Trans Rights: The Conjuring Trick at the Toilet Door

[frazzled1]

https://heartlandstribune.com/trans-rights-the-conjuring-trick-at-the-toilet-door/

Great article - capture of the left, trans rights versus women's rights.

The left is supposed to begin with material reality. Bodies. Labour. Class. Wages. Violence. The analysis of women’s oppression that produced the Equality Act, that built the refuges, that fought for the single-sex provisions now being contested, was a materialist analysis. Women are oppressed because they are female. Not because of how they feel about being female. Because of reproduction, sexual vulnerability, male violence, unpaid domestic care, wage inequality and systematic exclusion from public life. The material conditions of being a woman in this world are not a cultural mood. They are a structural fact.

Liberalism, in its contemporary iteration, has made a different set of commitments. It has committed to the proposition that identity is self-determined, that the sincere assertion of an identity creates an obligation on others to affirm it, and that any structure which resists this obligation is oppressive by definition. That is not materialism. It is idealism. It mistakes the declaration for the thing declared. It confuses the map for the territory, the word for the body the word describes.

There is nothing inherently left-wing in that position. It is, in fact, a philosophy that systematically privileges the subjective over the material, the assertion over the evidence, and the feelings of one group over the physical safety of another. On those terms, it is not the left that has adopted a new progressive position. It is the left that has been captured by liberalism and dressed the result in the language of solidarity.

True.

Quite. And absolutely fuck all to do with feminism or the entire history of women's rights. So yet another pointless, tiresome, factually and historically illiterate attempt at distraction and attention-seeking. WHAT a surprise.

Guessing the article and references to material reality must've hit a nerve. Lol.

Interesting, but not surprising, that Bailey doesn't seem to know what the difference is between men and women, or male and female bodies. Or even whether there is any difference.

It's very Bumba-esque, isn't it.

Omg…..🤪

I think Bailey meant to type Intersectionality, and now has to argue more utter nonsense about 'interchangeability' as if we are all Mr or Mrs Potato Head.

I think it's just an old and well worn MRA argument, which is pulled out any time women argue that the world should accommodate their needs.

'What do you mean? If men don't need that you don't either, I thought you said you were equal.'.

It assumes that the default human is male.

Oh dear. Are you struggling to answer the question?

You can always tell how much an article threatens the false beliefs TRAs like to portray as "facts" by how quickly they pop up to dissemble, detract and misdirect.

Just as the article itself observes, "A conjuring trick requires misdirection. The audience must watch one hand while the other does the work. Keep that principle in mind as you scroll through the endless, repetitive, deliberately narrowed argument about public lavatories, and the entire campaign snaps suddenly into focus."

Like mushroms after rain, TRA distractions after clear analysis.

This.

Interchangeability:
Both men and women can be and have been astronauts. There's nothing about being a woman per se that would disqualify her.

Unavoidable difference:
She'll need to pack a supply of tampons or otherwise take steps to deal with periods. He won't. This is just practical realism and would still apply in a world with no sexism in it.

Avoidable disadvantage:
If she's wise, she'll stipulate that the controls and fittings of the spaceship can be operated comfortably by someone of her size and shape, because otherwise it could well be designed (unthinkingly) with men as the default assumption. In a non-sexist world, this wouldn't happen.

There's nothing un-feminist about recognising all of these three things.

Men don't have a "feminist journey"
Not even men who call themselves women. This is just more creepy appropriation.

Um, I never said they did.

That you need to categorise me as male because I don't agree with you might be comforting but its ultimately not helpful to the alleged cause of 'women's rights' to ignore woman's voices.

She wasn’t categorising you personally as male - no idea who you are. She was making two unarguable points:

1. Men don’t have a feminist journey based on lived experience because they are not women, however they identify.
2. Men who identify as women and claim to be feminists are demonstrating yet more creepy male appropriation.

Yes she was because directly quoted me.

And its false to assert males can't experience a feminist journey because they too are victims of the patriarchy so please stop spreading harmful misinformation about feminism because you have no idea what you are talking about.

www.nextgenmen.ca/blog/why-patriarchy-hurts-men-too

I think you’re reading a personal description that isn’t there. Her statement was in response to your assertion about a feminist journey. She pointed out that men can’t have one based on lived experience as a woman because they aren’t women.

Whatever. Either way she's wrong.

You think a man who believes he’s a woman has the same kind of feminist journey as a woman? Seriously?

No. But neither does every woman have the same feminist journey & that's why all women don't subscribe to the same views on feminism.

Are you seriously suggesting males & females aren't cognitively & psychologically interchangeable?

You're talking as though cognition and psychology were entirely separate from the body, but they aren't. Having a male or female body informs our cognition and psychology. so no, men and women are not interchangeable.

Ahhhh who needs the patriarchy when sex realists will do their dirty work for them.

Ah, I see you've fallen for the fallacy that equality necessarily means complete interchangeability. Luckily, it doesn't.

That's because the only way any of Bailey's TRA nonsense holds water is if one subscribes to Cartesian dualism, a gendered soul in a biological robot.

Once we accept that our bodies are ourselves, that material reality matters, the house of cards collapses and sleight of hand is all they have.

Go on then, explain the cognitive & psychological difference? The glass ceiling is all ears.

Yeah. I used to believe in this dualism for religious reasons. I know only too well how damaging it can be, both to one's body and to one's psyche, precisely by attempting to separate them when they go hand in hand. It baffles me to see it being repurposed in gender ideology when we now know so much better thanks to science.

Oh yeah, average sexed behaviours are just 'gendered souls'!

Yes indeed, reality matters but not when it gets in the way of gametal worship.