Speaking truth to power

"I want to emphasise to you that understanding the impact of gender oppression does not mean that you will understand racial oppression. I believe that you will champion those concerns that you think are important, and I, as one member of the Academy, want to challenge you to hear the unspoken voices of racial oppression in your deliberations, voices that many of your colleagues cannot and do no desire to hear. To do that sometimes means not compromising on concerns fundamental to the poor, to racial minorities, or to women. Sometimes justice requires a Brown or a Roe to alter and structure our conversations. It is that difficult task that I ask you to undertake." (1) 

There are numerous images and quotes doing the social memia rounds featuring Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments on take the knee protests, which serve to question her record in relation to issues of race. She is quoted as saying:

“I think it’s really dumb of them ….Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it….I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act. But it’s dangerous to arrest people for conduct that doesn’t jeopardize the health or wellbeing of other people. It’s a symbol they’re engaged in.”

Ginsburg was a pillar of the US establishment – a liberal, not a radical. She was immersed in that rarefied culture of constitutional law and jurisprudence within which lawyers and judges wander along interminable, convoluted paths of legal logic and precedent to arrive at opinions which sometimes challenge powerful vested interests but seldom get to grips with the structural inequalities that are cemented into the very foundations of the wider economic system the US constitution was intended to serve and protect.

 

She addressed herself mainly to unfair discrimination on the grounds of sex and was always the pragmatist; for example, she initially used cases which highlighted where sex discrimination was unfair to men to prove her point and, because that’s how the system works, to make her legal name.

 

She was as opposed to race-based unfair discrimination as she was to sex-based discrimination but she was a product of her class and her time, and she believed the foundations of the system she served were solid. It was just aspects of the superstructure which needed refurbishment and modernisation. 

When, at the age of 83, she was faced with a question about what many (maybe most) Americans see as a gesture of disrespect for the anthem and the flag – those symbols of American imperialism and manifestations of the ideology of American exceptionalism  – her establishment roots were showing.

 

She was wrong in her choice of words – dumb, disrespectful, terrible, ridiculous – and although she apologised subsequently, she perhaps betrayed an intellectual arrogance and disregard for what avenues are open to less privileged people to speak truth to deeply entrenched power. 

 

The gesture, like the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics, was symbolically powerful and it focussed attention on the on-going reality of race-based oppression in the USA – and, by extension, elsewhere.

 

Ginsburg's words remind us of the depth of the attachment that many Americans have to the idea of the flag and anthem as symbolic of not just national identity, but national exceptionalism. 

 

Most American children recite the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag every morning at school. The great majority of US states have laws requiring school boards to ensure children recite the pledge daily. The recitation is accompanied by a salute that, before WW2, was almost identical to the Nazi salute and was changed to the current hand on heart salute.  The phrase “One nation under God” was added in the early 1950s as an ideological volley in the Cold War and to bolster the view that the American corporate way was ordained and blessed by the Almighty.

 

We all need to be aware that many Americans’ belief in their own exceptionalism is deeply rooted and has a tendency to sucker wildly when it perceives itself to be under attack.  

 

 

1) From an open letter from black legal scholar Jerome McCristal Culp on the appointment of Ginsburg to the Supreme Court in 1994.)

Putting a spell on you

“You’ve heard the term used in relation to high profile women such as JK Rowling, but what are trans exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs, really all about? In this episode, Alice heads to Wellington to meet with the world’s first transgender MP, Georgina Beyer, and transgender advocate Caitlin Spice to hear about their experiences living in a society built upon rigid gender roles. Why are some people so afraid of trans people? And do TERFs deserve to be called feminists? From there, Alice attends the Feminism 2020 event hosted by “gender critical” group Speak Up For Women in Parliament’s Banquet Hall. Hoping to ask questions of their most prominent speakers, what ensues is a police report, a legal battle and not a hell of a lot of free speech."

 

This is the written introduction on Radio New Zealand (RNZ), to a Spin Off and Hex Productions’ video op-ed come stand-up comedy routine – featuring Alice Snedden in pursuit of a group of women whose critics vacillate between portraying them as an insignificant lunatic fringe, and the greatest threat to human rights on the planet.

 

The film is one of a series funded by NZ On Air, and it sets the tone of advocacy posing as journalism early on, with its references to TERFS, witches, bitches and stinking up feminism.

 

I'm a big picture sort of person so, before we begin this polemic, let me paint a back cloth.

 

Our island nation neighbours face the prospect of their ancestral homes disappearing under the sea because of climate change. The peoples of other small nations are facing mass starvation and bombardment at the hands of brutally repressive regimes that also oppress women with few external sanctions for so doing. Viral pandemics kill vastly more poor people than rich. Alongside mass species extinction, plastic and chemical pollution is causing untold damage to animals' habitats and to mammalian endocrine systems. We are facing a rapid rise of the authoritarian right, which has both the will and the wherewithal to tap into deep veins of popular racism and misogyny. 

 

The architect and builder of all this, corporate capitalism, is intent upon commodifying literally everything and, as illusory compensation, or as distraction, holds out to the egotistical, the promise of immortality in forms of trans humanism; to the alienated, the ability to transform their "flesh suit" to match their inner sense of self; and to megalomaniacal misogynists – the ultimate prize – the technologisation of reproduction itself because, who controls reproduction, quite literally controls the future of the species. The woman-haters’ answer to The Woman Question. 

 

You get the picture. Although in Aotearoa-New Zealand we are buffered to a degree, and for now, from the worst effects of these things, we have widespread poverty, racism, high levels of domestic and wider violence against women and children, high levels of incarceration, especially of Māori, and high suicide levels. 

 

In such a world, what has Spin Off and Alice Snedden focussed their public funding on thus far?

 

Episode one was on the rights of migrant women of colour to rent out their bodies to NZ men, and the second is directed at women who insist that being a human female is more than a feeling or a question of gender identity. 

 

The latter episode has polarised opinion on Twitter, being deemed either the best or the worst of RNZ's journalism.

 

It's neither. It's agitprop; a piece of theatre, a performance. It has its heroes – Yay – and its villains  – Boo  – but there is no nuance, no analysis, no depth. It is superficial, glib and ultimately pretty unhelpful. Snedden's written column is not much better and makes some startling claims. Maybe more on that later if I still have the will to live.

 

So all round, an excellent example of current affairs as agitprop. Well done, RNZ, NZ on Air and Hex Productions. Take a bow. 

 

And now for a quick Q&A to clarify a few points:

 

1. What insights did the programme offer into the lives and experiences of the two transgender women who were interviewed?

 

Very little was said about their wider experiences – and if there had been it might have made a  better film. It was pretty much focussed on what they think about TERFs – nary a thing about the other myriad pressures and stressors on their tiny community, especially not about who trans people are most at risk from – i.e. violent men. Apart from segues into pursuing a politician, it was all about women – usefully corralled and branded as “bigots” to ameliorate any concerns woke folx might have about being thought to be misogynistic  or sexist – because the magical label of TERF grants a ‘get out of misogyny-jail free card.’

 

2.  Why did Speak up For Women (SUFW) decline to be interviewed by Ms Snedden, after having initially said their spokeswoman would be available for an interview? 

 

I don't know why, but in my opinion they should have agreed to the interview and done their own recording of it in order to be able to hold the producers and RNZ to account if their position was misrepresented by sneaky editing which, given the highly ideological slant of the resulting piece, there was a very high probability it would have been. It fair reeked of confirmation bias.

 

And, as the women who were involved in organising the event, are not politicians or media professionals, they were probably, and understandably, wary of a news organisation which – the friendly overtures to get the interview, aside – had been pretty hostile towards them.

 

3.  What was the legal battle? Were the courts involved?

 

A solicitor’s letter, and no. It was all to do with the rights to film inside the event, which SUFW refused to allow. Spin Off decided to ignore that and they were sent a solicitor’s letter threatening them with legal action if they sought to use the footage. Cue much on-camera hilarity from the presenter, whose backside is no doubt well covered by the production company’s liability insurance.

 

4.   In relation to the police report of an assault on the producer by an event organiser, were charges brought?

 

No. The woman who was acting as an usher was trying to stop the producer filming. It's pretty obvious that the production team staged a situation where Alice would ask a question, refuse to give up the mike and continue to grandstand (which I must say she does exceptionally well) hopefully provoking someone into trying to take the mike from her – cue a wrestling match captured by the producer. Great footage if you can get it.

 

The usher did touch the producer­ – who described it as "grabbing and yanking". The usher says she just lightly touched the woman’s arm, which technically could be viewed as common assault. 

 

Spin Off later reported the incident to the police, who logged it as such. The production team didn't get any juicy footage of Alice and a TERF rolling about the floor wrestling for the mike, but they could at least claim there was a police report and use it, both as a hook in the intro, and for the ubiquitous, redacted image. 

 

Of course they failed to mention the damp squib of an outcome, which was that no charges were preferred by the police. Why let the facts get in the way of a good bit of agitprop? 

 

It was a piece of vexatious nonsense and a cynical waste of police time. Pretty shabby in truth.

 

5.  Did the programme makers have proof that the event was deliberately scheduled to coincide with the commencement of Transgender Awareness Week (TAW)?

 

In the programme, much was made of the insensitivity, amounting to a calculated harassment of the trans community, of staging the event on the first day of TAW – typically the week leading up to Nov 20^th which is the Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDR) – a point made very emotionally by Caitlyn Spice. ⁽¹⁾

 

The organisers say they didn't know about TAW or the TDR, and the timing of the event was coincidental and chosen because of a common date when the four speakers, two from overseas, could all be available.  

 

To be fair, given the focus of the group, the organisers arguably should have known about TAW and the TDR, just as they should have anticipated the use of a university as a venue was likely to prove controversial. And, once it was known that the dates clashed, they could have issued a statement making it clear that it was not intended as a calculated insult. That wouldn’t have worked with the activists but it would have been good PR and taken some of the air out of Spin Off’s sales, sorry, sails.

 

6.   Was it acceptable for a production company, funded by NZ on Air, to label, as "bigots", all the attendees at an event – people whose backgrounds and motivations for attending were completely unknown to them?

 

No. It was crassly populist and yet more grandstanding.

 

7.  Was it legitimate to say repeatedly that the lead speaker, Canadian feminist and journalist, Meghan Murphy, and another speaker were banned from Twitter for "hate speech" – without making any sort of comment about the circumstances?

 

No. That was aimed at casting Murphy in particular, in as negative a light as possible. ⁽²⁾ She was permanently banned from Twitter for “hateful conduct” ie “misgendering” – especially in relation to another Canadian known globally for a penchant for suing women of colour who refuse to wax scrotums.   

 

Holly Lawford-Smith, a university lecturer and one of the other speakers, was also banned by Twitter for breaching community rules on “hateful conduct”  by “misgendering” someone who had been harassing her. 

 

All of these bans of women – on a social media platform that is infested with some of the worst of humanity – are the result of mass campaigns of reporting, and any halfway competent journalist, would have at least wondered why it is that, someone of JK Rowling's considerable clout has not been, and will not be banned, despite even greater mass reporting by trans activists. 

 

8.    What about the focus on the group’s links to right wing libertarian MP and free-speech advocate, David Seymour of the ACT Party?

 

For a film about trans people and SUFW it spent a lot of time focusing on David Seymour and the question of free speech and suggesting a political connection between SUFW and ACT.

 

The truth of it seems to be, having heard that the group had lost its venue when Massey University bowed to student pressure and cancelled the booking, Seymour offered to host the event at Parliament and it was able to be rescheduled for two days after the original date, which meant the speakers did not have to radically alter travel plans. 

 

In light of the fact that the event was funded by ticket sales, and money had been put up front by SUFW members, it is hardly surprising they were grateful to accept. 

 

Notes:

1)  I was relieved to see that Ms Spice recovered sufficiently from her sadness over what she perceived as SUFW's callousness, to spiritedly refer to TERFs as "fucking dicks" and accuse David Seymour of stabbing trans people in the back with a "fucking dagger."

 

2)   Georgina Beyer referred to Meghan Murphy as "venal" which interested me as I've never heard of MM being accused of being corrupt but, as Ms Beyer went on to describe herself as also being capable of being venal, I was left a bit confused as to what she meant. Perhaps it was an editing issue.

 

It's still a phallocratic world

I have written about aspects of this issue on this blog more than any other single issue over the past few years – a level of scrutiny that is grossly disproportionate to the tiny number of trans people, even by the widest definition of the term – or to any objective measure of the weight of issues confronting them exclusively as transgender persons, i.e. when intersecting issues of race, class and age etc are taken out of the equation.

 

It's hard to estimate the size of the transgender population, both because of a lack of reliable data, and because of issues of where to draw the boundaries now that the trans umbrella has been expanded to cover a very wide range of gender identities, but estimates vary from 0.3% to 0.6% of the global population, i.e. between 21 million and 42 million people.

 

The demographic’s size, and its political weight and influence – exercised mostly in the affluent world -– becomes interesting when measured against:  

• race: people of colour make up the majority of the world’s population; 
• sex: over half the world’s population is female; 
• poverty: half the world’s population are poor and an estimated 800 million of them live in extreme poverty, most of them people of colour;
• disability: 2 billion people are disabled; 
• age: one billion people are over the age of 60;  
• sexual orientation: around 200 million people are lesbian or gay.

 

In transgenderism, as it has come to be framed in the past decade, there are strands of regressive ideologies that are essentially individualistic and individualising, the worst of which encourage people to see, and to treat their body as a sort of mouldable shell which can, even must, be altered to match their inner sense of self, their personal identity.

 

It is impossible to be "born in the wrong body", and even using that as a figure of speech is unwise because it feeds into a narrative which, at its root, is a quasi-religious belief in an eternal and superior, essence or spirit inhabiting the mortal and inferior, body.

 

People who buy into the notion that there can be a female brain in a functionally male body need to stop and ask where might the re-emergence of such a notion lead, in what is still a profoundly phallocratic world?

 

That the same people often rail against the “essentialism” and “biological determinism” of gender critical feminists, makes it all the more a cause for despair for those of us for whom it makes no sense to politically or critically conflate sex and gender, or to privilege gender identity over biological sex.

 

For me, that's as nonsensical as it is to try to separate body and mind, or body and sense of gendered self, or to separate either from the social context into which we're born, and within which we are formed – constantly – as persons.

 

For some extremely alienated people, the body is framed as a "flesh suit" or "meat sack", in which the essential "self" resides, like some sort of "pilot". The links to gaming – in which people enter a sort of twilight zone as the operator of a digital avatar – are pretty obvious.

For trans humanists, arguably the most alienated of all, the promise of eternal life exists in the possibility of uploading the individual's consciousness to the Cloud, or into a synthetic, infinitely repairable robotic body.

 

These of course are possibilities which can only be envisioned, or have even a remote chance of being realised, within the imperial bubble; and even if they were achievable, would only ever be accessible to the elite.

 

Outside the bubbles of privilege, the wider social and natural worlds move to more ancient and fundamental rhythms, and we ignore these at our peril.

 

I know it's all very passé and boring to talk about stuff that affects actual women but :

Femicide and rape of women remains both endemic and epidemic.

Every year, tens of thousands of mainly brown and black women die from easily preventable birth complications – often related to nutritional deficiencies. 

Upwards of 1 million newborns and as many as 5 million other kids under the age of 5 die from easily preventable causes.

Untold numbers of foetuses are aborted, and neonates are killed, because they are biologically female. 

All over the world at this very moment, thousands of women of colour are walking a total of thousands of kilometres to fetch and carry water to keep themselves and their family alive.

In Yemen, at this very moment, almost an entire population is on the verge of starvation and the first and worst hit – as always – are women and children.

 

I am – as I've always been – committed to the right of all people to live in ways that make them secure, happy and fulfilled. But there are always provisos, conditions, and restrictions on what people may do because life is a series of compromises. The problem for many of the children of the imperial bubble is they've been conditioned to not acknowledge that – compromise is always for the other.

 

Stripped of all its ephemera, sanded down to its naked essentials, we live in a rigidly stratified and increasingly dangerous world dominated by what all sane and sensible people know to be, essentially destructive institutions which, and individuals who, use all manner of overt and covert devices and strategies to keep the mass of people compliant and divided. 

The more atomised we are, the better the elites and their high ranking servants like it, as long as we keep consuming and doing their bidding.

 

In such a world, which is made even more dangerous by the rise of right wing authoritarianism, if trans people are the most vulnerable and marginalised of minorities, their only safe space is within a broad, strong, progressive alliance, but trans issues have become the most polarising and divisive of that alliance of any I've ever seen.

 

Who benefits from such deep and acrimonious divisions? Not women and not genuine trans people.

 

In my view, superficial identity politics is at best accommodative, and at worst essentially reactionary;  transgenderism, as it is currently framed, is a movement in which the individual, and the self-declared needs of the individual, are deemed to be both start and end point of political activity.

 

I've watched the trans movement grow over three decades and I've seen it morph from predominantly transsexuals – mostly gay men who, in a viciously homophobic world, wanted or needed to live as women, and among whom there was a disproportionate number of B&ME people –  into a powerful movement that is dominated by transgender women who, prior to transition, were heterosexual men, often married, having fathered children, succeeded in male-dominated spheres such as the military and tech industries, and mostly white.  

 

It was the latter who spearheaded the transgender push into women-only spaces in the USA – the last of which was Michfest – and they appropriated the marginalisation and vulnerability of poor and black or Hispanic transwomen in the US and South America, in lobbying for transgender rights. They still do but for the most part, they do little or nothing about changing the underlying economic conditions which exacerbate that marginalisation and vulnerability. 

 

Then, the transgender lesbian took centre stage; a social media phenomenon which really took off around five years ago and which probably arose from the dynamic created by the increasing numbers of heterosexual men who transitioned and who retained their sexual attraction to women.

 

However, evidence suggests it has been co-opted by men’s rights activists (MRA) who pretend to be transgender lesbians to play manipulative and sometimes predatory games. They are having a ball. Not only do they get to screw with the left, they get to harass, abuse and threaten women with impunity – especially feminists, more especially radical feminists, who are opposed to prostitution and porn – the so-called TERFs and SWERFs, and most especially, lesbian radical feminists.

Why might that be?  It’s not simply because these women are anti-trans because frankly most of them aren’t, or at least they weren’t at the outset of this. I think they are the primary target of so much vitriol and viciousness because they attack both the MRA/INCEL cabal and the common or garden misogynists, right where it hurts it most – some are not sexually attracted to men; they are radical feminists, and they oppose the porn industry and the prostitution of women. 

 

Everything about them denies these misogynistic men what they believe is their inalienable right to women's bodies. 

I believe these are the authors – along with probably a tranche of state-sponsored mischief makers and agents provocateurs – of the mass of vileness on social media which has been collated by women in an attempt to try to get people to take notice of the growing confidence of these rank misogynists, and the complicity of trans rights activists and allies.

 

Read my earlier post about racism and misogyny in the workplace and tell me that left wing men who join in with the calls to cancel, brutalise, rape, murder TERFs are any better than the rank misogynists who scrawled "piss ridden old hag'" on the photo of an elderly woman; or whether those allies who turn a blind eye or look to excuse the abuse of women on social media, are any better than the managers who sought to minimise bigotry?

For too long, too many people on the lLeft – some with the very best intentions – have reflexively put ALL those who question transgenderism into the “TERF=NAZI” basket;  and ALL self-proclaimed transwomen into the “TRANS=stunning/brave person of good faith” basket. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I’m not anti-trans rights, I’m anti corporatist and misogynistic bullshit posing as progressive politics.

 

Our lives are dominated by a corporate capitalism which is busy destroying the world – aided and abetted by compliant governments and NGOs. We all know this, or should, and if we take off the blinkers we can also see that the corporate world happily embraces the transgender orthodoxy, just as it embraced all the other items on the diversity menu.

That's because it's much easier to buy in a consultant, do an equality audit and some training, get the diversity boxes ticked, get your rainbow badge than it is to engage with structural and economic equality.

 

Why narrow the obscene pay gap between the workforce and the CEO and his senior managers; why pay a decent wage and provide job security for women, B&ME people, trans people, people with disabilities when you can buy a diversity badge for a snip?

 

 

Tell Me Why

I posted this blog post on my FB page because I was struck by the expression of frustration and anger from a highly intelligent, articulate and principled person who adds enormously to feminist discourse – always in a balanced, well-informed and logical way. One of the responses was from another intelligent and principled woman who I know would agree with the author on most issues – except this one.

I don’t feel threatened by genuine trans people and I know that most trans people just want to get on with their lives, the same as most other people. Nor do I think all the extremists hurling misogynistic abuse at women on social media are genuine trans people; some might be but I strongly suspect a lot are trolls or MRA/INCELs taking the proverbial. (More on that in a later post)

I don’t argue that all women are equally oppressed, any more than I would argue all men are equally oppressive. I don’t think that all men are a threat to women, but I know that a lot of women have good reason to feel that men are potentially a threat, and it is a fact that we live in what is still a phallocratic world, made so by the continued existence of a host of social structures and arrangements which cement male authority over females. 

 

It’s great if some women don’t feel their sex is being erased or feelings invalidated or safety threatened by the conflation of gender and sex and the privileging of gender identity over biology, which is at the heart of transgenderism as a political movement, but a lot of women do. And a lot of them are being told if they feel like that, they are bigots, or stupid or brainwashed – and bizarrely, they’re mostly being told that by people who claim to be on the left.

 

We need to be able to examine why this has become such an acrimonious and divisive issue, when it’s obvious that women have co-existed with transgender people quite happily in the past.

 

In my opinion, four main things, which gained rapid momentum popularly, commercially and politically, tipped the unremarkable issue of trans rights into the most acrimonious, polarised and divisive issue of any I’ve witnessed, in over half a century of being a left wing feminist.

 

1. The emergence, on social media, of the phenomenon of “transgender lesbians” – that is transwomen (TW) who are sexually attracted to women, and the outgrowth from that, of:

a) claims that male genitalia are female if the person identifies as a woman; and,

b) lesbians are being transphobic bigots if they are not open to having a sexual relationship with a TW who retains male genitalia.

2. The insistence, by transgender radicals, that TW, even without any type or degree of physical transition, are literally women, and as such are a subset of the sex category woman, and cis women are another, albeit vastly larger, sub set. (1)

 

3.  The issue of gender self-identification and change of sex on official documents by statutory declaration, which has been introduced more by a process of procedural creep here in NZ, but which became the subject of heated dispute in the UK with a review of the Gender Recognition Act and accompanying potential for changes to the Equality Act, not because the country is a hotbed of transphobia but because:

a) the review was a dead cat thrown into a fraught political arena by the Tories, which people in the Labour, Greens and Liberal Parties immediately ran with and declared any opposition to it to be equivalent to fascism; and, 

b) because there is a very strong feminist tradition in the UK, and a wide range of women fought back. 

 

4. The explosion in, and response to, sudden onset gender dysphoria among gender non-conforming girls in the anglophone world in particular, (2) and the adoption of variations on the Dutch protocol for the treatment of pre-pubescent kids who believe they are trans. (3) 

 

For women's liberationists, the debate is not about trans rights per se– it is certainly not about removing trans rights, or the ludicrously hyperbolic claim that trans people’s very existence is being denied.

 

Most of the women who are demonised as TERFs did not ever and do not oppose trans rights; most would fight to protect existing formal rights and would like to see services and outcomes for trans people improved – along with services and outcomes for all vulnerable groups.

 

What will never gain wide support is the extension of trans rights into the unrestricted right for any male-bodied person to be able to self-identify and gain full legal status as a woman; and, as a consequence of that, have full and unfettered access to women-only spaces and services that are currently protected in law and – more importantly – are widely accepted socially, i.e., have become part of the informal social contract such that most men respect them, and most women feel they have a right to them, and a right to a say in who uses them.

Those sex-based rights only exist because women fought for them and they needed to fight for them because women and girls were, and – in what is still a phallocratic world – remain, a vulnerable class of people.

 

Trans radicals demand we accept the premise that a self-declared, subjective, possibly shifting, unverifiable (because medical and bureaucratic gate-keeping is deemed to be a breach of trans rights) sense of individual gender identity must be privileged over the biological fact which is a foundational reality for the overwhelming majority of people. 

 

Gender as a concept only hangs together because of the concrete reality of sexually dimorphic reproduction. Without the reality of dimorphic biological sex there would be no such thing as gender or gender identity – there would just be individual and collective identity. 

 

That may very well be a good thing to strive for but we live in a stratified, dangerous and largely phallocratic world, and if we are not permitted to define ourselves as women, how do we formulate a resistance to being oppressed and hyper-exploited as women?  

 

That oppression and hyper-exploitation may not be as much of an issue for older, white, educated, affluent, geographically and socially mobile inhabitants of the imperial bubble like me – but it certainly still is for the majority of women and girls globally, and it is not going to magically go "pouf" and disappear because a few people inside the imperial bubble declare individual gender identity trumps biological sex.

Notes:

(1) In the oppression hierarchy, so beloved of the politically infantile, misère is the winning hand and being in a majority is deemed to be automatically oppressive of minorities. By this stunningly stupid numerical measure, the poor must oppress the rich.

(2) Largely because of pressure from trans radicals and allies, too little attention has been paid to the effects, on girls especially, of appearance obsessed youth culture and exposure to porn, 

 

(3) We now know that the decision-making centre of the human brain is the last to mature (a fact of huge importance to people who argue against things like trying and sentencing kids as adults), and the approach advocated by trans radicals and widely adopted as a result, is in stark contrast to the “no medical gate-keeping please, we’re trans” approach for themselves. The Dutch protocol is almost always irreversible, relies on automatic affirmation, use of cancer drugs to delay puberty with no evidence of their long term effects, leads to major surgery with attendant exposure to anaesthesia, analgesics etc etc, and a life time of synthetic hormones and of constant medical surveillance. The rationale is to give kids time to find out if they are really trans - in reality it's delaying secondary sexual development until the current legal age at which cross sex hormones can be prescribed, and it is not known if delaying puberty also affects neurological and decision making development or has effects on wider physiological development.