Jezebel.com lumps GC feminists in with the alt-right

I also believe it’s a massive money making industry for some people and the grifters are just grifting as ever

Yeah things that people say are complicated are usually very very simple I find. Either that or people are very very unintelligent and I am very smart, but I prefer the former explanation.

nothing I've ever heard or read from a POMO angle is the least bit clear/reasonable/logical/comprehensible - and seem, instead, to operate as a kind of 'sleight of hand' trick - whereby the observer is so blinded by the fancy language and terminology, they assume themselves too thick to really understand it. That is probably why no TRAs are ever able to articulate anything in a clear, easy to understand way

It's a huge con.

Yeah it’s all the blah blah stuff

It’s really simple. No one can change sex and till it’s proven scientifically then it’s all just made up stuff

And when someone can tell me what feeling like a woman it’s all just a fantasty in their heads

Yes I've very much found that accounts from trans people never seem to provide the full story when they talk about their experiences. There's a real lack of a grand unified theory and if they knew what they were doing they'd be able to rattle it out sharpish.

I also do not experience connection to my gender in the way any trans person has described so I don't get why it would be a thing. That's an actual consistent account unlike y'know, the other kind of account you mentioned.

the observer is so blinded by the fancy language and terminology, they assume themselves too thick to really understand it.

This is why the Emperor's New Clothes parallels are so apt - in the story people aren't pretending they can see the clothes to be nice, they're doing it because they've been told that the clothes are invisible only to people who are stupid.

This is what brought me over to the GC side. Any one even slightly familiar with logical fallacies can dismantle TRA arguments in minutes, while all they can do is flap around and try to muddy the water. I realised about 5 years ago that I didn't understand what being trans meant. I knew trans people, I'd worked with trans patients (the dysphoric medically transitioning kind) as a med student, but I didn't understand what was actually meant by "gender identity", or in what sense one should expect it to align with their biological sex. I didn't understand what it meant to "feel like a woman" in a way that was divorced completely from female biology. I understand my own (hetero)sexuality, so I have no trouble understanding someone else's (bi or homo)sexuality. But no matter how much I thought about it I couldn't pinpoint any experience or feeling of having a "matching" gender identity, so I couldn't understand what it would mean to have one that didn't match. I start looking and reading and thinking and talking, to psychologists and psychiatrists and trans people and allies. I even took some courses on it through the OU and future learn. But I still didn't get it. And finally, when I found GC feminism, I realised that nobody gets it, and that's why nobody can explain it in a coherent consistent way. To date the GC position is the only one that makes a shred of sense, but (to steal a phrase from Matt Dilahunty) I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible so if someone can make a compelling case for what a gender identity actual is and in what way it should match our sex, I'll happily change my mind.

Don't worry! My post was directed at Old Crone, with whom I am agreeing

I'm not worried. But it is clear you have nothing of any particular worth to add to the conversation. I'll not waste any more time with your posts.Sorted!

My conclusion, after some serious scanning, is that talk about 'Cultural Marxism' is just a joyless head fuck.

Don't worry! My post was directed at Old Crone, with whom I am agreeing.

Yeah I think there's a lot to be said for the position that postmodernist are cultural Marxists and vice versa. They can't be trusted

Again, can't quite understand what you are trying to say - and believe me I've tried. Can you explain what you understand by Cultural Marxism in one or two simple paragraph, please? It might add to the conversation.

Yeah I think there's a lot to be said for the position that postmodernist are cultural Marxists and vice versa. They can't be trusted.

I'll add some more Royal...

*Sue Pascoe - master of the hunt and Tory activist
*Tara Hewitt - anti-abortionist and BDSM advocate
*Edward Lord - described Dr Ken Plummer, a paedophile advocate and member of PIE, as "a hero"
*David Challenor - furry and nappy fetishist, convicted child rapist with the trans identity of a little girl
*Aimee Challenor: anti free speech creator of terf blocker and apologist for above
*Gordon Pike - convicted for possessing images of child sexual abuse and advocate for having trans identifying men housed in the female estate in Scotland
*James Rennie: convicted child sex offender who used to work for LGBT Youth Scotland

Not that you’ll care but I do think GC feminists lost a LOT of credibility once Posie etc went to America.

If you really prefer to come to your views on a particular topic by looking at who the various participants are talking to, rather than on the merits of the argument, then you might want to take a look at people on the transactivist side, such as:

Peter Tatchell - thinks it's OK for adults to have sex with children
Jonathan Yaniv - likes asking teenage girls creepy questions about their periods
Adrian Harrop - hounds women and sends them threatening messages on social media
Stephanie Hayden - ditto, with added conviction for wielding a golf club for good measure
Jane Fae - supports liberalisation of extreme, violent pornography advocating harm to women and girls
Jess Bradley - likes posting pictures of her penis on her blog
Paris Lees - conviction for robbery

I mean, if these are the people you want to hang out with, fine. But have you tried engaging your brain and actually thinking about the arguments instead? It's hard work, but ultimately rewarding.

Fetish

noun
1.
a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.
"a man with a fetish for surgical masks"
synonyms: fixation, sexual fixation, obsession, compulsion, mania; More
2.
an inanimate object worshipped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.
synonyms: juju, talisman, charm, amulet; More

.....suggesting women are not really women in the way that they are........ ( India Willoughby)

Exactly. If a 'ladybrain' is supposed to be different in some way, how long before they start trying to prove how inferior women's brains are

Well, yes! That's why feminism was required in the first place.

What we have now is Trans women ( men) trying to explain to actual women how to do femininity properly; and some even suggesting that are not really women in the way they are.

They have made a fetish out of gender.

Is it because both groups are using material reality as the baseline? Rather than POMO 'reality is whatever you want it to be' nonsense. (I admit, as a scientist, I don't really understand what postmodernism is all about, but that's how it appears to me)

Have to say I've read many dense and involved texts in my time, but the difference between post-modernism and those texts, is that they were comprehensible if fully engaged. nothing I've ever heard or read from a POMO angle is the least bit clear/reasonable/logical/comprehensible - and seem, instead, to operate as a kind of 'sleight of hand' trick - whereby the observer is so blinded by the fancy language and terminology, they assume themselves too thick to really understand it. That is probably why no TRAs are ever able to articulate anything in a clear, easy to understand way - indeed refusing even to engage in discussion, and how so many clear contradictions are on full display.

I think gender ideology takes us right back to the days when women’s brains weren’t considered strong enough to rule countries, be mathematicians, etc.

Exactly. If a 'ladybrain' is supposed to be different in some way, how long before they start trying to prove how inferior women's brains are? Why is anyone surprised that it's feminists who are pushing back against this toxic ideology?

I think its significant that no one, when they make these accusations, stops to ask why it is GC feminists and some conservatives overlap on these things.

Is it because both groups are using material reality as the baseline? Rather than POMO 'reality is whatever you want it to be' nonsense. (I admit, as a scientist, I don't really understand what postmodernism is all about, but that's how it appears to me).

That's what Havelock ellis said in 1913 about gay men. And that lesbians were men trapped in women's bodies.

So the notion of being trapped in the wrong body is essentially homophobic - since your sexual orientation should be the 'appropriate' one for the body you have.

Maybe the common ground with some of the Christian right ( & most other religions; as well as with most of the rational world, in general) is a recognition that biological sex exists, and that it matters.

The divergence comes occurs when considering what exactly that biological sex means, and how it should be perceived and dealt with in everyday reality. Many on the right ( & religious right) believe that biology is absolute destiny; and that men & women should live according to strict or segregated social roles on account of that biology. Transgression of the rules is not permitted, and/or is punished in some way. Everyone is expected to conform to gendered norms and expectations.

The religious right in the U.S/the West is, slightly, an exception to this - because women can and do hold & perform social roles & functions that would not be permitted in other cultures and societies. However, essentialist ideas around biology and sex do matter - and so motherhood & family, for example, play an exalted role.

Feminism recognises that biological sex is a reality ( different strands of feminism differ in how they approach that, though); although generally it is believed that although biology obviously exists, it does not have to mean absolute destiny, in terms of developing a full range of personal expression: that social roles & expressions should be open to all who feel naturally able to fulfil them or embody them, regardless of biological sex.

It is understood that most socially constructed, & enforced, roles are given lesser value when & if performed by females. That the dominant value system arises from a male centred view of the world, that prioritises men and boys, and rewards them more- especially if they perform expected gender roles satisfactorily. Males, too, though, are punished if they step out of line; especially if they perform anything approaching 'femininity', no matter how 'natural' that feels for them.

My feminism has always ben a blend of individualism alongside biological celebration ( valuing the female biological functions, and some of the social roles that accompany those functions), although in my version women's traditional roles are valued equally to men's.

I recognise that parts of my temperament and nature are quite comfortable with my body and biology, though - and I have never really suffered from dysphoria ( apart from sometimes fancying having a different body shape to the one I'm in).

I find it a bit weird that people associate stuff like women can't wear pants with conservatism.

I think gender ideology takes us right back to the days when women’s brains weren’t considered strong enough to rule countries, be mathematicians, etc.

Alt right?

Seriously, I thought we were ISIS? Least isn't that what India was chatting on about?

Sad face. We've been downgraded.

This frightens them so much, because they know deep down that really many of us reside in their "safe space" e.g. the left.

Black is white, up is down, left is right, the next one would get me deleted.

I find it a bit weird that people associate stuff like women can't wear pants with conservatism. I think political conservatives would think it was weird, and even religious conservatives (who may or may not be politically conservative) would not believe that. It would really be some of the weirder sects. It's like suggesting that liberals all believe in free love communes where kids run around naked and no one knows who their parents are.
I think its significant that no one, when they make these accusations, stops to ask why it is GC feminists and some conservatives overlap on these things. There are understandable logical reasons for it, and its worth knowing them. It's the kind of mutual understanding that makes political compromise possible. t seems like no one cares about understanding the point of view of those they have differences with though.

Hi justhadathought. You might have a point there. Maybe there really is zero difference between good and bad things. I hadn't really thought about that

Sounds confusing! If you could explain your difficulty in very simple terms, it might help. As an ex teacher - I realise that to make yourself clear you have to be able to explain something - as if to a young child - or to a complete novice .If one is not able to do that - it might well suggest that one doesn't really know, or understand, what one is talking about.