CNN equates opposition to genderism with opposition to gender equality

[NotTerfNorCis]

My head is spinning after reading this article: https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/asequals/anti-gender-equality-threat-explained-as-equals-intl-cmd/ Apparently the 'anti-gender or anti-rights movement' movement 'mobilises opposition to “gender ideology,” “gender theory” or “genderism.”' It goes on to say: 'While their exact targets and arguments vary, proponents of anti-gender ideology generally agree that the concept of ‘gender’ is dangerous because it is changing the way our societies are structured. They view “traditional” social units – such as the male-headed nuclear family of a husband, wife, and children – as the only true or moral way to live.'

I'm confused. 'Gender ideology' and 'genderism' is not about equal rights between the sexes, it's about the concept of an innate gender identity that can conflict with biological sex. Isn't it? It actually reinforces gender.

Okay so there is this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement

Starting to think 'gender ideology' means something very different to conservatives and gender critical feminists.

I read this yesterday. What a load of nonsense.

If you are against gender ideology you are a fascist. But also gender ideology doesn't exist and can't be defined.

OK then.

It's more media smoke and mirrors designed to confuse people who haven't yet fully understood what's happening.

It’s just US nonsense. Take this, for example:

The anti-gender or anti-rights movement is an umbrella term that refers to social movements mobilizing opposition to what they call “gender ideology,” “gender theory” or “genderism.”

Though no singular definition exists for these terms, in practice, these movements are opposed to the same things, which the United Nations identifies as the rights of LGBTQ+ people, “reproductive rights, sexuality and gender-sensitive education in schools, and the very notion of gender.”

It has nothing to do with opposition to lesbian and gay rights, reproductive rights or sexuality.

Just had a look at their key thinkers and I've never heard of any of them. Suspect this is nothing to do with us lot in FWR and is a small number of religiously conservative people. Also suspect the press is disingenuously talking this up to present us all as right wing bigots in the pay of the religious Right (still waiting for my cheque BTW).

'Anti-gender' would mean the opposite of what the article claims. 'Gender' is the social construct linked to biological sex, so being anti-gender would mean wanting to get rid of social stereotypes and treat males and females exactly the same.

As for 'anti-rights' - what movement would call itself 'anti-rights'? That sounds like something TRAs have made up as a slur.

I find it hard to believe this article actually got published in a mainstream news source. It's so muddled. But this muddled thinking is obviously taking hold in America. At some point, someone has deliberately conflated two completely different things (conservatism and gender critical feminism) in order to push out the feminist arguments.

It seems the mistake is to expect logic, facts and rationality from an ideology based on lies, fantasy and untruths.

Also, checking the Wikipedia article, they are definitely dragging feminists into this.

Anti-gender rhetoric has seen increasing circulation in trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) discourse since 2016.[5] Members of the anti-gender movement oppose some LGBT rights, some reproductive rights, government gender policies, gender equality, gender mainstreaming, and gender studies academic departments.[1][6][7] The anti-gender movement has been linked to the risk of "extreme violence" against the LGBT+ community.[8]

The link from [5] above is to an article that I haven't read in full, but which is trying to slur gender critical feminists as racists https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038026120934713

I mean... is there any actual evidence for this? Or is the whole thing just made up, slurs picked out at random?

God that's incoherent and needs a massive edit.

I doubt the far right Caholics in Zagreb were protesting 'against... women's modest clothes'

I'm not an idiot. I know that anti-women, homophobic organisations and governments also don't believe that people can change sex. I know that there are many Conservatives and conservatives who genuinely believe that having a uterus makes you want to wear a skirt and care for children 24/7, and that borrowing said skirt turns a man into a woman. I know that there really is a lot of money owned by viciously sexist billionaires who fund legislators and organisations (not random individuals, can we stop that tired joke now?) promoting ideas that I hate, and that they will fund campaigns for politicians who will vote for tax cuts (such as Trump and Sunak) and incidentally to cut services to women who want to control their fertility, love whoever they love, and have fully human lives.

Absolutely none of this means male people are women and I am angry not just with the cuts and sexist control, but also with the writers like this who mush together ideas essentially saying if we think lesbians are female people we are anti -abortion. It doesn't make ANY sense. It's more like 'ew you played with smelly Mary, you have fleas' level of argument.

It isn't just this writer, it seems. That Wikipedia article is a can of worms! This link is from last month: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-lgbtq-warning-violence-1.7114801

'Anti-gender activists' pose a risk of extreme violence.

'Anti-gender activists' are against males in women's sport, etc.

They're presenting mainstream and feminist beliefs as violent far-right extremism.

Wikipedia is notoriously biased on transgender issues, with activist editors removing any criticism and banning anyone who objects to this.

e.g. the back-and-forth on their "transmisogyny" article to remove all critique of it as a concept from feminist writers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transmisogyny&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transmisogyny

It's all about controlling language, from enforced pronouns to redefining 'gender ideology' so that feminists won't feel comfortable saying they oppose it.

Re Wikipedia, I remember having a tussle over an article, think it might have been about Magdalen Berns, but the TRAs are in more powerful positions and always win in the end.

I once ventured to 'rational wiki.' It was useful for the subject I was trying to untangle. As it did give all points of view (I checked other sources too.)

But then I found their stance on gender ideology and I've never read a worse example of leftist misogyny in my life.

We women on mn FWR are apparently genocidal.

Which explains why some youngsters say we are.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionaryradicall_feminist

Also this incident: https://ovarit.com/o/Cancelled/176585/october-11-2022-actual-female-wikipedia-admin-goes-out-with-a-bang

A [male] made a request to become admin on Wikipedia, and an existing female admin replied to it with some common sense, so of course all hell broke loose.

This is the comment the admin Athaenara posted: "Oppose. I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care." (link)(archive)

She was blocked very quickly.(link)(archive) And they also deleted her original post from the page history, something that normally only is done for things like doxxing or blatant copyright violations.(link)

Some argued that her account must have been hijacked (not much common sense left on Wikipedia) but she confirmed it was her: "No, this is me, and my account is not compromised. I was almost astonished to see how swiftly I was blocked for opposing a current RfA candidate, regardless of my grounds. I was not at all astonished to see how swiftly cancel culture reached out to put a stop to my opposition. Carry on."(link)(archive)

I've given up on Wikipedia. Used to send them the odd tenner , in the mistaken belief they were independent and fact based.

Then I read their entry on Graham Linehan. Boiled my blood. They still send begging emails. I'm sorry Jimmy but you won't get a red cent out of me now.

Let's be honest, it's about mobilising anti-church sentiment to be pro-trans which within the American Political dynamic is basically this overly simplistic drivel of 'progressives' against the conservative Christians.

I think I'd go mad living in the US.

So you agreed with it on all other issues apart from this one? Makes you think, doesn’t it?

if you disagree with the Catholic Church, the far right and Christian extremism on everything apart from transgender rights, maybe it’s your view on transgender rights which is the issue.

Another stream of consciousness from the lobby of 'we don't like reality so we'll just make shit up that we like better'.

Yes. Come on girls. Accept giving up your rights, seeing vulnerable women excluded, kids harmed, and laying down and giving up to benefit the freedoms, including the sexual jollies, of men is the right thing to do. You know it makes sense. All the nice kids are doing it.

🙄

@DadJoke what is your opinion on the co-opting of terms like 'genderism' to mean the opposite of what it means to large numbers of people? The deliberate conflation of feminism with conservatism in order to silence feminists?

Genderism couched as being the same as sexual equality - that's a joke.

Genderism (meaning belief in a 'gender identity' separate from biology) does seem to bring out the most bizarre reasoning and distortions of reality. It's like a basic tenet of their ideology is that reality is what they say it is. The only equivalents I can think of are totalitarian states, which twist reality as they want, because they can. But that's all about power.

Yes and no. The term "gender ideology" has been around and widely used since at least the 90/early 2000s at least in continental Europe (Eastern Europe and the German-speaking region.) For most of that time it wasn't applied to transgender issues but rather, directed against policies like gender budgeting and gender mainstreaming - in other words, women's rights - by reactionary circles like the "demo for all" movement. I've always thought it was a massive mistake for the GC movement to take up a term that was already used by a completely different crowd for a completely different purpose, and I avoid it for this very reason. At the very least, use "gender identity ideology" or "gender identity theory" - but something like "trans extremism" would be a lot clearer.

From IrrationalWiki:

As causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group meets the definition of genocide established by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, at least some policies advocated by TERFs could be considered genocidal.

Pure mince on toast.

That is a huge reach by them, SinnerBoy! What policies? Delaying medical intervention on minors? Preventing males from competing in women's sports? Or does misgendering cause serious mental harm on a par with genocide?