Another trans whine

[Milliepede]

Oh DFOD

<a class="break-all" href="http://archive.is/2017.03.29-213732/archermagazine.com.au/2017/03/terfs-gatekeeping-womanhood/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">archive.is/2017.03.29-213732/archermagazine.com.au/2017/03/terfs-gatekeeping-womanhood/

It's sooooo badly written! Do you think "contingent" was the word of the day or something?

That is possibly the most entitled, narcissistic post I have ever read in my life.

It won't give me access without a credit card?

How long until the 'oh not ANOTHER teams thread' post, despite the clear thread title?

*trans

So, not just me then?

She seems to have a huge problem with the fact that "cis" women exist

It reminds me of a comment a cis women friend of mine made when I came out to her: that I’d “joined the club.” As if trans women and femmes, and gender non-conforming people, are an accessory and an addition to the club of feminism.

And her poor friend can't do right for doing wrong. What was she meant to have said then?

Essentially I'm just

What a pile of unadulterated tripe.

If being a woman has fuck all to do with genitals how are they defining it??
A feeling?? What the fuck does that even mean??
The transactivists insisting they are actually women is surely denying the existence of trans people!!??
Fries my bloody brain!!

Not being centred is always going to be the problem when a small group of people try to take over another much larger group. Of course lesbians aren't going to give a shit about the needs of a group of straight men, and feminism can't centre men, because then it will cease to be feminism. Men should really put the effort in and build their own movement.

Don't be too disheartened, dutun. Its just another white man telling white women they are doing everything wrong.

She seems to have a huge problem with the fact that "cis" women exist

That, right there, is the vocal trans lobby in a nutshell. Unless those women prepared to constantly offer validation and punch themselves in the face every time they forget and say or do something that doesn't centre trans.

If being a woman has fuck all to do with genitals how are they defining it??

By wearing a skirt and lipstick apparently.

Er sorry, someone has a problem with women wanting to gatekeep womanhood?

It's let me read it now.

While most of the people there would likely say they were ‘trans inclusive’, does this mean they are actually changing how they describe the world and position themselves within it?

No it fucking doesn't.

How come that when men decide to turn into "women" they can't seem to park their male ego?

I'm not trans inclusive, if that's the way they're going to define it. I don't position myself as a woman in relation to transwomen. Transwomen can do what they like for the most part and I support their protection from real discrimination and violence. But I'd like to keep some things for the women who need them, thanks. Like female spaces, female scholarships, selections, prizes and sports, discussion of issues affecting only or mainly females, and feminism.

*hiding

Couldn't give a crap how her makeup looks, I don't wear much because I'm shit at putting it on and uncomfortable getting makeup lessons because of my facial hair and skintness. I'm also uncomfortable if people think I am trying to look feminine because I don't feel very feminine, get mistaken for a man a lot and think people are laughing at me if I try to perform femininity. Lots of men and transwomen wear makeup better than me, means nothing.

However, the article made me think how profoundly strange the trans narrative is to me. Which is probably a good thing - it's always good to be challenged. I can foresee that one day decades from now perhaps I will feel differently about trans issues, but right now - the fact that she finds the pussy hats exclusionary because they refer to a certain set of genitals is just - weird. Like the existence of vaginas is not a reality to her. It's so ODD that she believes she's a woman. I'm also mystified by the 'trans femme' description. That's a new one on me.

What a load of bollocks. If it wasn't for toxic masculinity, I wonder what the trans movement would look like?

This person finds pussy hats "exclusionary" because they are a narcissist who expects the whole world to be bending over backwards to pander to them. Even when the subject under discussion is not really anything to do with them.

The problem with ‘trans inclusive feminism’ is that its premise is still based on cis supremacy. It’s the cis women who are centred in this idea of feminism

Actual women attending a women's March shouldn't really be so shocking. So he thinks that trans women, who make up what, 0.3% of the population, should be centred in feminism? And "cis" women should stop discussing issues that affect them in order to be "trans inclusive". Fuck off. Pure narcissism and male entitlement

Ok ok. I said that I knew I was being shallow when commenting on the makeup. We all need our warpaint sometimes I guess.

Meanwhile, over on my FB feed: https://amysmartgirls.com/transgender-rights-are-a-civil-rights-issue-7b8cdde6a6a4

I think Dr Shankina's is an insidious approach that is far more dangerous than the article from the op. There is a deliberate action here in twisting the goals of feminism to work for the trans agenda. There is a very subtle elimination of women from the argument and a driving home of the fact that women/feminists have it all wrong and Dr S is the one that has feminism clocked out.

The blatant flip flop - "there isn't a parallel because trans issues are nothing compared with what African American slaves suffered" is followed by a reinstating of exactly this same "parallel" immediately afterward.

It's nothing if a masterpiece in very subtle manipulation alongside some pretty strong directive language "demanding" that any Smart Girl reading it "takes action".

Anyone Watched the Marvel film Doctor Strange ?