Jenn Please check your facts.
Hate crimes are not up 81%. Rather, hate “incidents” are up. Again, the slipperiness of language. A hate incident is not a hate crime specifically because there is no crime attached to it. A hate incident is a phone call to the police that someone felt aggrieved — and we all know that transactivists have encouraged the placing of these phone calls — “to get the statistics up” is the exact quote.
Meanwhile, of course, hate incidents and/or hate crimes against women aren’t tallied at all, because unlike transwomen,, women aren’t covered in hate crime legislation. Hate against women qua women isn’t a crime at all — because if it were, police departments would not be able to deal with any other complaint, so busy would they be answering the reports. It is to laugh, imagining police response to a woman reporting that, on account of hostility toward her sex, she felt aggrieved.
Pride, or rather The Stonewall riots, were not launched by a a transwoman but were instigated by an African-American lesbian named Storme DeLavarie who is continually erased by the revisionist history transactivists engage in. Nor were the riots at Stonewall the definitive beginning or the apotheosis of gay rights activism, which long preceded Stonewall and in fact greatly accelerated during the years of the Aids crisis and no, sorry, transactivists were NOT on those front lines, nor were they the ones, as lesbians were, devoting time, love, scarce household monies, and actual blood to caring for ill and dying gay brothers.
NOTHING advanced the rights of gays and lesbians more than 1) the fierce and resolute activism of Act-Up and 2) the deaths of gay men, of gay family members, the straight community finally having to choke on and swallow down the implications of their bigotry. How dare the trans community claim the agency, the martyrdom, the losses and agony, and the hard-wrought results the gay community won with blood and pandemic death. My god, talk about appropriation— have you no shame?
And by the way, it was lesbians, many of whom were radical feminists, not transwomen, who abseiled into Parliament to fight Section 28.
Apologies if I misread your words, but it appears to me that you are stating that GC feminists trigger you with mentions of harassment and assault. If so, I think it truly a shame that the accounts of harassment and assault women have endured are so difficult for you to hear. Nonetheless, I’m quite sure the women who endured the actual harassment and assault had it worse.
One transwoman has been murdered in the U.K. in the last decade. Over two women a week are murdered by males each week. More transwomen have committed murder than have been murdered in the U.K. in the last decade.The same cannot be said for women. Per the BBC fact-checking, half of all transwomen currently imprisoned are incarcerated for having committed sexual offences. Meanwhile, less than 3% of female prisoners are incarcerated for sexual offences.
The spaces women fought for were precisely in reaction to male violence, and until you can prove that males, by stating they are women, no longer share with males whatever it is that has, for millennia, engendered male violence against women, the null hypothesis must be that females still need female-only space.
GC feminists would fight side-by-side with transwomen for third spaces. It’s a pity that when feminists proposed exactly that alliance, the response from transwomen was that they’d rather piss on the floor than use a third space.
So it was not GC feminists who started this fight. The fight came to us, just as all colonising efforts come to the would-be colonised, and just as the British Empire used little of its own armies to suppress the Indian populace but instead relied on the Indian officers it promoted to do so, so transactivism relies on women to suppress women who resist male colonisation and appropriation.
Those of us who have studied women’s history know that for millennia, across culture, men have created all sorts of laws and custom to prevent women from gathering together free of male presence, exactly as all oppressors work to forbid the oppressed from preserving a sense of their own history, language, and rituals.
So we will fight against relinquishing female space.
Just as we will not be made to believe, against all material fact, that it’s possible to change biological sex, that males who state they are women pose any less risk to females than males who don’t state that, or that because males might be at risk from other males, it is somehow the responsibility of females to sacrifice what we spent centuries fighting for. We will not hand over what we fought for merely because males plant a pink-and-blue flag and lay claim to it all.
Nor will we mothers NOT fight with our every breath for the safety and bodily integrity of our children against medical experimentation gone rogue to the point of abandoning ethical standards long ago implemented precisely to protect experimental subjects. I’m afraid you’re about to find yourself on the wrong side of history, aligned with those who promoted thalidomide and who conducted the Tuskegee experiments. My advice is that you get put in front of the breaking wave rather than try to quash it. I’m sure you ever intended, in your activism, that children grow into an adulthood of catastrophic bone loss and loss of all orgasmic potential, but it would probably be best to say so sooner rather than later.
But do you believe female athletes must compete against male athletes? Are you going to argue, contrary to science but in cult fashion, that male athletes by virtue of stating they are female, or by virtue of suppressing testosterone for one year, lose all physiological advantages honed over millennia of evolution? Are you going to, as cultists do, or right-wingers do, deny evolution? Which is exactly what you do if you deny its very process of natural selection, ie sexual dimorphism.
Do you believe that there are such things as female testicles, and that law should compel women to wax them, in order not to discriminate against some females? Or do you believe that self-I.d. of gender and therefore access to all female set-asides shouldn’t apply in those cases you decide it shouldn’t?
Do these very questions make clear to you, or at least to lurkers, why GC feminists consider belief in genderist positions akin to cultist beliefs?
Your project is destined to fail. You cannot change material reality by changing the language that describes that reality, and in fact the proposition that you can do so is a reactionary belief, undoing leftist politics whose very philosophical foundation is the insistence that politics be grounded in material reality. That you, advocate of idealism over materialism, accuse others of fascism is the height of absurdity, because fascism is the ultimate expression of idealist philosophy.
And that is why you must resort, and so eagerly do so, to the authoritarian bullying you display with Emma Burnell.
But all of us know who is a man and who is a woman. Every single human being who engages in heterosexual intercourse,, ie 95% of the world’s 7.5 billion people, know whether or not they are the ones who must worry whether they’ll get pregnant, or not.
I don’t adhere to the Whig view of history, as you seem to, that progress is a given merely by virtue of the passage of time. But I do believe that reality always asserts itself.
Your project hinges on the silent obedience of 3.75 billion women, as you enforced with Emma Burnell, and on dictatorial insistence that 7.5 billion people disbelieve material reality they perceive with all five of their senses.
The Jacobins couldn’t even get the French to rename the months of the year, and they had the guillotine at their disposal.
Good luck with the female penis.