Rant - oh the virtue signaling among the gender entitled in the U.K.

clovenhooves The Personal Is Political Gender Critical Sex-Based Rights Social Media Rant - oh the virtue signaling among the gender entitled in the U.K.

Social Media Rant - oh the virtue signaling among the gender entitled in the U.K.

Print Thread

wormwood

Apr 18 2025, 1:35 AM

The British Supreme Court’s clarification of what “woman” means in the Equality Act is level-headed, precise, and necessary. The excellent Susanna Rustin lays it out here, in an opinion piece tucked away far from the main opinion page in The Guardian . She describes, too, the febrile political atmosphere in which the judgement lands:

“ Despite their borrowings from intellectual postmodernism, gender identity activists (including such luminaries as Judith Butler) take a binary view of our complicated world in which anyone who doesn’t line up with them must be on Team Trump.“

And oh goddesses but the British oh-so-progressives are busily demonstrating it on Bluesky! It’s the usual disingenuous nonsense, women declaring that they will be forced to carry birth certificates or take dna tests to enter the loos, others declaring they will never watch anything by the actors who signed up for the new Harry Potter series again, still others declaring middle-aged Scottish feminists to be the real fascists.

It’s all so very tedious, and in the decade plus I’ve been talking, thinking, and arguing about the obvious, obvious truth that sex is binary, immutable, and politically significant I’ve seen it all before, over and over. I don’t know why it’s irritating me so very much this time. Usually I just go, “ah, the performatively virtuous are out again, reaping their social media praise”, and ignore it. But today it made me so angry I had to say something somewhere. I don’t want to post any of it. I’m not interested in why this or that person is being deliberately obtuse, or any further deep dives into social media narcissism. I just needed to let off some steam.

wormwood

Apr 18 2025, 1:35 AM #1

Wandering_Feminist56

Apr 18 2025, 7:00 AM

Relatable. They're also fighting windmills- going all ''who could POSSIBLY agree that this is a good thing? Murderous fascists?! Is there ANY rational argument?!!! How much do they hate women?!!!'' of course you're not supposed to interject in their circle jerk and actually answer those questions, while they imagine themselves antifascist resistance fighters and intellectual heavyweights. They all agree how sane they are, how any other viewpoint MUST be evil, how dumb and ultraconservative everyone else must be. It turns so many places intolerable.

Wandering_Feminist56

Apr 18 2025, 7:00 AM #2

wormwood

Apr 18 2025, 1:05 PM

Ran across the one that really drives me up the wall again just now “No-one can actually tell who’s female and who’s male, not all the time and for sure. The silly bigots are going on PRESENTATION”.

Because, argh, it’s literally the other way around. So obviously literally the other way around. They are the ones saying stereotypes are important and meaningful, we are the ones talking about bodies and power dynamics. Aaaargh!

wormwood

Apr 18 2025, 1:05 PM #3

Wandering_Feminist56

Apr 19 2025, 12:09 PM

I do wonder if this will somehow, sometime force them to think critically. What IS a woman? How would you define it in very clear and usable legal terms, beyond nebulous circular reasoning? Why are ''transphobes'' so terribly wrong? It's such an easy win for the right wing, because this whole proposition is so preposterous and ridiculous that even the smallest of minds can pick it apart. If they want to actually stop bleeding support they need to come up with a logical and clear answer, I can't wait to see how they'd try to reason that one out.

One can hope. This probably won't go beyond screaming ''fascism!'' and persecution complexes.

Wandering_Feminist56

Apr 19 2025, 12:09 PM #4

wormwood

Apr 20 2025, 1:45 AM

(Apr 19 2025, 12:09 PM)Wandering_Feminist56 I do wonder if this will somehow, sometime force them to think critically. What IS a woman? How would you define it in very clear and usable legal terms, beyond nebulous circular reasoning? Why are ''transphobes'' so terribly wrong? It's such an easy win for the right wing, because this whole proposition is so preposterous and ridiculous that even the smallest of minds can pick it apart. If they want to actually stop bleeding support they need to come up with a logical and clear answer, I can't wait to see how they'd try to reason that one out.

such an easy win for the right wing, because this whole proposition is so preposterous and ridiculous that even the smallest of minds can pick it apart. If they want to actually stop bleeding support they need to come up with a logical and clear answer, I can't wait to see how they'd try to reason that one out.

I keep wondering if this will ever happen. If they will ever understand that asserting, in the face of observable evidence and scientific data, that sexed bodies are irrelevant, because it suits them politically, is part of what brought us to the misinformation age. Will they see how they contributed to the rise of fascism, not just by handing the extreme right a weapon against the left, but by making it so the virtuous thing to do was to scream obvious untruths at the top of your lungs.

wormwood

Apr 20 2025, 1:45 AM #5

(Apr 19 2025, 12:09 PM)Wandering_Feminist56 I do wonder if this will somehow, sometime force them to think critically. What IS a woman? How would you define it in very clear and usable legal terms, beyond nebulous circular reasoning? Why are ''transphobes'' so terribly wrong? It's such an easy win for the right wing, because this whole proposition is so preposterous and ridiculous that even the smallest of minds can pick it apart. If they want to actually stop bleeding support they need to come up with a logical and clear answer, I can't wait to see how they'd try to reason that one out.

such an easy win for the right wing, because this whole proposition is so preposterous and ridiculous that even the smallest of minds can pick it apart. If they want to actually stop bleeding support they need to come up with a logical and clear answer, I can't wait to see how they'd try to reason that one out.

Shroom

Apr 20 2025, 11:02 AM

(Apr 19 2025, 12:09 PM)Wandering_Feminist56 I do wonder if this will somehow, sometime force them to think critically. What IS a woman? How would you define it in very clear and usable legal terms, beyond nebulous circular reasoning? Why are ''transphobes'' so terribly wrong? It's such an easy win for the right wing, because this whole proposition is so preposterous and ridiculous that even the smallest of minds can pick it apart. If they want to actually stop bleeding support they need to come up with a logical and clear answer, I can't wait to see how they'd try to reason that one out.

One can hope. This probably won't go beyond screaming ''fascism!'' and persecution complexes.

These people have been asked this for over a decade and still get support despite never giving a non-circular or non-sexist answer, if they even reply. I doubt they'll say anything different if asked on live TV, but I'd love to have them admit as much for the general public to hear.

Shroom

Apr 20 2025, 11:02 AM #6

(Apr 19 2025, 12:09 PM)Wandering_Feminist56 I do wonder if this will somehow, sometime force them to think critically. What IS a woman? How would you define it in very clear and usable legal terms, beyond nebulous circular reasoning? Why are ''transphobes'' so terribly wrong? It's such an easy win for the right wing, because this whole proposition is so preposterous and ridiculous that even the smallest of minds can pick it apart. If they want to actually stop bleeding support they need to come up with a logical and clear answer, I can't wait to see how they'd try to reason that one out.

One can hope. This probably won't go beyond screaming ''fascism!'' and persecution complexes.

YesYourNigel

162

Yesterday, 9:00 AM

(Apr 20 2025, 11:02 AM)Shroom
(Apr 19 2025, 12:09 PM)Wandering_Feminist56 I do wonder if this will somehow, sometime force them to think critically. What IS a woman? How would you define it in very clear and usable legal terms, beyond nebulous circular reasoning? Why are ''transphobes'' so terribly wrong? It's such an easy win for the right wing, because this whole proposition is so preposterous and ridiculous that even the smallest of minds can pick it apart. If they want to actually stop bleeding support they need to come up with a logical and clear answer, I can't wait to see how they'd try to reason that one out.

One can hope. This probably won't go beyond screaming ''fascism!'' and persecution complexes.

These people have been asked this for over a decade and still get support despite never giving a non-circular or non-sexist answer, if they even reply. I doubt they'll say anything different if asked on live TV, but I'd love to have them admit as much for the general public to hear.

There really are only two options for them:

They can try to pander to the patriarchy already in place and appeal to gender roles: "Look, other straight men have deemed this man bangable, how can you get any more womanly than that?" or "Clearly he has a pink brain like a woman's because he likes makeup and stripper heels and anal sex, just as women evolved to", aka the more traditional route that gets called transmedicalist. The downside is that it's so glaringly misogynistic that even your normie women can get the ick from it, so unsurprisingly it's always been heralded by men.

The "omg this whole men's rights movement is glaringly misogynistic and giving us the ick whatdowedo whatdowedo" solution that libfems came up with is "Err, well, a woman certainly isn't just anything a straight man deems bangable, um, a woman is...uhh, I know, a woman isn't anything at all! That's right! All those men talking about how being a woman means being a sex object, well, that's just their personal feelings from dysphoria which makes them suffer so, so very much 🥺 And since even regular TIMs are really just men with a hormonal imbalance and not actual women (often not even that - what about the poor TIMs who can't afford/have hormones? 🥺🥺🥺), and since gender nonconformity exists, well why not open the doors to any man that claims he has a girlsoul, even if he can't even be assed to try to imitate this stereotypical image of a woman! That's right, a woman is just a word that can mean anything and nothing at all because that's how language works! Check mate, TERFs!"

SelfID is a result of liberal feminists needing to twist a men's rights movement into absolutely batshit pretzels to make its extreme misogyny seem palatable and even progressive. It's a logical conclusion of noticing that gender nonconformity exists and that sex change is impossible. In fact it's so logical that it loses any connection to reality and adamantly refuses to even reconsider its faulty premises (namely that the oppressor class gets to own, appropriate and call itself as one of the oppressed and in fact insist that being an oppressor only makes them more oppressed because no-one believes that they're actually a part of the class they benefit from exploiting 🥺🥺🥺) which are ofc most definitely accurate because any oppressed group is more oppressed than women, so anything they say trumps women's rights.

The thing is, the transmedicalist stance at least knows it can profit off of general people's misogyny. Like, of course (gay) men who are too feminine might as well not be men (and plenty of men are itching for an opportunity to fuck another guy without endangering their own male supre.acist status). And ofc ugly hairy unfuckable lesbians are practically not even women. This is at least appealingly familiar. But once you get into selfID, you lose even that - what do you mean this hairy masculine dude is actually a butch lesbian just because he jerks off into pink panties on Saturdays? He doesn't even have enough makeup and plastic surgeries that women should have!

Edited Yesterday, 9:48 AM by YesYourNigel.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

YesYourNigel

Yesterday, 9:00 AM #7

(Apr 20 2025, 11:02 AM)Shroom
(Apr 19 2025, 12:09 PM)Wandering_Feminist56 I do wonder if this will somehow, sometime force them to think critically. What IS a woman? How would you define it in very clear and usable legal terms, beyond nebulous circular reasoning? Why are ''transphobes'' so terribly wrong? It's such an easy win for the right wing, because this whole proposition is so preposterous and ridiculous that even the smallest of minds can pick it apart. If they want to actually stop bleeding support they need to come up with a logical and clear answer, I can't wait to see how they'd try to reason that one out.

One can hope. This probably won't go beyond screaming ''fascism!'' and persecution complexes.

These people have been asked this for over a decade and still get support despite never giving a non-circular or non-sexist answer, if they even reply. I doubt they'll say anything different if asked on live TV, but I'd love to have them admit as much for the general public to hear.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Print Thread

Recently Browsing
1 Guest(s)