely able to look me in the eye, that when feminists talk about single sex spaces, such as prisons and refuges, that this leads to transphobic bigotry, which, in turn, leads to trans people being murdered.
Well they’ve learned their feminist logic well. This is almost identical to feminist arguments that sexist jokes lead to misogyny which leads to rape.
not acceptable, and certainly not suggestive of an oppressed group protesting their oppressor.
Er – comparison with slogans and placards used by feminists anyone?
Yes, “Woman, noun; adult human female” is just as aggressive as “Suck my girld**k, TERF.”
“Woman, noun; adult human female” is if anything the answer to “Trans women are women!”. Both presemt one extreme of the debate as an absolute, nuance-free slogan. Since the ‘adult human female’ part came first, was almost universally accepted, and was flatly denied by a trans side bent on prohibiting debate, the answer if anything seems rather less aggressive than the challenge.
The definition of ‘woman’ as adult human female has been accepted and found in every dictionary since Samuel Johnson’s. Even if you disagree with it there is not a hint of aggression there.
Ordering someone to perform a sex act on oneself without consent is the very definition of aggression, surely.
I have no love for the trans movement, but I have to call BS when I see it. Trans are not “misogynists”, as you dont wish to become something you hate. The misogyny label is just something intellectually dishonest feminists use for anything that opposes them/they oppose. It is no more than lazy and disingenuous name calling.
With the trans versus feminist war raging, we are witnessing the left eating itself alive. Something we have long predicted would happen. Man-hating feminists (Bindel) have lost their safe spaces on the left, so now they are coming to the middle and even to the right for aid and comfort. Articles like this on UnHerd are a perfect example. I don’t believe we should indulge them.
I would never use the word misogynist, as I do think it’s a lazy slur. I’ve never met a man who I thought hated women in general, or a woman who hated men for that matter.
And I do accept that transwomen (and I’ve known a few personally) seem to be motivated by adulation of the ‘feminine’ – as they see or understand it. I tend to believe that a majority of transwomen want to be accepted as women and by women.
Where it gets weird is that transwomen are heterosexual (they desire women and apparently wish to become what they desire).
However, a man who tries to look like a woman and to conceal his masculinity (and who wants to discuss make up and shoes) is not going to be on any woman’s sexual radar – none that I know anyway, straight or gay.
When I watch the trans and the feminists go at it, I just bring out the popcorn and enjoy the show. Feminists Will have no support from me. What is being done to them is what they have been doing to the men’s movement for decades. Back in the day they were accused of “hating men”, and it all seemed so simplistic at the time. But Not so far from the truth back then, and so certainly spot on today..
and ps., Trans activists are not “men’s rights movement.” That is a feminist lie.
As shocking as I find the above without irony sign, at the bottom line, are we not just all people surviving in a modern world? Personally, I’m not much of a joiner, but if a man wishes to self identify as a womanhood joiner, (can’t blame him, are we not the most fantastic inherently creative of tribes?!) what kinda woman does he/she have in mind? Me, the Marxist Anarchist artist or, say, Margaret Thatcher? ‘Womanhood’ is not one size fits all so at some point there must be some idealised version in mind… (filtered through… ooh, best not go there…) so good luck with that then Jeez, maybe Marx pegged it… (Groucho not Karl ) One world, one love, no borders ✌❣️
Join the discussion
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.Subscribe