How on earth do they write a piece like this without seeing that exactly the same argument can be levelled at every single man who claims to be a woman? What is going on? Is it because people are more scared of men than they are of women like Krug and Dolezal?
You see, to me and the feminists I support, women are not a costume, just like black people are not a costume. Women are not something that can be appropriated by anyone who isn’t a woman. Only black people have their particular experience of oppression, and the same goes for women. For a man to say he has the remotest idea of what a woman experiences is insulting appropriation and the fact that everyone is pretending not to see this is just more evidence of a historical truth: one that John Lennon noticed, and the Guardian is determined not to.
Women ain’t shit as far as society is concerned. They are still so low in our consideration, that the Guardian will literally fight for them to be crippled or killed by framing world rugby’s recent decision to exclude female-identifying males from A DANGEROUS CONTACT SPORT as a dreadful assault on civil liberties.
And sure, you meet women who aren’t insulted by this state of affairs, but they tend to be privileged, middle-class wankers. Those of us in the privileged middle-class who don’t want to be wankers are not very popular at the moment because we keep pointing out that this ideology is regressive, irrational, homophobic and misogynistic.
Would it be too much to ask of Kath Viner to explain what the difference is between these two phenomena which are absolutely at the heart of modern left-wing identity politics? Why is the appropriation of black experience taboo, while appropriation of the female experience is not?
What is the difference? Nicola Coughlan, what is the difference? Doctor Alice Roberts, what is the difference? Ruth Hunt, what is the difference? What is the difference between transgender and transracial? Why is ok to do this thing to women and not to black people?
We won’t get an answer from any of them but, of course, but least of all The Guardian. Because Guardian writers are determined to ignore this subject when it doesn’t go in a direction their American subscribers will enjoy. Take, for instance, their shameful abdication of duty in not looking into the Times stories of homophobic parents transing their gender-nonconforming children. Either these stories are true or they or not, but readers of the Guardian will never know one way or the other, because Kath Viner just pretends they don’t exist. In this, she takes her part in a tradition of Looking The Other Way that the British showed such mastery of during the era of Rotherham and Savile.
So please do ask every Guardian reader this question and every other idiot parroting “transwomen are women”: Why is it perfectly acceptable—no, more than that even—why is it stunning and brave when men do it to women, but absolutely the worst thing ever when women do it to black people? I’d really love to know the kind of answers you get.