June 14, 2014
Originally posted on giagia:
On the 30th of July Laurie Penny is taking part in a discussion with Mary Beard entitled ‘Why Are We Afraid of Outspoken Women?’
From the Ancient Roman forum to Twitter, women have long had to fight for freedom of speech. In 2014, women are still fighting for this basic human right. Online abuse directed at women crosses all forums of the internet. Few women writers and campaigners have not had their views or arguments mocked online at some point. More worryingly, women online also regularly face abuse, harassment, intimidation and violent threats. The purpose of this abuse is to silence women and remove them from public debate.
Sadly, I am not immune to abuse, harassment or threats online (hint: I’m female). Because over the past several months I have talked about gender and biological sex, I have got all kinds of crap from trans activists and…
View original 435 more words
Sheila Jeffreys “looks more than a bit like a man. She’s about four shots of testosterone away from passing as one”. When men review ‘Gender Hurts’
June 12, 2014
Two new reviews of ‘Gender Hurts’ today, both from men, one of whom has actually read the book.
The first is from Dallas Denny, who previously campaigned with Jamison Green, the President of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health, a medical lobby funded by the pharmaceutical industry) in an attempt to censor the publication of this book BEFORE IT HAD EVEN BEEN AUTHORED.
Denny opines in today’s first offering:
“[Managing Director of Books Jeremy North of Routledge Press] suggested we could review the book after it was published. And now I’m doing just that. Or, rather, I expect I will, if ever I can bring myself to read it. What follows is not a thorough review, but an impression based on a lookover of Gender Hurts.
Interestingly, the page count of Jeffreys’ book is almost the same as Raymond’s; at 189 pages it weighs in just four pages longer than Raymond’s 185.”
Aah, yes, the page count. And what of the paper quality? How much does the book weigh? Does it have that “new book smell”? What was the cost of the shipping freight?
Angry men should never feel obliged to read a woman’s words before forming strong opinions about them, and subsequently publishing those very important opinions. All that female-impersonator Denny needs to do is look at the book cover to conclude that Jeffreys “adopts a lesbian uniform that makes her look more than a bit like a man. She’s about four shots of testosterone away from passing as one.” How can men possibly take the time to read the books they are reviewing when the author is lesbian, and fails to adopt a distinctly sexay laydee wardrobe requirement?
Read more of Denny’s devastatingly insightful review of a book he has not read here:
Today’s second review is by another man, who in this case claims to have actually read the book he is reviewing. In a New Statesman piece Tim R. Johnston generously offers that feminists have the right to critique males but “that critique must come from a place of established respect.” Jeffreys has dismally failed to respect men in her feminist text, says Johnston. LOL!
“The entire text is a striking example of how not to criticise a group [men] of which you are not a member.” Insensitive, man-hating feminist dyke! In one succinct sentence Mr. Johnston places Jeffreys’ text into the entire canon of the history of the Women’s Liberation movement, on which he claims to be an authority: “The book is poorly researched and argued, and is not a meaningful contribution to feminist theory.” Oh, Okay bro.
Johnston suggests that women abandon women’s liberation and release ourselves from our “attachment to our sex”; By doing so (Stupid cunts! Why haven’t we thought of this ourselves!) we will..something… something …something.
“When we abandon our attachment to either sex or gender identity we can more clearly see the experiences we share and let those experiences form the basis of a coalition.” Okay bro.
The important thing is that men who take pleasure in sex-roles should be prioritized over the actual violence and subjugation of women.
“Trans women [men] may identify as women, but they are not women because they do not have the lived history of having been born and raised as women. Identity cannot replace or change your history of living as one of two biological sexes. Feminists have good reason to be attached to this foundation. Women are violently persecuted because of their sex, and the methods of that persecution, methods like rape and forced reproduction, often involve female anatomy. Uniting in this shared history is an important foundation for feminist consciousness raising and solidarity.
Many [male] people ground their politics in gender identity, describing how this identity is a persistent aspect of their experience. Cisgender people [women] must realise that a [male] woman did not become a woman after transitioning, [he] has always been a woman, and because [he] is a woman [he] deserves access to women-only spaces. Certainly not all [male] people identify as having always been one gender, but focusing on gender identity over biological or assigned sex is an important way to ensure that [male] identities are not discredited, ignored, or marginalised.”
Jeffreys’ work, which is not meaningful to male feminism, discredits, ignores, and marginalizes male feelings and the access to women that males deserve. Oh gosh no!
Okay thanks guys! Thanks for clearing up the whole female oppression thing! Problem solved (for you)!
June 4, 2014
Portlandian Thems and Zirs! Whatever you have planned for Saturday is far less interesting than this: Radfems Respond!
May 23, 2014
Ever find zemself raging against those awful TERFS and SMERFS that are ruining Feminism with all their talk about “sex-based oppression of females”?!?
Have you herd* about how RadFems are trying to DENY YOU your IDENTITY?!?
Does EXCLUSION of individuals who are cursed with involuntary assignment into the oppressor class by those NASTY women’s liberationists make you homicidal with testosteroidal rage ?!?
WE HEAR YOUR PAIN.
And, we want to hear your voices.
This weekend, abandon your “not man” cave (and/or basement) with all the preDICKtable comfort of your porn (and/or gaming) addiction into the blinding light of the partially overcast day to participate in the first ever, historical, NOT EXCUSIONARY Radical Feminist (NERF) public event.
That’s Right! YOU, my good zirs, are invited to publicly debate Feminists and educate them! Now is your chance to enlighten Feminists about how:
1.) Humans are not reproductively dimorphic. Because disorders of sexual development!
2.) Sex-based oppression goes both ways! Weary is the head that holds the crown!
3.) Global war on women? Women Rape Too!
4.) Sex roles: whatareyougonnado? Let’s embrace them! More consumer choices!
5.) Big Pharma is freedom!
6.) Feminist speech murders males! And forces males to murder females!
7.) Lesbians and Gays oppress those of the opposite sex by rejecting them as heterosexual partners!
Saturday May 24, 10:45 am, get your ass to the Multnomah Central Library at 801 SW 10th Ave. and partake in this historic event. Still time to pre-reg and guarantee a seat at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If inclusion and dialogue are not your gig, and you prefer incoherent rage, there is a hilarious protest by men AGAINST Feminism and free speech and public discussion. By dudes claiming that feminists “are people who want trans folks to be outlawed and be executed in prison unless they go back to their birth sex because to them genital is destiny. They claim trans women are rapists simply by existing, AND even petitioned the United Nations to strip all trans and genderqueer people of human rights. This same group of people are also into slut-shaming and against sex workers and also those women who do not become butch lesbians. Funny how they are all white middle class women with masters and doctors degrees, who go after poor trans women of color who experience constant threat of hate crime, denied healthcare, unemployment, homelessness, police violence and just all sorts of oppression. Let’s make them check their WHITE, MIDDLE-CLASS, CIS PRIVILEGE!” [sic]
Hahahahahaha! Where ARE these pricks when it’s time for me to pay rent with my upper class educated laydee overlord privilege! LOLOLOLOL. OMg the “doctors degree” lesbian overlords forcing women to become butch dykes. Where are they?! Now THAT is a conference I would get on a plane for. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Those horrible, horrible TERF SWERF SMURFS with their education privilege! Stupid feminist cunts! YEAHHH! Make me check my privilege doods! Hahahahaha! Start gluing glitter on those signs, yo!
Hey social justice activists!
Are internet flamewars bumming you out?
Do interactions on social media sometimes make you feel like you’ve entered a fighting pit?
We’re tired of the lightless heat, too. That’s why Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) has arranged for a public dialogue on two of the most controversial issues facing modern feminism, abolishing prostitution and ending gender.
On Saturday May 24 we will honor Memorial Day weekend with a political ceasefire and call for the opening of peace talks. In the spirit of honest, respectful engagement, you are invited to come ask radical feminists any questions on these subjects you may have wanted to ask but were too intimidated by rancorous internet interactions.
Please join us for what will be a thought-provoking day for everyone who wants clarification on what radical feminists really think about prostitution and gender.
April 17, 2014
Originally posted on Liberation Collective:
Janet Mock is a transwoman author who has strong opinions on gender and the sex industry shared in this memoir. Mock discusses many topics, but this review will cover five: essentialism, the term “cis”, the term “fish”, hormone blockers for children, and the sex industry.
View original 3,081 more words
April 4, 2014
The following is an excerpt from the forthcoming book “Gender Hurts: A feminist analysis of the politics of transgenderism” by Sheila Jeffreys.
Gender and women’s equality
Transgenderism cannot exist without a notion of essential ‘gender’. Feminist critics argue that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is founded upon stereotypes of gender, and, in international law, gender stereotypes are recognised as being in contradiction to the interests of women (Raymond, 1994; Hausman, 1995; Jeffreys, 2005). The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979) was drawn up before the language of gender and the idea of ‘gender identity’ came to dominate international law discourse and to stand in for women as a sex category. It spoke instead of ‘stereotyped roles’ and recognised these stereotypes as the basis for discrimination against women. Article 5 says that States Parties should take ‘all appropriate measures’ to ‘modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudice and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women’ (CEDAW, 1979: Article 5). The idea of ‘gender identity’ relies on stereotypes for its meaning and is in conflict with the understanding in CEDAW that such stereotypes are profoundly harmful to women.
The term ‘gender’ itself is problematic. It was first used in a sense that was not simply about grammar, by sexologists, the scientists of sex, such as John Money, in the 1950s and 60s, who were involved in normalising intersex infants. They used the term to mean the behavioural characteristics they considered most appropriate for persons of one or other biological sex. They applied the concept of gender when deciding upon the sex category into which those infants who did not have clear physical indications of one biological sex or another, should be placed (Hausman, 1995). Their purpose was not progressive. These were conservative men who believed that there should be clear differences between the sexes and sought to create distinct sex categories through their projects of social engineering. Unfortunately, the term was adopted by some feminist theorists in the 1970s, and by the late 1970s was commonly used in academic feminism to indicate the difference between biological sex and those characteristics that derived from politics and not biology, which they called ‘gender’ (Haig, 2004).
Before the term ‘gender’ was adopted, the term more usually used to describe these socially constructed characteristics was ‘sex roles’. The word ‘role’ connotes a social construction and was not susceptible to the degeneration that has afflicted the term ‘gender’ and enabled it to be wielded so effectively by transgender activists. As the term ‘gender’ was adopted more extensively by feminists, its meaning was transformed to mean not just the socially constructed behaviour associated with biological sex, but the system of male power and women’s subordination itself, which became known as the ‘gender hierarchy’ or ‘gender order’ (Mackinnon, 1989; Connell, 2005). Gradually, older terms to describe this system, such as male domination, sex class and sex caste went out of fashion, with the effect that direct identification of the agents responsible for the subordination of women, men, could no longer be named. Gender, as a euphemism, disappeared men as agents in male violence against women, which is now commonly referred to as ‘gender violence’. Increasingly, the term ‘gender’ is used, in official forms and legislation, for instance, to stand in for the term ‘sex’ as if ‘gender’ itself is biological, and this usage has overwhelmed the feminist understanding of gender.
In this book I have chosen to use the term ‘sex caste’ to describe the political system in which women are subordinated to men on the basis of their biology. Feminists have disagreed over whether women’s condition of subordination is best referred to in terms of ‘caste’ or ‘class’. Those who use the concept of women as a ‘sex class’, such as Kate Millett, are referencing their experience in leftwing politics and see the idea of ‘class’ as offering the possibility of revolution (Millett, 1972). Millett did, however, use the term caste as well, speaking of women’s ‘sexual caste system’ (Millett, 1972: 275). If women are in a subordinate class in relation to men, as the working class is in relation to the bourgeoisie, then women’s revolution can be conceptualised as overthrowing the power of men in such a way that sex class ceases to have meaning and will disappear as a meaningful category (Wittig, 1992). It also implies, as in left theory, that women’s revolution requires the recognition by women of their ‘sex’ class status as the basis for political action. Nonetheless, the term sex class can be problematic because it implies that women could move out of their ‘class’, in the same way that individual working class people could change their class position by becoming embourgeoised. The term ‘caste’, on the other hand, is useful for this book because it encapsulates the way in which women are placed into a subordinate caste status for their lifetime (see Burris, 1973). Women may change their economic class status with upward mobility, but they remain women unless they elect to transgender and claim membership in the superior sex caste. Both of these terms can be useful in articulating the condition of women, but the term ‘caste’ offers a particular advantage in relation to studying transgenderism. The very existence of transgenderism on the part of women demonstrates the stickiness of caste subordination. The marks of caste remain attached to females unless they claim that they are really ‘men’, and only a very significant social transformation will enable change in this respect.
Postmodern and queer theorists share with transgender theorists the idea that ‘gender’ is a moveable feast that can be moved into and out of, swapped and so forth. Gender, used in this sense, disappears the fixedness of sex, the biological basis that underlies the relegation of females to their sex caste. Female infants are identified by biology at birth and placed into a female sex caste which apportions them lifelong inferior status. The preference for biologically male children and the femicide of female infants, for instance, which has created a great inequality in the sex ratio in India and other countries, is based on sex and not ‘gender’. Female foetuses are aborted and female infants are killed because of sex, not ‘gender’ discrimination (Pande, 2006). Foetuses do not have ‘gender’ or ‘gender identity’, because the forces of a womanhating culture have not had a chance to affect the way they understand themselves. The inferior sex caste status of women is assigned with reference to their biology, and it is through their biology that their subordination is enforced and maintained through rape, impregnation, and forced childrearing. Women do not pass in and out of wearing ‘women’s’ clothing, as cross-dressers may do, indeed they may reject such clothing as inferiorising, but still suffer violence and discrimination as women. Though individual women may be successful in roles more usually arrogated to men, they are likely to be treated as interlopers and receive sexual harassment, as happened to the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard (Summers, 2013). Her caste status was continually thrown in her face by hostile male commentators, politicians and cartoonists. Women do not decide at some time in adulthood that they would like other people to understand them to be women, because being a woman is not an ‘identity’. Women’s experience does not resemble that of men who adopt the ‘gender identity’ of being female or being women in any respect. The idea of ‘gender identity’ disappears biology and all the experiences that those with female biology have of being reared in a caste system based on sex. Only one book-length critique of transgenderism was written in second wave feminism, Janice Raymond’s deservedly well-known tour de force, The Trannsexual Empire (1994, 1st published 1979). She usefully sums up the difference between feminist understandings of women and that of men who transgender thus:
We know that we are women who are born with female chromosomes and anatomy, and that whether or not we were socialized to be so-called normal women, patriarchy has treated and will treat us like women. Transsexuals have not had this same history. No man can have the history of being born and located in this culture as a woman. He can have the history of wishing to be a woman and of acting like a woman, but this gender experience is that of a transsexual, not of a woman. Surgery may confer the artifacts of outward and inward female organs but it cannot confer the history of being born a woman in this society. (Raymond, 1994:114)
“Gender Hurts” will be released on April 17. Order your copy here:
March 30, 2014
Reprinting this blog post for discussion. Nothing groundbreaking here, but not linking to source because there is some confusion over whether author “PlasticGirl” is the violent, deranged anti-lesbian and anti-muslim Dr. Aeryn Fulton of Pittsburgh, PA.
Dr. Aeryn Fulton claimed to be the author of blogger PlasticGirl’s posts in the course of Fulton’s violent gay-bashing death threats against blogger GayNotQueer, and others, who were critical of stereotypical sex roles for gay men, lesbians, and society at large.
Here is the post, open for discussion of transgender POV re: “womanhood”. His post is titled “Can Trans women and Trans-critical Radical Feminists ever be friends?”:
Can trans women and trans-critical radical feminists ever be friends?
Posted on March 30, 2014 by plasticgirl
I first discovered trans-critical radical feminism in late 2010, and since then, I’ve read Betty Friedan, Mary Daly, Sheila Jeffreys, a smattering of Andrea Dworkin, Janice Raymond, and Germaine Grier as well as Julie Bindel and Julie Burchill and every trans-critical rad fem blog I could find, in the hopes of trying to understand.
Setting aside for the moment, the various radical feminist postures on trans, I found my study of radical feminism to be mind-expanding. I lost sleep reading Sheila Jeffreys and Factcheckme. Radical feminism increased my situational awareness of the dynamics of power between men and women. I see media images and advertisements aimed towards women in a totally new way. I found myself in agreement of the idea that women as class: female, are still in need of liberation from the Patriarchy, because I had personally experienced patriarchal oppression as soon as I started presenting as a woman, I just didn’t have a name for it, other than, “welcome to womanhood”.
Then we get to radical feminism and trans.
March 17, 2014
The following Mansfeminist Manifesto appeared today on “The F-Word” website (the word which cannot be spoken being Feminism, apparently). The guy who wrote it submitted the post FIVE MONTHS past his deadline, which explains the reference to him as being “November’s guest blogger”. The post is “Who your friends are matters” by Charlie Hale. Enjoy!
Who your friends are matters 16 March 2014, 11:01
This is Charlie Hale’s first guest post for The F-Word. They’ll be blogging for us throughout November. Charlie Hale is a Computer Science student and blogger by night and asleep by day. They’re a genderqueer, kinky, polyamorous pan/bisexual who can’t keep their mouth shut.
A recurring theme within a certain sector of feminism, which we might refer to as privileged, professional or media feminism, is the pushing back at criticism based on friendships or political alliances. To critique one’s friends, they argue, is creepy, or scary, even a totalitarian-esque attack on the freedom of association – entirely missing the significance of these associations. No one will find unanimous agreement on everything with everyone; even between friends, there is – and should be – large scope for disagreement. However, there are some issues on which disagreement should be a clear cut deal breaker: I could not, for example, be friends with Fred Phelps, Vladimir Putin or Norman Tebbit, whatever the circumstances.
Why not? Well, because they’re vile human beings. Who would want the company of someone so appalling? However, more than this, it would give endorsement – on both personal and political levels – to their views and actions. My friendship would imply their views were, to me, credible; that I felt these views were welcome in society. This applies to events as well: to invite bigoted and frankly unacceptable views to be aired on your platform is to give them tacit validation and approval. This isn’t a matter of endorsing the truth of an associate’s views, but rather the acceptability of them.
[Now… who are the feminists who are friends with Vladamir Putin, etc, whose associations are of such concern to Charlie? I think you can see where this is going. There are actually NO feminists who are friends with these gents. This is called “building a straw man”. But there are some sort of feminists associating with something or someone that, to Charlie is, (as the kids say) “worse than Hitler”. Ammirite? ]
“This is the primary idea behind no-platforming: the practice of an organisation refusing to give a platform to someone, and/or a person refusing to speak on the same stage or panel as them – something which is the responsibility of any responsible organiser or speaker. Inviting such speakers not only negatively impacts the climate of the movement, but actively makes marginalised people feel less safe and welcome in the event and the movement as a whole.”
[Hmmm. So feminist women who are personal friends with Fred Phelps, etal, (of which there are none) should, if they DID exist, be no-platformed from expressing their own views due to that non-existent association, according to this fellow Charlie, a man who feels comfortable telling women how to run our own liberation movement, and telling women who we can associate with. Okayyy…]
“In many cases, a person’s problematic politics will be dismissed as “not problematic enough” to warrant no-platforming: this, however, is a blatant display of privilege. If you are in the position where you are able to wave away oppressive behaviour with no personal ill-effects, you are almost certainly not in the position where you could reasonably speak for that oppressed group.”
[So women cannot trust our own judgment about which politics a feminist’s friend has, which are “problematic” enough to taint a woman via “contagion”, requiring her to be quarantined using the “no platform” method. (Are you keeping up here laydees?) Moreso, the very fact that we deem something NOT “problematic” should be a giant red flag that we are privileged cunts too stupid to know when something IS “problematic” for Charlie, a man who is oppressed by women. I do sooooo hope you are keeping up here, dear readers.]
“It is never the privileged who suffer from the toxic atmosphere – and, from a platform of privilege, that can be easy to ignore. Active engagement with less privileged members of a movement is the only real way to promote accessibility.”
[“less privileged” than women: Charlie, who needs you to “engage” with him, listen to him, and trust his judgement over your own stupid cuntedness.]
“There is some pragmatism required. It is usually unreasonable to expect someone to call out their boss – as journalist Laurie Penny has been pressured lately to do. I generally don’t expect people to starve for their feminism and we can’t assume that people are always able to actively tackle problematic views from their superiors without risking their own well-being.”
[He doesn’t expect TOO MUCH from you laydees. Charlie doesn’t require you to actually starve for him! He’s a reasonable guy vis a vis you meeting his male feminist needs.]
“However, active endorsements of problematic individuals and groups must be tackled. Feminists who cosy up to TERfs, white supremacists or misogynists for their own advancement – or, as is becoming common, to seek sympathy from problematic groups having been called out – must understand the serious damage they are inflicting. Placing the views of the oppressors above the safety of the oppressed sends a very clear message: ‘my feminism is for me, and my ilk, and us alone’. This is as much a part of the patriarchy as what they claim to be fighting against.”
[Ohhhh… feminists who “cozy up” to “terfs”! Feminists who exchange ideas (or friendship!) with RADICAL feminists, with UNDISTILLED feminism, with feminism that centralizes FEMALE (and not Charlie’s) concerns. Oh thattttt. And the feminists cozying up to white supremacists and misogynists? Who are they? Oh hell, I’m going to guess they are WOMAN-CENTERED feminists TOO! And we’ll just call them “Vlad Putin Fred Phelps Hitler Racist Misogynist-type Feminists” too! Because Charlie!
I love this part: “…as is becoming common, to seek sympathy from problematic groups having been called out”. Ohhh Noeeee! Women become alienated when you try to isolate them, control them, tell them who they can be friends with, tell them not to trust their own judgment, tell them what to think, tell them how to speak, make them perform loyalty tests, threaten to publicly smear them, call them degrading names? Awww. Sorry, Charlie.
Hey wait a minute. Who is this Charlie person anyway and why should women obey him? I’m not questioning, mind- because questioning would be a HUGE red flag that I’m about to do something cuntly and not at ALL prioritizing Charlie’s oppression as a man over that of the women worldwide who are keeping him down! I’m just curious, you see, and trying to educate my stupid cuntly self.
This is Charlie. He says he is genderqueer. You must obey him. If you don’t, he and his friends will rain hell upon you- or at least unload a disconcerting spam-like stream of internet messages to yourself and whatever “platform” you are speaking on, possibly threatening suicide and murder and a shouty demonstration (where only a handful of his peeps will actually show up because they are all anti-social shut-ins who fear daylight).
This is Charlie showing you his kinky polyamorous porn-loving gender-lovin’ ass. “Obey it!” Charlie says. Charlie likes stackable plastic storage basins. Clean your room Charlie. Your mum isn’t going to do it anymore.
February 27, 2014
A woman in Oregon is suing an employer for financial compensation to repair her emotional distress after co-workers used female pronouns when referring to her instead of the unique pronoun she requested.
Plaintiff Valencia Jones is a female genderist. Genderists are social conservatives, religious fundamentalists, or transgender individuals who believe that reproductive sex should be defined not by biology but “Gender Identity” based on one’s belief in antiquated social sex roles. Pink princess for girls, monster trucks for boys.
Most women who reject sex-roles for women would be considered feminists, or gender abolitionists. Instead Jones, as a transgenderist, believes that cultural stereotypes linking certain behaviors, emotions, and abilities to reproductive function (Math for boys, English for girls) should form the basis for sex designation, not objective biology. By the genderist view, if a woman rejects a subordinate social role she is no longer reproductively female. She can either adopt a persona which pantomimes male dominance over other females and try to have her sex designated as male, or she can reject her subordinate role without adopting an oppressive male persona and try to have her sex designated as “anything but female”. That is what Valencia has tried (and failed) to do.
The problem with Valencia’s genderism is that one cannot “will away” sex-based oppression of females because our oppression is based on our biological reproductive function which is static and cannot be “identified away”. Valencia could try to disguise her biology and “pass” as male to avoid reproduction-based oppression. She could even have her reproductive system surgically removed, but this will not eradicate the social sex-based class status “female”. She will retain the pre-intellectual social conditioning she has been indoctrinated with since birth and she will also be placed back into the subordinate female caste whenever her actual sex is known.
Transgenderism is a political movement based on relaxing the social norms required by men to maintain social dominance over women. It is an adjustment of social norms designed to allow men greater freedom: the freedom to perform male-designed “femininity” (subordinate status inflicted on females by male violence) for each other, for sport, for shits and giggles, for sexual excitement, for unrestricted access to female spaces, while maintaining strict superiority over women.
Women and girls cannot identify our way out of sexual oppression by males. We can try to hide our reproductive capacity by disguising ourselves as male but once that disguise fails we are back to being members of the sex oppressed class. In the same way, men disguised as women can access their dominant male birthright at any time of their choosing merely by revealing their actual sex.
Fealty to gender (“Gender Identity”) will never benefit women, only men. Subordinate female social roles will never benefit women, only men. Women seeking to “other” themselves from the female sex caste by embrasure of male social roles of dominance over females will never benefit. There is no escape. There is no “identifying out of” or rejection of sex for women, only for men, at their leisure.