when feminism becomes a religious cult
I banned her. I’m tired of the anti-fem discussion by people who claim to be fem and haven’t a clue what they are talking about.
So, I’ve just been banned by a blogging buddy because my feminist credentials don’t meet her exacting standards. My feminist standard is that women and men should be treated the same. I believe she agrees to that at least.
Our difference is that to achieve equality for women and men, she believes we have to erase trans people. She believes this is a part of the feminist cause. And, as she asserts that trans women are damaging to feminism (?!), she believes they are a valid target for ridicule, abuse, marginalisation and discrimination.
I disagree. Trans women damage feminism in no way. And under no circumstances are they a valid target for ridicule, abuse, marginalisation and discrimination. I argued she was wrong to think such a thing, to post such harmful nonsense. She banned me.
Now I know how heretics feel.
My thoughts: I’m tired of the anti-trans discussion by people who claim feminism as their own, and haven’t a clue what they’re talking about. I’m tired of feminists who think feminism has a creed, holy book and commandments. I’m tired of feminists who want to join a religious cult but couldn’t find a god to worship. I’m tired of division, fear, hatred and accusations. I’m tired of feminism being sullied in these petty battles that bring real damage to a tiny group of vulnerable people looking for acceptance.
Hate the patriarchy? Find something useful to do about it and get your head out of this cesspit of hate.
That was you? I didn’t realize.
LikeLike
I didn’t realise either. I’m not sure what I said on that post that crossed any kind of threshold.
LikeLike
…… and me too! Don’t forget me! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
You got banned?
LikeLike
Actually, I got banned before Violet. So I get the gold medal, not her. She’s silver.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lol. Oy. What a day.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve been reading along in an attempt at understanding. I think my brain just blew up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I posted the same comment at roughseas as well. This is a really complex issue.
LikeLike
See, I’m confused by that. If you read that reblog and those comments on Insanity’s pages you’d know what to think about it, wouldn’t you? I think the confusion only arises because the explanation of the irrational hatred is couched in feminist, rather than Christian, terminology.
Also, the ‘facts’ are presented the kind of people who presents facts on The Bigot’s site e.g. my personal experience of homosexual parenting is blah blah blah evil dangerous blah blah blah. And I don’t have a blog. And nothing I’m saying can be backed up by any competent professional or any kind of research.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, no, maybe that’s my problem. I’m afraid I don’t follow Insanity’s so I’m at a loss as to what to think.
LikeLike
Oooh, please tell me I’m not driving Ruth to sarcasm! Sorry if I seemed patronising.
There seems to be an issue here that women who have had bad experiences with men can relate to this somehow. Am I right?
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you asking having bad experiences with men leads to some kind of fear/hatred of transwomen?
LikeLike
Yes. I don’t understand why people are finding it a complex issue, when it seems straightforward. The only thing I can conclude is that there is an underlying mistrust of trans people. If that’s the case, I’m kind of shocked, in these circles at least.
LikeLike
I didn’t follow the comments on the OP over at RSitM on the piece she linked to so I can’t speak for everyone in that regard. My understanding of what RS is actually saying is a bit different than that, though. Transwomen have lived the majority of their lives as men. Along with that comes male privilege, even if they shun it. They certainly had the benefit that came along with being born male(even if that isn’t the way they feel about it).
I certainly don’t harbor any hatred or mistrust toward transwomen. I think they have a lot to offer feminism. The minute they embraced the identity of a woman they began to face the same discrimination that all women face. It’s just that they haven’t faced a lifetime of it and may not be fully aware of all the discrimination and indoctrination the females have faced for their entire lives. Does that make them the best spokespersons for feminism and women’s issues? I’m not sure about that.
LikeLike
Ah yes, we’ll leave that to Arb, will we? 😉
I suspect the minute most trans people understood they weren’t comfortable in their own body, they were starting a life doomed to more abundant and vile discrimination than your average woman. But that’s beside the point. The woman in that article was an individual who put herself forward for election – they are ridiculing her and tearing her to shreds. If the students want to elect her, that will be their decision.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I suspect the minute most trans people understood they weren’t comfortable in their own body, they were starting a life doomed to more abundant and vile discrimination than your average woman.
On this we can agree. All discrimination is equally abhorrent, but the discrimination I face as a white woman is likely not comparable to the discrimination of that of any black person. I’m probably not a good spokesperson for black people, even if I want to champion their cause.
LikeLike
I didn’t realise you’d self-identified as black.
LikeLike
Even if I did, I don’t think I’d be qualified to be a spokesperson for black people. It’s the very reason people, and many of them black, were enraged to find out that Rachel Dolezal was actually a white woman. She’d lived most of her life as a white woman, married a black man, and had children with him. She identified as black. The NAACP was none too thrilled to find out that she was white and didn’t feel she could be the best spokesperson for their organization. Even though she faced some of the discrimination they faced, and she’d intentionally shunned her white privilege.
LikeLike
If she’d put herself up for election and black people had elected her would that be different? Can people not decide who they want to represent them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. I think that does make a difference. However, putting oneself up for election does open them up to scrutiny.
LikeLike
I was just commenting to my son that ours was such a patriarchal society back in the day of the TV show Star Trek (the original, of course) that the viewing audience had less trouble suspending their disbelief to accept a pointy eared alien as a major character over and above a woman in a position of ‘Commander’ on board the Enterprise. We’ve evolved since then, thankfully, but we still have a long way to go… I hear that Italy is still grappling with the idea that two mature and responsible adults in a committed relationship can’t adopt a child if and only if their sexual orientation is towards the same sex. I still read about people concerned about the gender identity others wish to assume and want to make rule about it.
Oy vey.
I was living in a mill town with a very blue collar population (yet those who couldn’t afford hats and had sunburned necks became know as ‘rednecks’. Go figure. Blue collars, red necks? What’s the deal here? Hue never know.)
Anyway, a local teen ‘claimed’ to be transgendered and required access to the ‘right’ bathroom. To be honest, I expected the same kind of brouhaha we Canadians so often see south of the border over sex and gender differences.
What we saw was a school that simply opened a third bathroom to accommodate all the transgendered students (turns out there were five in that population but only one with the courage to be the first and take a stand) and life continued at that school as it always had.
What struck me was that the students themselves seemed to have no concerns whatsoever about which bathroom was being used by whom. I mean, they’re bathrooms. It was the parents and administrators who did all the hang-wringing and so I think it’s those who think such differences really matter in some substantial way that have assumed the mantle of being the problem.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Actually, there was no rejection of transwomen, who contribute myriads to feminism. There was and is a discomfort about a specific individual representing women students in general at a nationwide level, who doesn’t seem to have made any more concession to transition than to don a Laura Ashley dress (which in itself would not bode well for suitability as women’s officer, regardless of biological sex, gender identification or sexual orientation). As well as some suspicion about a transwoman who doesn’t appear to have transitioned but identifies as a lesbian…how is this different exactly from a heterosexual male cross-dresser?
I can’t imagine transsexual students leaping at the chance to be represented nationally by a woman in turn ups claiming she is a homosexual man.
LikeLike
What actual EVIDENCE can you show that the person in question is not a legitimate transgender individual?
Do we get to check what you’re wearing and then have a vote as to whether we believe you’re actually suitable for your *purported* gender? Why don’t you pt up a picture, so we can all weigh in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My goodness, read the comments on the original post that Roughseas reblogged. They’re disgusting, and so shallow I can scarcely believe it. Really shows the mentality of the kind of people doing this.
LikeLike
I stayed there for about 5 minutes, then decided the Pseudo-Feminists/Pretendbian-Feminists, weren’t worth my time. Having spent much of my life (and still do) reading about the feminist struggle, I think they’re anything but.
LikeLike
I would be the woman in musty turn ups claiming to be a homosexual man 😉
Yeah, I know appearance is a dodgy argument, but nothing about this particular person’s appearance sends any message whatsoever to me about their suitability as a representative of women on a national – or even local – level. Specifically, what I take away is a) does not appear to have transitioned = lack of security in their identity, and b) wears the worst kind of stereotypically “feminine” clothes = has no feminist awareness. Ergo, not entirely suitable as a national representative for women. As someone for whom appearance is so important (I enjoy your blog, by the way), I would have thought that would be apparent to you.
As you said elsewhere, this is an election, so it’s all irrelevant anyway. S/he will be elected or not. End of story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the compliment- but that’s so fantastically wrong. We just cannot, cannot, cannot judge someone (their gender or transitioning) by how they look.
Classic sexism to reduce someone to their appearance or how attractive we think they are or aren’t. That’s the whole reason my first answer to RS’s post was to put up a picture of Maggie Gallagher. Born female, against lgbt and women’s rights, and she doesn’t look like a runway model.
I’d vote for Anna Lee instead of her any day of the week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I absolutely agree with you about appearance – in everyday life. Not so much in public life. I’m sure that like me, you too would vote for a prime minister who dressed as Mickey Mouse, if his/her arguments were convincing. But somehow, they would need to be extra convincing, given his/her attire. A priori, a person in fancy dress standing for public office does not convince.
Meanwhile, divisive arguments about “transphobic feminists” (as a transgender person, I doubt that feminists of any kind represent her worst problem) and describing non-transgender women as “just a few” would do little to convince me to vote for this person as my representative. Which is all entirely hypothetical, as it will not be me, or any of us commenting here, voting.
P.s. Have no idea who Maggie Gallagher is. Will go away and Google.
LikeLike
There are a lot of reasons people choose not to have the surgery. A trans person’s ability to “pass” should not determine how they are treated.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And maybe, just maybe, we should consider not deciding anyone should or shouldn’t have rights based on their appearance. At all 😀
Isn’t it funny-ish? I really thought MLK’s speech had gotten through to people. I wonder how many more decades it will take for it to sink in?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Actually, I don’t think anyone is questioning her rights, nor do I think her rights have been curtailed. I think some people have doubted her suitability, which is quite common if you stand for public office.
LikeLike
Go back and read through the comments. The implication is she shouldn’t be allowed to run in the election. The main reason? She doesn’t conform to their idea of womanhood or what a woman should look like.
Just imagine someone saying, “Sorry, Mrs. Clinton, give me back that form. Your cankles make you unworthy of even being a candidate. Real women should have long slender legs.”
LikeLike
And I quote (from the “shallow and disgusting” comments you refer to): “without questioning the legitimacy of Lee’s stance as a person, I feel it absolutely reasonable to ask Lee how she feels she’s able to reflect the experiences and needs of women who have lived their entire experiences as such.”
I see no call here to prohibit her standing for election, but a questioning of her suitabilility for the post to which she aspires. Something every candidate is exposed to – and exposes themself to. In this case, given the post in question, the questioning focuses on her ability to understand and represent a sex class to which she was not biologically assigned at birth. In other cases, it focuses on the ability to understand a different social class. Does this seem entirely unreasonable and discriminatory to you?
LikeLike
That’s disingenuous. In a bad way. There’s a comment that says trans people are rapists and anyone who supports trans people is not just a supporter of rape, but also a supporter of corrective rape for lesbians.
The post was designed to ridicule and dismiss. And yes, it does seem entirely unreasonable to me to say that genitalia determines knowledge and insight. Many women opposed (and still oppose) women’s rights. Some gays vote republican. I’d rather vote for a female (born or otherwise) to represent me if her ideas are in line with mine than a male (born or otherwise) who believes in oppression.
LikeLike
No, that comment was over at roughseas.
I don’t think anyone is talking in this case about genitalia, and it would be ridiculous to do so, since as you yourself pointed out, we don’t know what they are; furthermore, it’s none of our business to know what they are and at this stage it’s irrelevant anyway. People are talking about *experience*, which sadly in our world is usually dictated by genitalia as we grow up and develop. It’s a fine distinction, but it exists.
And me too, I’d vote for anyone whose ideas were in line with mine, regardless of orientation or identity or biology. At the moment however, I would be happier being represented by my whippet than most of the clowns around.
LikeLike
I get all that- the part I don’t get is the implication that (average) lgbt people are somehow beneficiaries of male privilege.
People love waving around the Caitlyn Jenner example, but let’s be honest, she’s not really representative of the experience of the vast majority (or perhaps even ANY) of the other trans people out there. Neither are all those smiley upper middle class gays we see on television.
I’d be willing to put money on the notion that Lee was bullied and suffered some degree of exclusion growing up. I’d also bet she can’t walk into a bar or a shop now without getting looks and people whispering things to each other. How privileged is that?
LikeLike
Also, “canckles” has annoyed me, as it should all women. I had to look it up on Google. Yet another invented imperfection of the female body for us all to obsess about, imposed from a male perspective of female beauty.
LikeLike
Are you serious? Just a few examples of disgusting and superficial comments from the original post:
“This dude is a heterosexual male cross dresser and has no right to the word lesbian or the position of women’s officer” (i.e. I don’t like the way this person looks, I deny their right to define themselves or stand for a free election, based on how they look)
“The transgender movements efforts to manipulate people into thinking that failing to go along with a persons pretend notions about themselves is in anyway unfair or oppressive is simply disgusting.” (ie trans people are ‘pretending’, they deserve the treatment they get – erase their identity and their right to seek acceptance)
“These assholes do not care that women are raped, enslaved, denied jobs, etc. the only important things to them are nylons, heels, and boobs. Oh, and flick-worthy hair.” (ie all trans people are superficial idiots)
“no idea if that’s his hair or a wig but either way, it needs a wash, conditioning, and a brush out. Females get harassed for so much less.” (ie it’s okay to rip this person to shreds, criticise every little detail of her appearance and the way she talks (if you read on) because it’s not okay when that happens to women ?! There is no sense of irony here, it’s superficial and disgusting.)
These comments are appalling – or do you think it’s acceptable to discuss any individual in this manner, purely based on their appearance, and to stereotype and malign trans people, who already face so much discrimination and rejection in mainstream society? There are one or two sensible, yet still painfully discriminatory comments, most of the rest are superficial and disgusting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The trans woman isn’t representing students. She’s putting herself forward for election, and I’m sure the students can make a decision if they want to vote for her, without strangers jumping in to be ‘horrified’ by the pictures. The post that was reblogged is full of vile derision and hatred in the comments. The slur ‘pretendian’ is in the very title.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And let’s be honest, the picture was chosen because the woman in question doesn’t look like a fashion model and so they could pull out the man in a dress trope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They’re stuck in a confused mess of wanting to erase gender as we know it, wanting to subvert stereotypes, but only in the way they want to do it. The rule book of How To Improve Society – number 1: find a group of vulnerable people to hate and vilify.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The Rule Book of How to Improve Society – number 1: find a group of vulnerable people to hate and vilify”
But you’re not falling into that trap, right?
LikeLike
In encouraging a group of vulnerable people (I believe they are) not to hate and vilify, am I inadvertently hating and vilifying them?
LikeLike
Quote: “They’re disgusting, and so shallow I can scarcely believe it. Really shows the mentality of the kind of people doing this.”
Could brush up on your encouraging skills, I’d say.
LikeLike
I didn’t say that about the people. The comments are disgusting and shallow. I’d struggle to say anything encouraging about what they wrote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You say the comments are disgusting and shallow, and show the mentality of the commenters, thus defining them as disgusting and shallow as well. I would say that was a pretty judgemental rather than encouraging standpoint, but perhaps you understand encouragement differently to me.
This was one of the earlier comments, made by the original poster, which according to you is shallow and disgusting:
“Sex refers to biological differences: chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external organs. Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine”.
I conclude that we disagree on the definition of encouraging, shallow and disgusting.
LikeLike
One group of people wants another group of people to suffer discrimination. It’s that simple. Which part of that should Violet encourage? The Dis or the Crimination?
And yes, the comments were shallow and rather disgusting. As I said to Purple Sage it used to be lesbians (and gay men) who weren’t *real* women (or men.) Now we’re going to repeat all the rubbish and make more people suffer?
LikeLike
All I can say, VW, is welcome to the club! You’re in good company.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Are you banned from there too? Or is this a reference to me banning Arch?
LikeLike
I’m banned there, too. With you hanging in for as long as you did, it was just too much of a Good Thing. Had to end. You know… you simply brought too much controversy, too much honest commentary, someone somewhere offended, not enough hypothetical safety for hypothetical others to feel okay to hypothetically comment, to few trigger warnings… and all that jazz. makes you feel kind of special, doesn’t it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah, but she didn’t ban me for that reason. She banned me because she disagrees with me, according to my reading of the banning notification.
LikeLike
But isn’t that really the same thing… one person thinking this is how it should be and sticking with it, another thinking it’s not and sticking to that? That’s why I pointed out that, rather than ban the disagreeable person (the equivalent to shutting up the person permanently), simply not commenting is just as effective because the disagreement – the disagreeable bits – isn’t going to be resolved by more commentary… but may evolve over time (as most things do). To be clear, I don’t think your style of commentary – or even Arch’s for that matter – is really a banning offense. I think banning is more of a sign of intellectual capitulation on part of the admin.
LikeLike
“I think banning is more of a sign of intellectual capitulation on part of the admin.”
Yes, I agree, it is capitulation in most cases. On my part, in two of the three cases, I simply couldn’t be bothered wasting my time and energy dealing with offensive comments. Maybe if I could dedicate more time to blogging, I would have stuck them out. With Arch, he deeply insulted a friend, suggested she should be driven to suicidal thoughts. I don’t want someone like that hanging round my posts. I don’t understand why it’s such a topic for conversation.
You don’t keep an active blog at the moment. Maybe if you did, and you were posting frequently, averaging over 100 comments per post, like Roughseas, you would get sick of dealing with endless comments you thought were rubbish. In fact, I’m sure if you were in the same position, you’d do the same thing. The debate goes on, no-one is actually censored.
LikeLike
Crap. You aren’t.
LikeLike
What a cheek Roughseas! You can’t ban someone then pop over to their place. It’s completely against all blogging etiquette.
LikeLike
Sorry. *pops off back*
LikeLike
You, banning people? You’re shitting me? I had to bring Colorstorm back after an hour because Arch almost went into shock.
I thought it was only some of the religious that banned moi?
LikeLiked by 2 people
But I never banned tildeb 🙂 only you, pink, and clare on roughseas. And as I recall, you banned pink, high whatsit and arch. So, what’s your point? I’ll always pick you out of spam if you have something to say that doesn’t deride women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My point was sarcastic. Missed it again. 😉
Ban away and fish out comments you agree with. Sounds like a really intellectual debate (as if we needed further evidence).
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’m actually not happy right now with people who are commenting on my blogs. I find them abusive. ”
Where was I abusive?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hilarious how *abusive* actually means *people who disagree*. Meanwhile a whole collective can be described as rapists and anyone who supports them is a rape supporter. That’s not abusive and insulting at all.
LikeLike
See? I’m getting worse. What a day. Of course you haven’t banned me, RS, and I apologisz for the third time today for getting my facts screwed up. I thought VW was banned by IB22 – as I have been. Doh.
I am sorry for my confusion and I apologize to you for failing to make this clear upthread. My bad, RS.
Now, my unsolicited advice if you’ve banned VW (I’m probably wrong yet again but, hey) is… although I understand the allure of banning, don’t do it…even if tired and cranky, even if you’re being addressed with little respect and churlish commentary, not even if the other person is so wrong they’re not even wrong. Just let the commentary stand and allow readers to come to their own conclusions not only about the commentator’s point but the commentator him- or herself. That’s the great thing about blogs: the opportunity to see the demonstration of how people in disagreement – even people who strenuously disagree with each other – are still willing to tolerate adversarial commentary even if they don’t respond. The not-responding is a clear message to the readership that a limit has been reached. The banning, however, is the slamming-the-door-in-the-face kind of response that is beneath a wordsmith like yourself. (I had a mother who used the bathroom door for just this purpose and kept the bathroom itself out of commission for hours at a time. There’s nothing like bladder and bowel discomfort to bring one around to accepting the legitimacy of another’s POV. The same, however, cannot be said of the blog that bans.
LikeLike
Oh my Google I get a kick out of you, Tildeb. 🙂 (Think that bathroom trick would work on hubby. . Forget it. I couldn’t stand to stay in the bathroom that long. .. )
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t know what she did in there (we only had the one bathroom) but it was home to all the family’s drugs so I’m thinking… it would explain much.
LikeLike
Oh, and Tildeb. I read through your comments on the linked post. I thought you sounded like your usual self — uber-sensible, intelligent, and logically presented. I went to a book talk Tuesday night in Halifax for Jerry Coyne’s new book, Fact vs. Faith; he presented a slideshow and addressed about 250 people. I think he’d give you a nod of appreciation. If you two ever meet, I’d love to be a fly on the wall. . . 🙂
LikeLike
I’m envious you got to go.
I’m a fan of Coyne and have his books, of course. My spouse thinks he ‘stole’ what I’ve been saying for years on all kinds of blogs (my own included) so it’s not surprising that I agree with him over the incompatibility of faith v fact and why we use the same arguments. He’s a very clear thinker and a good writer so, even when we disagree, at least I understand why and over what… and the problem is usually with me and my thinking. I am forever in his debt for explaining to me what evolution is and why it’s true (not personally but through his writings).
I was very impressed with his response to me after I offered what I thought was some insight into camouflage way back when only a few hundred of us were following him (through a reference at Panda’s Thumb). He took the time and made the effort to educate me – personally – in about five paragraphs and so I can think of no better example of the man’s character as to his intentions: to explain his own thinking on preferred issues and interests and invite commentary… even from an ignoramus like I am (how on earth did I graduate from a first world country without ever having to take basic biology? I’ve been trying to make up for this lack of understanding ever since).
LikeLike
Tildeb, if you’re an ignoramus, I don’t even want to THINK about the words people use to describe me. 🙂 Don’t sell yourself short, eh?
To make you really drool, I have an autographed copy of his new book and I got to meet him (one of the benefits of showing up early). Someone used the word ‘affable’ to describe him and it’s a good one. . . he was very approachable and ‘as smart AS’ (my Australian son-in-law would say).
LikeLike
I didn’t mean to use false modesty there: my lack of education in biology really did make me an ignoramus… but at least I knew I was ignorant… and I’ve worked hard to overcome that. We’re all pretty ignorant about a lot of things and I think it’s a character quality to be honest enough to recognize when our understanding is either non existent or very limited.
I have no idea, for example, what it might entail to feel like I’m the wrong gender but I do know quite a bit about equality rights. So if they overlap when the issue is about transgendered people and their rights, then I feel I can make a contribution. The same is true for feminist issues, which is why I usually say little and just read (another reason why I hate banning… it reduces my reading list without any consultation).
But as I have told Clare, for example, because my understanding about transgendered issues is so limited, I really do learn from what she writes and so, in this way, her opinions are valuable to me as a teaching tool. That doesn’t mean I presume her opinions are accurate or correct or representative but they are hers and so reading her allows me some insight into, a way to access from a first person angle, a viewpoint that I otherwise remain quite ignorant.
Selfish, I know, but a means to an end nevertheless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HA! You’re like serially banned. You should start a cereal named Banned 😀
LikeLiked by 2 people
Comment on my blog. Go ahead. Liar. Clear?
LikeLiked by 1 person
To be clear, I’m banned from IB22. I delight in RoughSeas writing but her tone these last few weeks have raised my eyebrows. I put that down to other stuff going on in her life.
LikeLike
Tildeb, just so you know, I am following your conversation over on Assclown’s blog. It’s brilliant. I have left comments to get in, but none have been approved.
LikeLike
Where? Where? Let me try 😀
LikeLike
LikeLike
*sigh*
And here I’ve gone ahead and bunged up who is the OP’s author and who are the commentators who have said what and managed to get myself all discombobulated. Not one of my best efforts, I’m afraid. It’s me age, donchaknow.
When I started, I had a good point but it’s been rather downhill from there methinks. Still, thanks for the support but I suspect they can handle only a few of us at a time. Allalt started the ball rolling with a commentary he wrote up over at his place and he’s still getting in his uber-Spock-ian commentary at shadow-to-light. As fro me, I continue to excel at adding a lot of length if little enough light but it seems to have riled up the natives (no offense to any indigenous people everywhere)!
LikeLike
Doug popped over to Allalt’s. Doug has since left. Doug is an idiot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Its the greatest snag with labels they can mean almost anything.
Christian has a meaning wide as the sea. You are perfectly right about acceptance we all seek it ; so lets make a big effort to accept others.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment. Do you think the trans woman should be allowed to stand to represent female students?
LikeLike
Yes why not. I don’t see any reason why sex should have boundarys. We must not allow dictators to tell us what to do. The law in the free west is changing fast as it should. We need agreed laws in secular democracies lets give people all the freedom we can.
LikeLike
I must admit to being just a little old fashioned on this issue.
As with all of sexual creatures in nature, gender is determined by genitalia, not preference.
That means any person can tell his or her gender simply by looking at and/or feeling (gently with clean fingertips) the equipment (genitalia) that has been installed in the crotch.
Put even more simply, men have rod equipment and women have a whole where the male rod fits.
Al fin y al cabo (as they say in Tijuana), there is no such thing as a trans gender.
LikeLike
You can go sit on Roughsea’s table then SOM. The radfems will love you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, it isn’t that clear outside the body:
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
The more we learn about brain chemistry, it is clear that it isn’t that clear inside either.
LikeLiked by 4 people
M.,
Sexuality or gender, is physical.
In biology it’s called morphology, or how things are recognized by their physical appearance.
Therefore, brain chemistry does not determine gender.
Vagina and penis determine gender.
That’s not what I say. That’s what Mother Nature has been saying for many millions of years.
Man’s journey into the discoveries of modern science has only been going on for a couple of centuries.
Brain chemistry that does match morphology is what defines a disorder.
LikeLike
So you can point me to a multitude of peer-reviewed neurology studies suggesting such? Because all the work I’ve seen says quite the opposite.
LikeLike
Surely, MMJ, you must realize by now that there’s only one source book SOM reads. . . His Favourite Fable has ALL the answers. .
LikeLiked by 1 person
I get that impression.
LikeLike
M.,
It is a long known fact of science that sexuality or gender is determined genetically by X and Y chromosomes.
Likewise, all brain chemistry is determined at the genetic level.
LikeLike
Was that part of your doctoral dissertation? The Function of Rods & Holes by SOM. I hear it was groundbreaking. It even led to the creation of this:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr.
Actually it is the first sentence of my tome called, “Sex Education for Your Children.”
LikeLike
Mr.,
I beg your pardon but that would be “rods and wholes.”
My goodness!
If you’re going to hoist me by my own petard, I demand that the petard truly be mine and not yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s one radfem (which I’ve been told I am) who doesn’t love SOM, or his opinions. In fact, I am really scratching my head as to why HE hasn’t been banned – after all, he just effectively dismissed Clare as a person. DIdn’t Arch get banned for telling Clare she was being rude?
* she shakes head *
LikeLiked by 2 people
SOM is a genius.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“DIdn’t Arch get banned for telling Clare she was being rude?”
Wow, been over this a million times and we’re still circulating misinformation. Arch got banned after Clare revealed some of the mistreatment she’s endured that made her suicidal – being thrown out of love ones’ houses. Arch said that he would have thrown her out too. That may be acceptable in your world Carmen, it’s not in mine.
Arch won’t be welcomed back even if he recognises this was beyond the pale because I put up with two other seriously irritating aspects of his behaviour on my blog for nearly two years, and I’m glad he’s gone. He made more comments than me on my own blog, most of which had no relevance to the posts. And he hit on female bloggers – Victoria, Michelle, Serenity, Violet and all the rest who received his smarmy comments may have enjoyed it, but I found it odd and inappropriate, and didn’t enjoy hosting it.
Feel free to keep bringing up the fact that Arch is banned and feel free to continue being disappointed and even angry about it. But please don’t circulate any misinformation about it. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wait. What? Who banned you?
Welcome to the club! Ark will orientate you to this new world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is Tildeb not more qualified?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Possibly. They’re both the Grand Masters of this club, although I’m climbing that fine mountain at a rate of knots 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently so am I. I only knew I was banned from Insanity. I didn’t think Violet was actually serious and had banned me at some point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh please, you were begging to be banned. I’ve yet to see you behave like that on anyone else’s blog. Only a fool would put up with endless comments about the substandard nature of their blog. Like I said at the time, if it’s so awful, you really don’t need to stick around to read it. (You’re right, we might not reach two weeks …)
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂 It has improved dramatically 😀
LikeLike
Ark would never get banned by Roughseas. She gives men special treatment. Any woman would have been banned in a flash if she’d posted what Pink was saying – she let him go soooo far before he reached the final straw. I wrote three perfectly sensible, uncontentious comments and she’s had it with women!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can all of you please just get back to lampooning religion?
LikeLike
Feminism is Roughseas main topic of interest isn’t it? I never claimed to be an atheist-only blog, I’m just Strong Opinions. Besides, you wrote about dogs recently, soooo off-topic. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it? I thought it was Gibraltar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clouds, Rough, who knows, it’s one of her main things though.
LikeLike
What john means Violet, is christianity is looking very good compared to the godless nonsense and infighting that he can’t honestly enjoy mocking. 😉
Oh to be chained to such nonsense and have to be mute………lest the enemy (believers) gain an advantage. Too funny.
LikeLike
You have a point ColorStorm. Unless some Christians (probably other than SOM) come in to stake their territory on this one, John won’t have a clue which side of the argument he needs to mock. What can I say? He’s a peacemaker … in the secular world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Careful there Violet, that’s twice in a month you have found common ground.
Imagine if I told you I liked chocolate! You may even rethink your doubts that I am human………… 😉
LikeLike
Violet,
I hate getting banned.
On those rare occasions when I am banned (drat those commie bastards) I always tell myself that I wasn’t the one that got banned.
It was my ideas that got banned.
That does wonders for my self-esteem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t tell me you’ve been banned. I won’t believe it! 😀
LikeLike
Violet you seem to have found a feminist version of our friend James.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A petty banner? I don’t think Roughseas would take kindly to that kind of comparison. 😀
LikeLike
I like you, Violetwisp:)
LikeLike
Thank you! Most people do at a glance. If you stick around long enough you’re sure to change your mind. There are some foul comments on some of your posts – are they real or comedy? It’s such a fine line.
LikeLike