(via Pussy Deplore) Andrew Sullivan knows his onions Love it. Matthew Walsh tries to take credit where he only shares it. Sullivan sets him right. Silicon Valley’s control of free speech in the UK is a problem Very happy to see that Jack Dee gets it.
In a lot of 'trans' cult-captured minds, there is 'woman', then there is 'black woman'. As if there is a difference that they can piggy back upon. So in their minds, a black woman isn't quite a woman, just as men aren't quite women. How more racist can you get?
They pick up on the myth created by queer theory that somehow black women weren't seen as women. This is crucial to their theory, because that is the only way they can make anyone believe that distinguishing between men and women, i. human males and females, is a "social construct" and somehow always mirrors societal hierarchies in principle. Also, it allows them to implicitly accuse feminists of racism.
Of course, no one ever thought black women were not women. That slave owners frequently sexually assaulted their female slaves is one of the main tropes abolitionists in the US used in their campaigns, for instance. It is true that often black women were not seen as feminine as they had to perform hard physical work - but that is really something else. To conclude from that that they were not seen as women is again conflating sex with gender, and on purpose. (Or by stupidity and the usual undereducated-ness so prevalent in these circles.) Also, let not the numerous attemps to portray black people as subhuman or non human in any other way confuse you.
Now, this maneouver speaks of how undereducated these people are, how powerful Creeds can be and is of course a bad faith argument. What it is not, in my eyes, is in itself racist. They say that "black women were not seen as women" because they think that not seeing them this way is wrong and they mean it as an accusation. Unlike much of the other crap they say, this is not in itself racist. It's paraphrasing a blief they have been convinced to believe someone genuinely ever held.
It is nonsense and shows how they'll just believe everything someone says and it shows how willing they are to smear everyone who does not agree with them. So, this is a despicable thing to say, don't get me wrong. It's just that I'm in the department "Don't ever attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity".
'Far right' for the far left means the wrong sort of fascism, ie, not their sort.
Only far left numpties would call Tucker and Matt Walsh 'far right'.
I love Trump, but so disappointing to see him embrace 'Jewish Space Lasers' Marjorie Taylor Green, who was at a white nationalist rally held by Jew hater Nick Fuentes earlier this year.
Unfortunately we have the phenomenon of the 'centre far right' today. Genuine Nazis and fellow travellers saying eminently reasonable centrist things few dare say any more and drawing people to them. The lines are getting blurred. You have to look close at people.
This little break down I did of why Tommy Robinson shouldn't be touched with a political barge pole might help put things in perspective. I'm really glad KJK doesn't touch him with a barge pole, despite how much I'm guessing he brings out the motherly instincts in her! :D
The dating comparison to black people.. even if the two were a valid comparison, it's irrelevant. Dating and sex is as exclusive as you want it to be, in fact you don't have to include ANYONE!!!
I'm not providing a service, I'm not a landlord or employer or healthcare provider. I don't have to allow anyone access to me to meet a diversity quota.
They really have no idea how rapey they sound with that line of "reasoning".
How dare Matt Walsh erase all those brilliant left wing gender critical women! Women face erasure from everywhere, even from those who supposedly are fighting for female sex rights. One gets the feeling Matt Walsh's agenda is solely in his own interest.
Ever since the rightwingers have discovered this is an issue they are dead set on monopolizing it. Feminists, leftists and other progressives many of whom have sacrificed a lot in this fight over the years are just good enough for these Johnny come latelys if they lend them any credibility, but otherwise to be written out of the picture.
And ain't it interesting how that perfectly complements transideology's (and its allies') narrative that any possible objection to them must be motivated by at least sympathies for the far right?
To be fair, people on the right have been speaking about this issue for years. Matt Walsh is a vocal lone grifter looking out for himself and his career. He doesn’t speak or account for all “right wingers” - and not all feminists, leftists and progressives are actually helping women.
Not saying all feminists etc. are actually helping women. Those who have swallowed trans ideology hook and bait and all just aren't feminists, leftists etc. by any meaningful definition of the word(s).
Now, rightwingers have discovered this issue years after feminists have tried to bring it to the public, and they have mainly only adopted it because it fits into their pre-exististing campaigns that rights for gays and lesbians have gone too far. Orgs like stonewall handed them quite a present when jumping onto the trans bandwaggon...
Again, many conservatives were sounding the alarm about these issues long before it was thrust into everybody’s lives by, well, liberals. Hopefully you know “the right” isn’t a monolith and is more diverse than you’d like to believe. Your comments might be accurate about Matt Walsh specifically, but why not focus on individuals instead of making sweeping remarks that only serve to continue a divide? This affects everybody and everybody has a right to speak to it as they see fit.
Right. This is true for most notable US conservative men with a platform. I don’t see how anyone can believe these men genuinely care about the consequences women face--given their misogyny has been forefront for decades. Those of us who are radical feminists have never believed they were allies. Our movement is beneficial for them right now--to win seats, to incite fear, to further spur hatred towards homosexuals (who they credit as the ones at fault for this issue, along with feminists). The “gay marriage to trans-ideology pipeline” is an accepted answer to this issue in right-wing circles.
Not for a SECOND have I EVER believed that “celebrity-conservatives” care about us. These men will continue to take credit for our work, subsume the movement, cannibalize it, & repurpose it for their own designs. I’m happy to work with women of any political designation. I will NOT praise or welcome conservative men--those with platforms--who simultaneously “care” about this issue, yet willingly seek to remove protections for women in other, just as important, ways.
Matt Walsh doesn’t care about women. Of course he doesn’t. He’s in it for himself. He doesn’t see women as people; of course he won’t acknowledge our contributions, or see us as the MAIN actors in this fight. We’re useless & worthless compared to men like him. All the replies to that tweet? More conservative men who blame women for genderID, more conservative men who claim we have no power to affect real change. We “need” them. What a joke. We have never needed them. We don’t need them now.
Am I supposed to believe the party that has spent decades seeking to obliterate female autonomy now somehow cares about female autonomy? Am I supposed to be grateful that these US celebrity-conservatives’ interests align with our suffering? Why would I be grateful? What do I have to thank them for? Using our suffering to further manipulate their audience & win a political game? What happens when they “win” this game? Do we all really believe they’ll continue to help us advocate for female rights?
For these men, it’s a game; for us, it’s our livelihood at stake. We aren’t on the same level. We aren’t on the same page. I’m done. I don’t want to hear praise or protection for these men anymore. I’m done.
Largely with you. it horrifies me to think that many women in the US are faced with the choice which protections and basic rights they want to have removed. Access to safe abortion or access to spaces they can reasonably presume safe from male violence.
True, even on the right side of the political spectrum we have a pretty diverse group of people, and some sane conservatives may genuinely care about women's rights. They are not the ones who set the tone in the movement, however. For others, transideology may just be too misogynistic in spite of their own misogyny. Much like many Northern racists genuinely abhorred segregation and the violent suppression of the civil rights movement. All of that is probably true for many. But these people are largely irrelevant.
Like you say, it's the Matt Walshes, the Ted Cruzes and the Tucker Carlsons who set the tone and they have never given a s..t about women, women's rights and women's issues.
My experience tells me that it is impossible to cooperate with these people. We, the feminists, the leftists, the progressives, the old school liberals, can not manipulate them into doing our bidding. We will not be able to piggyback on their outlets to get our messages heard. We will not be able to turn them into mere pawns that allow us to operate in their sphere of influence and that give us respectability in more conservative circles. Been tried. Always failed. Gonna fail this time, too.
They will use any and all of us who are willing to cooperate, including our outlets and structures, to lend them credibility in our circles, gain some votes and most of all further existing divisions within our movements so we can not meaningfully oppose them once they have rode to power on our backs. Been tried. Always worked. Gonna work this time, too, if too many of us fall for the illusion of a tactical cooperation with the Right.
Twitler banned me (“hate speech”) on Friday for asking “what’s good about an adult dancing like a sl*t for children?” The slutty adult dancer was presumably trans, tho I didn’t mention the gender identity. Standing up for children’s safety is now hate speech but I’m sure attacking “TERF’s” remains acceptable.
But you might also note that it was a Gay News newspaper that said Sargeant was wrong to be protesting:
"In an opinion piece, Jason Villemez, editor of the LGBT newspaper Philadelphia Gay News criticized Sargeant for protesting, but said it was wrong for people to assault him."
Wikipedia is just reporting on what some organization said about Sargeant, not endorsing the criticism of him.
However, on anything to do with gender, Wikipedia is about as "ideologically captured" as is Stonewall or Mermaids. ICYMI, my "tale of woe" for being "deplatformed" there as an editor for objecting to their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard which claimed that "she" had "transitioned to female":
I'm still not convinced that @jamesissmiling isn't a parody; the screeching, the flapping hands, the sheer lameness of it all. Is that what he genuinely thinks a woman is or is he just seeing how far he can take it? Having said that, trans social media is a relentless parade of tragic, attention-seeking blokes who would be considered too broad for panto season, so who knows.
When has Matt Walsh tried to "take all the credit" for resistance to gender ideology? He tried to include a feminist perspective in his documentary, but the feminists he spoke to didn't want to go on. I really don't know what gratuitous, baseless claims like this are meant to achieve in advancing gender sanity.
Janice Raymond wrote a book published in 1979 (after researching for nearly six years) called “The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male.” What part of that title don’t you understand? Many culturally conservative men (and women) have this fallacious idea of male “womanhood” which is based on the cultural belief in women as sex objects. When a male puts on garb considered to be culturally “feminine,” this becomes clear. Feminist authors like Raymond elucidated this group mental illness/delusion decades ago, but because they’re lesbians and women, the cultural awareness of their analysis is as if they’d never published at all. Rest assured, Mr. Walsh didn’t ask any of these feminists onto his program. There’s no such thing as male womanhood, but there are men who adopt the feminine sex object gender. They are narcissistic colonizers.
It is not a coincidence that one of the first people to be fascinated by transsexuals was Julius Evola, THE fascist philosopher after 1945. His book "The Metaphysics of Sex" was published in 1958 (!). Much of it reads as if someone had just translated Judith Butler into language everyone can understand.
It is no coincidence either that the only cultured to have phenomena that loosely and superficially resemble "transgender" people are highly patriarchal cultures. Take Japan's geyshas or geishas for instance. Originally they were men dressed up as women, performing some hyper-feminity over tea for paying customers. (Geyshas are not prostitutes, and they are not drag queens.) Like in Shakespearean theater it was considered improper for women to play that role, until some time in I believe the 19th century that attitude changed and it became girls and women who were geyshas now, more often than not under horrible conditions. They were recruited at a very young age and sometimes sold by their parents, secluded and trained for their role until they were deemed ready. I suspect that conditions worsened considerably once geysha became a female profession, though I don't know to be honest.
For some reason, geyshas are not usually part of the "there have always been transpeople" canon. I think that has to do with everyone thinking of them as women - which they are nowadays - and even knowing that for a long time that role was filled by men requires, well, knowledge. That's something transactivists and queer theorists can not be bothered with under any circumstances. And also, Japan is a culture that in the US some people can be expected to know something about, so there is a small chance that there may be someone on the crowd who could point out the fallacy of the argument. So they tend to stick with more exotic examples.
What about all the feminists - big names who have been fighting this nonsense for years - who all say they were not asked. It's months later and no feminist has claimed that she was asked and declined. Matt himself couldn't name any feminists he asked.
But do go on and take Matt's word that he asked them and they declined.
I wonder who he spoke to? He clearly did not speak to any of the well-respected, well-known and extremely knowledgable "rad fems" who would have been prepared to be included. When offers were made after the event to help with any similar projects in the future he rebuffed them rudely. I suspect he might be so unfamiliar with "feminism" that he is unable to differentiate between "trans ally" Liberal Feminists, who would definitely give him short shrift, Gender Critical Socialist Feminists (ditto) and Radical Feminists.
It's very true that many people don't know that liberal feminism is not like radical feminism. Guys like Matt Walsh just see the "f" word and think uhoh, they hate men, they won't be very useful to my agenda.
It's frustrating b/c we're essentially on the same side in the gender debate. Ultimately we want as many people as possible to be awake about what's going on and to voice their concerns. In that regard guys like Matt are useful. There are still so many who have no idea what laws have been enacted in stealth or how captured their institutions are.
Agreed, and also with Genderwang about people like Walsh being unaware about the various different strands of feminism (and 'feminism').
We have Graham's example here in Helen Lewis's tweet declaring that simply being seen to be interviewed on the conservative platform with the widest reach in the US (Tucker show; views in the millions) is a no-no for any GC feminist. Yet a Tucker clip of detransitioner Helena Kerschner has been viewed over 3,800,000 times BECAUSE it's the Tucker show. Surely an excellent outcome for spreading and stirring understanding about detransition and the reality of detransitioners? Is that not GC? The reality of detransition is a keystone in the gender house of cards. Feminist Kara Dansky of WoLF (and Glinner interviewee) also used Tucker to spread the GC word. Good on her, I say.
Lewis' attitude makes me wonder whether Walsh did indeed ask some GC feminists for interview, but they share her view that one mustn't be seen to be interviewed by a conservative, and they might also be keeping private about having turned him down?
But who knows. Much as it's annoying to see people come on board late, misrepresent or oversimplify or seem to be getting credit that belongs elsewhere (and by the way, Sullivan was late to the party too), I see it as an 'all hands on deck' necessity. Spread understanding by all available means. Too much is at stake. Young lives are getting severely harmed. We need to get the word out wherever we find a chance to be heard. The NYT/Guardian/BBC/US television giants – to my disgust as a former NYT and Guardian subscriber – have chosen instead to place their hands over our mouths.
Crikey! You seriously think I am going to spend time trawling back through Twitter to find a specific interaction? I saw it. If you don't believe me, fine, don't believe me.
Have become a paid subscriber to support Graham - some of you may know me from YouTube comment sections. 😄
Hello KFP, I'm sure I've seen you comment on The Queens' Speach. Once or twice maybe? 😉
One hundred or two hundred times yes haha. I love that podcast. It was me who suggested to Dennis that he start one. It's fantastic.
In a lot of 'trans' cult-captured minds, there is 'woman', then there is 'black woman'. As if there is a difference that they can piggy back upon. So in their minds, a black woman isn't quite a woman, just as men aren't quite women. How more racist can you get?
They pick up on the myth created by queer theory that somehow black women weren't seen as women. This is crucial to their theory, because that is the only way they can make anyone believe that distinguishing between men and women, i. human males and females, is a "social construct" and somehow always mirrors societal hierarchies in principle. Also, it allows them to implicitly accuse feminists of racism.
Of course, no one ever thought black women were not women. That slave owners frequently sexually assaulted their female slaves is one of the main tropes abolitionists in the US used in their campaigns, for instance. It is true that often black women were not seen as feminine as they had to perform hard physical work - but that is really something else. To conclude from that that they were not seen as women is again conflating sex with gender, and on purpose. (Or by stupidity and the usual undereducated-ness so prevalent in these circles.) Also, let not the numerous attemps to portray black people as subhuman or non human in any other way confuse you.
Now, this maneouver speaks of how undereducated these people are, how powerful Creeds can be and is of course a bad faith argument. What it is not, in my eyes, is in itself racist. They say that "black women were not seen as women" because they think that not seeing them this way is wrong and they mean it as an accusation. Unlike much of the other crap they say, this is not in itself racist. It's paraphrasing a blief they have been convinced to believe someone genuinely ever held.
It is nonsense and shows how they'll just believe everything someone says and it shows how willing they are to smear everyone who does not agree with them. So, this is a despicable thing to say, don't get me wrong. It's just that I'm in the department "Don't ever attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity".
Where does this notion that people have to go out with anyone come from!
Relationships start as a mutual attraction and develop or not from there.
They are so self entitled!
I just think who do you people think you are.
You are like spoiled bratty kids.
Q What does far right mean today?
'Far right' for the far left means the wrong sort of fascism, ie, not their sort.
Only far left numpties would call Tucker and Matt Walsh 'far right'.
I love Trump, but so disappointing to see him embrace 'Jewish Space Lasers' Marjorie Taylor Green, who was at a white nationalist rally held by Jew hater Nick Fuentes earlier this year.
Unfortunately we have the phenomenon of the 'centre far right' today. Genuine Nazis and fellow travellers saying eminently reasonable centrist things few dare say any more and drawing people to them. The lines are getting blurred. You have to look close at people.
This little break down I did of why Tommy Robinson shouldn't be touched with a political barge pole might help put things in perspective. I'm really glad KJK doesn't touch him with a barge pole, despite how much I'm guessing he brings out the motherly instincts in her! :D
https://youtu.be/HPGbnkNSLfc
The dating comparison to black people.. even if the two were a valid comparison, it's irrelevant. Dating and sex is as exclusive as you want it to be, in fact you don't have to include ANYONE!!!
I'm not providing a service, I'm not a landlord or employer or healthcare provider. I don't have to allow anyone access to me to meet a diversity quota.
They really have no idea how rapey they sound with that line of "reasoning".
How dare Matt Walsh erase all those brilliant left wing gender critical women! Women face erasure from everywhere, even from those who supposedly are fighting for female sex rights. One gets the feeling Matt Walsh's agenda is solely in his own interest.
Ever since the rightwingers have discovered this is an issue they are dead set on monopolizing it. Feminists, leftists and other progressives many of whom have sacrificed a lot in this fight over the years are just good enough for these Johnny come latelys if they lend them any credibility, but otherwise to be written out of the picture.
And ain't it interesting how that perfectly complements transideology's (and its allies') narrative that any possible objection to them must be motivated by at least sympathies for the far right?
To be fair, people on the right have been speaking about this issue for years. Matt Walsh is a vocal lone grifter looking out for himself and his career. He doesn’t speak or account for all “right wingers” - and not all feminists, leftists and progressives are actually helping women.
Not saying all feminists etc. are actually helping women. Those who have swallowed trans ideology hook and bait and all just aren't feminists, leftists etc. by any meaningful definition of the word(s).
Now, rightwingers have discovered this issue years after feminists have tried to bring it to the public, and they have mainly only adopted it because it fits into their pre-exististing campaigns that rights for gays and lesbians have gone too far. Orgs like stonewall handed them quite a present when jumping onto the trans bandwaggon...
Again, many conservatives were sounding the alarm about these issues long before it was thrust into everybody’s lives by, well, liberals. Hopefully you know “the right” isn’t a monolith and is more diverse than you’d like to believe. Your comments might be accurate about Matt Walsh specifically, but why not focus on individuals instead of making sweeping remarks that only serve to continue a divide? This affects everybody and everybody has a right to speak to it as they see fit.
Right. This is true for most notable US conservative men with a platform. I don’t see how anyone can believe these men genuinely care about the consequences women face--given their misogyny has been forefront for decades. Those of us who are radical feminists have never believed they were allies. Our movement is beneficial for them right now--to win seats, to incite fear, to further spur hatred towards homosexuals (who they credit as the ones at fault for this issue, along with feminists). The “gay marriage to trans-ideology pipeline” is an accepted answer to this issue in right-wing circles.
Not for a SECOND have I EVER believed that “celebrity-conservatives” care about us. These men will continue to take credit for our work, subsume the movement, cannibalize it, & repurpose it for their own designs. I’m happy to work with women of any political designation. I will NOT praise or welcome conservative men--those with platforms--who simultaneously “care” about this issue, yet willingly seek to remove protections for women in other, just as important, ways.
Matt Walsh doesn’t care about women. Of course he doesn’t. He’s in it for himself. He doesn’t see women as people; of course he won’t acknowledge our contributions, or see us as the MAIN actors in this fight. We’re useless & worthless compared to men like him. All the replies to that tweet? More conservative men who blame women for genderID, more conservative men who claim we have no power to affect real change. We “need” them. What a joke. We have never needed them. We don’t need them now.
Am I supposed to believe the party that has spent decades seeking to obliterate female autonomy now somehow cares about female autonomy? Am I supposed to be grateful that these US celebrity-conservatives’ interests align with our suffering? Why would I be grateful? What do I have to thank them for? Using our suffering to further manipulate their audience & win a political game? What happens when they “win” this game? Do we all really believe they’ll continue to help us advocate for female rights?
For these men, it’s a game; for us, it’s our livelihood at stake. We aren’t on the same level. We aren’t on the same page. I’m done. I don’t want to hear praise or protection for these men anymore. I’m done.
Largely with you. it horrifies me to think that many women in the US are faced with the choice which protections and basic rights they want to have removed. Access to safe abortion or access to spaces they can reasonably presume safe from male violence.
True, even on the right side of the political spectrum we have a pretty diverse group of people, and some sane conservatives may genuinely care about women's rights. They are not the ones who set the tone in the movement, however. For others, transideology may just be too misogynistic in spite of their own misogyny. Much like many Northern racists genuinely abhorred segregation and the violent suppression of the civil rights movement. All of that is probably true for many. But these people are largely irrelevant.
Like you say, it's the Matt Walshes, the Ted Cruzes and the Tucker Carlsons who set the tone and they have never given a s..t about women, women's rights and women's issues.
My experience tells me that it is impossible to cooperate with these people. We, the feminists, the leftists, the progressives, the old school liberals, can not manipulate them into doing our bidding. We will not be able to piggyback on their outlets to get our messages heard. We will not be able to turn them into mere pawns that allow us to operate in their sphere of influence and that give us respectability in more conservative circles. Been tried. Always failed. Gonna fail this time, too.
They will use any and all of us who are willing to cooperate, including our outlets and structures, to lend them credibility in our circles, gain some votes and most of all further existing divisions within our movements so we can not meaningfully oppose them once they have rode to power on our backs. Been tried. Always worked. Gonna work this time, too, if too many of us fall for the illusion of a tactical cooperation with the Right.
The 'woke' left has willingly handed any hope of real democracy over to the far right on a 'queertrans' platter.
Twitler banned me (“hate speech”) on Friday for asking “what’s good about an adult dancing like a sl*t for children?” The slutty adult dancer was presumably trans, tho I didn’t mention the gender identity. Standing up for children’s safety is now hate speech but I’m sure attacking “TERF’s” remains acceptable.
Posie is a force. Love her
I’m brown too 😂
Graham: "So Wikipedia editors are working to throw doubt on stories that don’t adhere to gender orthodoxy."
Not sure that that is entirely correct - seems that the link to the National Review article has been fixed - still a paywalled article though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Sargeant#Citations
But you might also note that it was a Gay News newspaper that said Sargeant was wrong to be protesting:
"In an opinion piece, Jason Villemez, editor of the LGBT newspaper Philadelphia Gay News criticized Sargeant for protesting, but said it was wrong for people to assault him."
Wikipedia is just reporting on what some organization said about Sargeant, not endorsing the criticism of him.
However, on anything to do with gender, Wikipedia is about as "ideologically captured" as is Stonewall or Mermaids. ICYMI, my "tale of woe" for being "deplatformed" there as an editor for objecting to their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard which claimed that "she" had "transitioned to female":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
I'm still not convinced that @jamesissmiling isn't a parody; the screeching, the flapping hands, the sheer lameness of it all. Is that what he genuinely thinks a woman is or is he just seeing how far he can take it? Having said that, trans social media is a relentless parade of tragic, attention-seeking blokes who would be considered too broad for panto season, so who knows.
Wasn't sure where to put this. Have you seen it Graham?? The rewriting of gay and lesbian history. https://savageminds.substack.com/p/jim-fouratt?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#details
When has Matt Walsh tried to "take all the credit" for resistance to gender ideology? He tried to include a feminist perspective in his documentary, but the feminists he spoke to didn't want to go on. I really don't know what gratuitous, baseless claims like this are meant to achieve in advancing gender sanity.
Janice Raymond wrote a book published in 1979 (after researching for nearly six years) called “The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male.” What part of that title don’t you understand? Many culturally conservative men (and women) have this fallacious idea of male “womanhood” which is based on the cultural belief in women as sex objects. When a male puts on garb considered to be culturally “feminine,” this becomes clear. Feminist authors like Raymond elucidated this group mental illness/delusion decades ago, but because they’re lesbians and women, the cultural awareness of their analysis is as if they’d never published at all. Rest assured, Mr. Walsh didn’t ask any of these feminists onto his program. There’s no such thing as male womanhood, but there are men who adopt the feminine sex object gender. They are narcissistic colonizers.
It is not a coincidence that one of the first people to be fascinated by transsexuals was Julius Evola, THE fascist philosopher after 1945. His book "The Metaphysics of Sex" was published in 1958 (!). Much of it reads as if someone had just translated Judith Butler into language everyone can understand.
It is no coincidence either that the only cultured to have phenomena that loosely and superficially resemble "transgender" people are highly patriarchal cultures. Take Japan's geyshas or geishas for instance. Originally they were men dressed up as women, performing some hyper-feminity over tea for paying customers. (Geyshas are not prostitutes, and they are not drag queens.) Like in Shakespearean theater it was considered improper for women to play that role, until some time in I believe the 19th century that attitude changed and it became girls and women who were geyshas now, more often than not under horrible conditions. They were recruited at a very young age and sometimes sold by their parents, secluded and trained for their role until they were deemed ready. I suspect that conditions worsened considerably once geysha became a female profession, though I don't know to be honest.
For some reason, geyshas are not usually part of the "there have always been transpeople" canon. I think that has to do with everyone thinking of them as women - which they are nowadays - and even knowing that for a long time that role was filled by men requires, well, knowledge. That's something transactivists and queer theorists can not be bothered with under any circumstances. And also, Japan is a culture that in the US some people can be expected to know something about, so there is a small chance that there may be someone on the crowd who could point out the fallacy of the argument. So they tend to stick with more exotic examples.
"Rest assured". No, I'll take Mr Walsh's word for it that he invited some feminists to take part and they all declined.
You'll take his word for it?
What about all the feminists - big names who have been fighting this nonsense for years - who all say they were not asked. It's months later and no feminist has claimed that she was asked and declined. Matt himself couldn't name any feminists he asked.
But do go on and take Matt's word that he asked them and they declined.
I wonder who he spoke to? He clearly did not speak to any of the well-respected, well-known and extremely knowledgable "rad fems" who would have been prepared to be included. When offers were made after the event to help with any similar projects in the future he rebuffed them rudely. I suspect he might be so unfamiliar with "feminism" that he is unable to differentiate between "trans ally" Liberal Feminists, who would definitely give him short shrift, Gender Critical Socialist Feminists (ditto) and Radical Feminists.
It's very true that many people don't know that liberal feminism is not like radical feminism. Guys like Matt Walsh just see the "f" word and think uhoh, they hate men, they won't be very useful to my agenda.
It's frustrating b/c we're essentially on the same side in the gender debate. Ultimately we want as many people as possible to be awake about what's going on and to voice their concerns. In that regard guys like Matt are useful. There are still so many who have no idea what laws have been enacted in stealth or how captured their institutions are.
Agreed, and also with Genderwang about people like Walsh being unaware about the various different strands of feminism (and 'feminism').
We have Graham's example here in Helen Lewis's tweet declaring that simply being seen to be interviewed on the conservative platform with the widest reach in the US (Tucker show; views in the millions) is a no-no for any GC feminist. Yet a Tucker clip of detransitioner Helena Kerschner has been viewed over 3,800,000 times BECAUSE it's the Tucker show. Surely an excellent outcome for spreading and stirring understanding about detransition and the reality of detransitioners? Is that not GC? The reality of detransition is a keystone in the gender house of cards. Feminist Kara Dansky of WoLF (and Glinner interviewee) also used Tucker to spread the GC word. Good on her, I say.
Lewis' attitude makes me wonder whether Walsh did indeed ask some GC feminists for interview, but they share her view that one mustn't be seen to be interviewed by a conservative, and they might also be keeping private about having turned him down?
But who knows. Much as it's annoying to see people come on board late, misrepresent or oversimplify or seem to be getting credit that belongs elsewhere (and by the way, Sullivan was late to the party too), I see it as an 'all hands on deck' necessity. Spread understanding by all available means. Too much is at stake. Young lives are getting severely harmed. We need to get the word out wherever we find a chance to be heard. The NYT/Guardian/BBC/US television giants – to my disgust as a former NYT and Guardian subscriber – have chosen instead to place their hands over our mouths.
"Rebuffed them rudely".
Any example?
Crikey! You seriously think I am going to spend time trawling back through Twitter to find a specific interaction? I saw it. If you don't believe me, fine, don't believe me.
Monty is a perfect example of the advances made in transgender medicine: they now have the ability to make a dumpster fire walk and talk.
Rastasaurus Problematic Woman Rex made my heart soar. Needed that.
So glad Jack Dee has stepped up, too.
Graham, is it time for me to bring back the million-dollar prizes?
You now have to up it to $20 million.