Female by Andrea Long Chu

[JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown]

So, it looks like we finally have a definition of what it is to be female

Not sure where to start with this one because it's so incredibly wtaf but does appear to be genuine.

Not only is everyone the female apparently, but female means sacrificing the self for the desires of another.

I've read the sample on Amazon (not spending money on this nonsense) and the actual book appears to make the article seem enlightened by contrast.

newrepublic.com/amp/article/155614/female-now

From the book:

Oh for flips sake....what a load of rubbish.

What about this doozy?....
"for our puposes here, I'll define as female any psychic operation in which the self is sacrificed to make room for the desires of another".

Where does that leave war heros (very relevant on Remembrance Sunday)? Crawling out into no-mans-land to help a wounded comrade is now defined as "female" is it?

Or, actually, the ability to self-sacrifice as just being another human.

What a load of twaddle- why are we giving it airspace?

The AGP is strong in this one.

What a dick. I'd be too embarassed to put my name to anything so profoundly stupid.

I'll just leave this here.....quote from Wikipedia:

"In her November 2018 interview with the New York City Trans Oral History Project, Chu said that she was in a relationship with a "wonderful cis woman" who was very helpful in preparing for Chu's sex reassignment surgery. Discussing the relationship, Chu stated, "[h]eterosexuality is so much better when there aren't any men in the equation."

Discussing the relationship, Chu stated, "[h]eterosexuality is so much better when there aren't any men in the equation
😂

I'm a bit puzzled by their name too. Perhaps transgendered is not the only kind of trans they are?

Discussing the relationship, Chu stated, "[h]eterosexuality is so much better when there aren't any men in the equation."

LOL

Ruffle, iirc Chu is their partner’s surname, which Andrea has adopted.

Andrea has been published a few times in the NYT, I think, including a piece titled “My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy.”

I don’t find myself reading the NYT very often these days...

Yet another person who wasn't born female, trying to tell us all what it means to be female.

I think the world may well end up divided into 2 belief systems - much like brexit and remain, atheism and religion - it will divide into those who buy into queer theory claptrap, and those who don't.

So this person has a masochistic sexual orientation but feels the need to project that onto the rest of us and redefine us in order to legitimate their sex role play? Sounds like a textbook case of narcissistic AGP alright.

Why can’t people like this just be content in their sex role fantasy rather than dragging - no pun intended - everyone else into their nonsense?

Ah 'female' means the state of submissive self sacrifice and hollowing yourself out to accommodate the desires of others?

Could you get a clearer description of harmful sex stereotypes known as 'gender' than this load of old pony? All the fuck yous I can muster. Seriously. This is the shit the keeps fundy cults rolling, you sexist arse.

I thought there was something interesting in the NYT article. I didn't agree with it as a proposition but it was an interesting approach with some thought to it.

This sounds like Eat Pray Love with an academic gown on. Just like Inion says. 'I feel allowed to not make choices and be passive when I perform femininity (i mean, not ACTUAL lack of choice as in limits to life chances or work options or surgery that I fancy having, but passivity that makes me sexually aroused and the experience of feeling like my partner fancies my tits not my chest) and therefore I have decided that everything that looks female has the same desire and that desire is what makes them female. Innit.'

Yes, surprisingly, plenty of traditional fundamentalist types will put an awful lot of thought into exactly why femaleness is yielding and submissive and all that trembling, dainty stuff. I could direct you to whole websites, written by convinced women, that talk in detail about that very thing - and I very much doubt they'd get a chin stroking serious hearing from anyone who considered themselves forward thinking or progressive.

So being female is reduced to a personality type. What a fucking cheek.

This has been written by someone with a hefty dose of AGP and perhaps a sissy porn addiction.

BeMoreMagdalen - "surrendered wives" is a big thing amongst certain sections of the American far right Christians, I believe. This sounds similar - it's gone full circle.

They haven't met me, that's all I can say. Submissive self-sacrifice my arse! It's just sissy AGP mixed up with not understanding women are actually individual people with their own concerns rather than a perpetual blob of self-sacrificing mumminess.

theflushedzebra surrendered wives is a secular manifestation of the phenomenon, more so than a religious one. The religious permutation tends to use 'submissive' as framing, rather than surrender, but yes,it often amounts to the same thing. It's entirely based on gendered expectations of what a woman is supposed to be, and all the weight of holy writ and lots manipulation of the vulnerable to create a movement.

This kind of thing is the tamer end of the spectrum,

www.amazon.com/Raising-Maidens-Virtue-Stacy-McDonald/dp/1930133138/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=stacy+mcdonald&tag=mumsnetforu03-21&qid=1573415628&sr=8-1

Which then goes all the way up to this kind of thing;

www.amazon.com/Me-Obey-Him-Obedient-Happiness/dp/0873985516/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=me+obey+him&sprefix=me+obey+&tag=mumsnetforu03-21&qid=1573415950&sr=8-1

BeMoreMagdalen. 'Surrendered Wives,' along with Barbie dolls are what spring to mind when I hear the word 'Cis',

And then I remember that even Barbie dolls have moved on.

Exactly so. This is precisely why the appellation 'cis' is utterly oppressive bullshit, because it comes directly from the same stable where you have to wear your petticoats, be bashful and yield to your man's opinion because it's womanly thing to do.

Seriously, not enough fuck offs available.

Fascinating links, BeMoreMagdalen - interestingly enough, the first one had a link "customers who bought this also bought this" to a sulphate free hair conditioner. Makes sense, I suppose, we must all have chemical-free conditioned hair when we're saintly wives

They really dont get that women are whole human beings do they.

So I am weirdly going to defend Andrea chu in a way. Note I’m going to use she/her pronouns.

Andrea is at least Honest. That is, Andrea sometimes says she knows she is not a woman and she certainly knows that she has not always been a woman (she’s identified as trans for like 3 years). And she’s miserable and plagued with self doubt and is upfront about how basically any trans woman who thinks about it for two seconds probably is also miserable too. She’s often writing about how she transitioned basically on a whim, and didn’t expect vaginoplasty to improve her mental health (and it hasn’t).

I vehemently disagree with some of what she says (she thinks anyone should be able to get major surgery for any reason they want on demand) but at least she’s honest and isn’t trying to convince anyone she is actually female or has a female brain sex or soul or whatever bullshit.

The premise of this book is batshit but I don’t think she actually intends anyone to buy it. Or that she believes it herself. Its just meant to piss people off so they keep reading. Everything she writes is almost performance art like everything she writes. Pointless, narcissistic navel gazing? absolutely, but I have a tiny amount of respect for the fact that it is at least self aware pointless navel gazing.

I like your take FWRlurker. Yes I think that's what I read in the nyt article too.