Catherine McKinnon on Transgender Law and Politics

On my analysis of the real world—a feminist analysis I reckon—the linchpin of the subordination of women, the impetus and structure of women’s gendered status as second class, is sexuality, socially gendered through sexualized misogyny.[9] We are placed on the bottom of the gender hierarchy by the misogynistic meanings that male dominant societies create, project onto us, attribute to us, which, in my observation and analysis, center on women’s sexuality. This has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, which serves, however powerfully, as sexuality’s after-the-fact attributed naturalized rationalization and supposed ratification.

Yes women's sexuality is stereotyped (by men) but to say that has nothing to do with our biology is like a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.

We are sexualised because we are the opposite sex to men. Our biology leaves us disadvantaged through unequal strength and childbearing- we are oppressed because of our sex.

The reason they are shoehorning the word sexuality -a person's identity in relation to whom they are typically attracted or sexual orientation - instead of sex is so that transwomen can take part in women's sex discrimination, downgraded to our 'lower caste' through wearing dresses and makeup and 'sexual expression'.
But clothes don't matter, transwomen are males and it's just another power grab to take away things from women, if they can't see it they are naive or being dishonest.

😂😂😂

I honestly think she means because women get sex done to them whereas men do the sex (sexing?!). But I could be reading it wrong. But it's a good fit with quite a lot of trans ideology imho.

I think her whole take on this as espoused in this article is a bad faith one, motivated my self preservation, it is insincere sophistry and has more holes in it than Swiss cheese but no doubt it will be seized on by people of a similar mindset.

Oops, first para is a quote from the article.

'Catharine, to be honest, I found that the best way to keep men away from me was to become one.' This may be a unique or minority personal experience, or it may not be. I also think that lesbian feminism should take some weight for detransitioning young women not getting the memo earlier that you don’t have to be a boy to love girls. If that movement has undertaken that challenge in this context, I have missed it.

I found this bit fascinating. And unfair. I think lots of gender critical lesbians, and others, have been working quite hard to highlight the fate of young girls now identifying as boys who are likely really 'just' lesbians. And the quote from her friend - wow!

I can see she is trying really hard to square the circle and obviously isn't completely bought in, hence refusing to identify as cis herself. The discussion around prostitution was very interesting. I don't see why she thinks the solution is basically TWAW rather than recognising that there will be common struggles facing some TW and women, just as with gay men. Real allyship, not forced teaming, should be the conclusion from her argument there.

How about Aquaman, The Man From Atlantis, Namor The Sub Mariner...they're all at least PART fish?

The important question for a political movement for the liberation of women is thus not what a woman is, I think, but what accounts for the oppression of women: who is oppressed as a woman, in the way women are distinctively oppressed?

How can you answer that question if you don't know what a woman is? That whole article is a wonderful example of eliding two different concepts together in one sentence to say something untrue. over and over again.

For example Defining women by biology—adult is biological age, human is biological species, female is biological sex—used to be criticized as biological essentialism.'

No it didn't. Defining what women could do or be or achieve by biology used to be criticized as biological essentialism. it still is. Like pp said, using the word definition in two different ways.

And, no, Michael Phelps, isn't built like a fish. If he literally were, he'd be disqualified because he'd be .. well a fish.

This was being trumpeted on an account i was reading today 'read it and weep your gender critical numpties'

I think what struck me as I read with initial awe moving to puzzlement is that I've heard all this before.

Welcomed? Welcomed to what exactly? Whose embraces 'should' we welcome, and what is womanhood? Yes, if gender is what is placed on us by the patriarchy, why is 'womanhood' somehow something else, a thing that has nothing to do with our physical reality but is more a kind of.... gendery thing?

Why? If the misogynistic view is that women exist to provide sex for males, then lesbians are the lowest ranking females because they never willingly provide this service.

CMK has decided that strategic thing is to be "OTRSOH" (on the right side of history) and so she has attempted to construct a convincing intellectual argument to support that position - she has failed in her efforts.

God, I don't know what's worse for women...being generally demeaned by men or intellectually demeaned by other women.

"the impetus and structure of women’s gendered status as second class, is sexuality, socially gendered through sexualized misogyny.[9] We are placed on the bottom of the gender hierarchy by the misogynistic meanings that male dominant societies create, project onto us, attribute to us, which, in my observation and analysis, center on women’s sexuality."

If that were true, lesbians would be further up the hierarchy than straight women.

It's all about money and status. Academia is captured by Trans Ideology, and it is hard to swim against that tide. CMK is not able to, Kathleen Stock did, and look what happened to her 🙁

This article is an almost perfect example of just saying "something". It could be anything. It has no merit. It does nothing except detract.

The adage, better not to say anything if you've got nothing to say.

I'm not a woman, but I can only imagine this is so fucking tiring. Now even previous voices on the side of women are happy to ditch worthy principles and allyship for worthless word salads like this.

All I can think is that the TRA grift is more lucrative, or, y'know, think of the trans/NB kids, and those lovely transwomen being misgendered.

Yes exactly - on the one hand she is saying we should welcome transwomen who embrace womenhood yet at the same time she states that womenhood is a social construct. Which is it Catherine?

One might think that trans women—assigned male at birth, leaving masculinity behind, drawn to and embracing womanhood for themselves—would be welcomed.

What does she mean by womanhood? Having a female body? Or a set of stereotypes that go with being female?

If she engaged her brain for a nanosecond she'd realise that neither of these options would make a male who 'embraced womanhood' very welcome amongst many women, particularly feminists.

Either such a male desires to have a female body (why? Fetishistic purposes, perhaps?) or he wants to embrace the stereotypes that many of us have spent our lives trying to escape. Why on earth would he be 'welcomed'?

Like [Catharine], I would have expected all those who self-identify as women to be welcomed, and that has always been my firmly held position.

So it is extraordinary to find that biological definitions are now being used in ways that set back crucial insights in the history of feminism, and polarize and implode the solidarity we so desperately need. After all, it is nearly seventy-five years since Simone de Beauvoir stated so powerfully: “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”

Always very revealing when they bring up that Simone de Beauvoir quote, as the rest of the passage it is from completely undermines what they assume it's about - she talks about "the figure that the human female presents in society" and then goes on to critique how "woman" is a harmful social construct that ends up being forced upon all who are female:

« On ne naît pas femme : on le devient. Aucun destin biologique, psychique, économique ne définit la figure que revêt au sein de la société la femelle humaine ; c'est l'ensemble de la civilisation qui élabore ce produit intermédiaire entre le mâle et le castrat qu'on qualifie de féminin. Seule la médiation d'autrui peut constituer un individu comme un Autre. En tant qu'il existe pour soi, l'enfant ne saurait se saisir comme sexuellement différencié. »

Obviously this cannot apply to males who call themselves women, because firstly, they are not female, and secondly, they are not forced into womanhood.