'Bovine feminism'.

Punctuation is awful. Just a way of calling GC feminists 'cows'. Badly written tripe.

But this trans movement shows a way that gender-non-conforming men can end up firmly on the farmer's side. Use their gender non-conformity as a stick to beat women with.

Although, of course, how much can you say that getting your kicks from dressing as the subordinate women role (but not acting it - no submission required), forcing women to play along, and getting praise for it is "gender non-conforming" any more? That's now an officially-approved male role. It's fully conforming.

Those men have been given a patriarchally-approved outlet that lets them conform.

Confess I haven't read it, just the comments above. Alex's reputation precedes.

But the reason the analogy doesn't work is that women are the only oppressed group in patriarchy. Women are the resource.

Some men - particularly gender-non-conforming - may be collateral damage and end up discriminated against in a patriarchy. But men aren't interested in controlling gay men or crossdressers. They don't need them. They just need to not get in the way of the control of the women. Men disrupting gender roles traditionally got in the way of using gender to oppress women.

But this trans movement shows a way that gender-non-conforming men can end up firmly on the farmer's side. Use their gender non-conformity as a stick to beat women with.

(And there are other modern issues like gay men feeling entitled to use women as surrogates - again, women are the resource).

Jane Clare Jones writes about this oppression/discrimination distinction a fair bit.

Here's a Twitter thread:

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1383709478697148423

And a follow-on article:

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1388868579475476489

I found it amusing in how badly Alex set up the analogy. For a start, the problem doesn't appear when a big (butch?) cow and her shrill friend arrive on the farm. The problem arises when two creatures arrive who are clearly the same species as the patriarchal farmer. Except they are wearing assless leather chaps, walking on all fours and begging to be "milked".

Their argument is that what the farmyard animals have in common is not being exploited by the farmer but the ethereal bucolic feeling that they share...

Sharpe is one of the most unpleasant misogynists I’ve come across. A very typical example of extremist transactivism.

I (somehow) made it to the end. What utter tripe. Really badly written too.

Is this a (very) bad way of calling women cows? Or women who do not agree that gender is more important than sex?

What a load of bull.

I note it doesn't feature ponies and pigs who identify as cows and want to be miked...

"Before long, Big Juniper and, the more shrill Buttercup, were having private meetings with the other cows."

That's the crux of it. Women talking to each other without men. Like that popular forum Cowsnet. Sharpe just likes finding new ways to insult women.

Alex is not very convincing in their arguments in this video either

You can say that again, Clymene

I'm just embarrassed by this piss poor analogy.

Alex is not very convincing in their arguments in this video either

while pretending not to be a misogynist

It's not a very convincing attempt to pretend, especially as Sharpe once likened us to bubonic plague.

Dear lord. I gave up after a couple of paragraphs.

Garrulous nonsensical garbage. They probably just wanted to find a "clever" way to call their enemies cows while pretending not to be a misogynist. Hope they didn't dislocate anything patting their own back afterwards.

I couldn’t read it all. What I did read seemed to miss the point big time. Critical bovineism (feel silly even typing that out) clearly weakens the unity of the animals as a whole, whereas the trouble with non-GC feminism is that it destabilises the meaning and scope of women to the point that it can’t represent them. The animals very clearly have commonality, but the common ground between women and TW is fairly slender.

Big Juniper explained that the cows were oppressed on the basis of their cow-ness, and while they felt some affinity with the struggles of the other farm animals, it was their cow-ness, not their animal-ness that was most important.

Alex seems to think that being a GC feminist means that you don't understand or accept intersectionalism.

Whereas it actually just means (in this belaboured metaphor) a cow who doesn't believe that goats can become cows.

What a load of bollocks.
Which, of course, may or may not be Alex’s problem here.

I'm going to put it with the Edinburgh Action for Trans Health manifesto and Harry Josephine Giles' Wages for Transition as some of the more batshit, incoherent contributions to the trans activist literature genre.

So what are all these other sexes? Rabbits, pigs, zebra things, the bull even seems to be a different sex according to the "allegory".

This person is a professor of law.

As for the article the less said the better, it's a pile of shite is an adequate summary.

Omfg.

People like this have actual jobs?

It's just terribly silly, incoherent & smug without any basis for its smuggery.

There is nothing here with relevance to women's lives.

We aren't cows. Not even big, argumentative, difficult ones.

Although I can definitely see that it's a metaphor to run with if you happened to be a misogynist looking for a fight.

I think even the author became fed up of it all at the end and just gave up. What a pile of shite! I read the story all the way through and now feel more than justified giving that review having suffered through it.

It's not clever and it's not grown up.

I did start trying to make sense of it but it became more and more difficult.

In Animal Farm, all the animals are oppressed by the farmer, who profits from their labour or their bodies. The pigs, the most intelligent animals, correctly analyse their situation and organise the animals against the farmer (communist revolution). However once they overthrow the farmer they in turn become corrupt and end up exploiting the other animals, just as the farmer did. In the end they ally with humans from other farms and become as bad as them.

In this allegory....well I don't know where to start really. It seems to say that all classes of animals are exploited by the farmer (all humans suffer under partiarchy) but one species (the cows) claim to be more exploited than all the others and so claim a special status in the fight against patriarchy. God knows what the zebroids are mean to be - transvestites?. None of it makes sense. Granted you could argue that all humans suffer under patriarchy but the spectacular nature of women's oppression calls for an analysis that explains it.
I do think you could make a case for some farm animals being more oppressed than others eg pigs are raised solely for slaughter whereas dairy cows and sheep may live longer but be exploited for what they produce.
This is so muddled I'm not at all confident what the author intended to convey. Are all the different animals all meant to be women? Including transwomen? Are some of them gay?

Poor Orwell, as if he wasn't already spinning in his grave at the mangling of language and denial of truth we are forced to endure.