Features, Feminism, History, Top Stories

Suffragists Fought for the Female Sex

It is not so much the cause of feminism to provide a shining walkway for a female leader, as… to arrive at a governance that takes issues that affect women seriously. ~Rae Story

In the quote above, writer and activist Rae Story offers a stark warning of the dangers of tokenism and co-optation in an era where ‘feminism’ has become part of many a politician’s personal brand. Story’s statement also functions as a timely reminder of the suffragists’ objective: governance that takes women’s issues seriously. This is why I included the quote in a recent poster campaign I started in Wellington, New Zealand as a way to be heard in the current climate that has become increasingly hostile and repressive towards women’s views.

I created three posters: one featured Story, another featured Iranian activist Masih Alinejad stating, “In all religions and in all societies, first they come for the women.” A third featured local feminist Chelsea Geddes asking, “If you think women are wrong, how do you know the only way to win the argument is to silence them?”

Ironically, publishing these quotes about silencing women would lead me to once again be blacklisted for promoting women’s issues. I had hired Phantom Billstickers, a nationwide postering company, to display the posters through the streets of Wellington and for two weeks I happily spotted them on pillars and buildings around the city. This month marks 125 years since women won the vote in New Zealand, so to simultaneously promote current women’s issues and pay tribute to this important anniversary, I sent them another set of homemade posters specifically commemorating women’s suffrage.

Rather than accepting my order as normal, the postering company phoned to interrogate me about what sort of dangerous figure I was, why my posters had been torn and if I could explain my politics to them in light of the complaints they received alleging that I was transphobic. They told me they were nervous about taking my order and in the end, refused to handle it.

When trans activist organisations InsideOut and RainbowYouth—who also ensured that I was banned from the Wellington Zinefest in 2016—were asked for comment, they claimed that my posters communicated “a subtle transphobia.” This ‘transphobia’ was found in the slogan “The suffragists fought for the female sex.” To be absolutely clear here the words they found objectionable, and which led a company to blacklist me, were “the female sex.”

In today’s repressive climate,  it is fast becoming blasphemous for a woman such as myself to even infer a connection between ‘femaleness’ and ‘sex,’ since trans activists now insist that femaleness must be viewed as an internal ‘essence,’ not a biological fact. To break from their orthodoxy is to risk being attacked, even if you are simply referencing historical acts of suffrage that occurred over 125 years ago.

The response to my posters shows that the phrase ‘female sex’ is on its way to being classified as ‘hate speech.’ Indeed, when prime minister Jacinda Ardern recently gave birth, liberal commentators like Robbie Nicol boasted their refusal to acknowledge the baby’s sex or even that she has one, to signal their approval of these “progressive” trends.

Back in July, I also appeared in a television Q&A segment just long enough to state: “The suffragists fought for the vote so that women could make political demands that pertain to our sex. We can’t do that if the definition of what a woman is, is fundamentally changed.” As a result of that statement, New Zealand’s National Council for Women sent out an urgent press release contradicting my claim that the suffragists fought for women as a ‘sex.’ Following that, Archives New Zealand issued a statement titled “The definition of a woman in 1893,” which included the following lines:

…in the late 19th century and early 20th century there were cases of men and women being arrested under the vague Police Offences Act 1884… often for wearing clothes ‘not of their sex.’ Sometimes they were deemed to be committing fraud because they were ‘deceiving’ people by not dressing in the appropriate clothes such as Amy Bock who married a woman while ‘disguised’ as a man. At the time it was not considered whether these people may have been transgender.

This passage refers to the feminists who fought for dress reform because wearing pants while female was considered transgressive. Since lesbianism was also certainly seen this way, lesbians were forced to pass as heterosexual to avoid persecution. To now rewrite history and point to Amy Bock, for example, as a woman who may have actually been a ‘trans man’ is not an act of liberation, but an insult suggesting that women who do not conform to feminine norms are not ‘real’ women. This reinterpretation of history simply replicates the tired old essentialism that first wave feminists battled against in the first place. The historical fictionalization of iconic suffragists also renders lesbians heterosexual through a kind of retroactive conversion therapy. This revival of Victorian essentialism, along with its notions that women’s non-conformity might symptomize innate ‘maleness’ or deviance, will not empower lesbians but instead force many of them back into hiding.

In the same week that the Sunday Star Times reported the story of Phantom Billstickers refusing my posters, the Lesbian Rights Alliance Aotearoa (LRAA) was formally established as a collective of largely anonymous women. The LRAA’s first press release challenged government proposals to implement one-step sex-self identification in New Zealand, which would, with no questions asked, allow men to change the sex markers on their birth certificates at their own discretion. As an example of where this absurd policy can lead, this summer a Canadian man changed his own gender simply to get cheaper car insurance. But the real concern is of course the rollback of women’s rights, and how this license to change sex markers on key identification papers will compromise female-only spaces and women’s safety. The LRAA introduced themselves in powerful and unapologetic terms: “It’s 125 years since Meri Te Tai Mangakāhia, Kate Sheppard and thousands of other women fought for women’s rights on the basis of sex. We are continuing their legacy.”

The coverage of my poster fiasco and the announcement of a lesbian collective with clearly stated goals of women’s advocacy proved too much feminist action for a New Zealand week, so government representatives weighed in. At least seven members of parliament issued statements. Labour MP Louisa Wall issued a direct statement in response to the formation of the LRAA, in which she called the organization “ugly and intolerable.” Then Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson wrote on Twitter “Trans women are women. The men who are threats to women’s spaces, are men. Trans women who are so acutely oppressed, marginalised and dehumanised—are my sisters. Not my enemies.”

It is cringingly clear that these statements, like the rewriting of suffrage history, are nothing but concessions of a weak position that furthermore undermine each leader’s claims to respect minority groups. What’s more, we all know too that it is possible even for a minority of one to wield power simply by speaking the truth. Indeed I can think of no other reason why government representatives would target a newly formed lesbian collective, unless that lesbian collective had truth on its side. As a newly minted collective the LRAA certainly boasts no other form of power.

For my own part, the backlash I have endured comes after a mere three years of activism, but in that time I’ve been the target of an online bullying pact that helped drive me out of my job and city; I’ve been banned from a zine fair, had articles surreptitiously censored, an interview ‘lost,’ had a radio presenter who scheduled me for an interview receive a warning from his station manager for doing so, and of course I’ve had my posters ripped down and been told by a poster company that they cannot accept my latest work commemorating suffragists.

Even blogger Martyn Bradbury has noted, “The way Woke Twitter hate Renee Gerlich is something to behold—I’ve never seen such hatred from any other faction in politics.” To vocalize specific concerns women have with regards to gender identity, one-step self identification laws, and the acknowledgement of historic feminist struggles is all it takes to get women hated.

This hatred leaves me careful where I walk at night, where I might stop for coffee in the daytime, and often makes me wonder what will happen when law enforcement starts to operate more closely in line with the misogynist redefinitions of hate speech. If the phrase ‘female sex’ is already enough to warrant silencing, where will we be in five years? Ten? There are moments I feel that it doesn’t bear thinking about, but it definitely seems that history is repeating.

Because of these obstacles, I am certainly glad that I have read the work of suffragists—like Susan Anthony who warned that “no self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex”—an assertion I know beyond a doubt, like Rae Story does, that Anthony’s peers would not have rolled over to simply glorify a female leader. I know that the suffragists fought for systemic change that would see women’s issues taken seriously. I know the motivation and stamina with which British suffragist Emmeline Pankhurst fought everything the Liberal government of her own day threw at her and her sisters, too. That strength and resilience is worth remembering, because remembering this, after all, will keep us going.


Renee Gerlich is a writer and feminist activist based in Wellington, New Zealand. To follow her work, visit her website reneejg.net. You can follow her on Twitter @renee_jg


  1. E. Olson says

    Transgenderism is a mental illness pure and simple. Their suicide rate is off the charts even after a full surgical/hormonal sex change is completed, and given their violent nature in attacking people like the author of this article, I would suggest that transgenderism is not a “safe” or “harmless” mental affliction. The real mystery is why leftists have given such strong support for a tiny group of mentally ill people at the expense of the rights of the 99.5% rest of us, but then again perhaps the answer is that leftism itself is a very widely held mental illness that is also far from harmless. I can’t wait until leftists start promoting the rights of pedophiles – after all, why lock up people with so much love for children?

    • Dennis says

      It seems very important to you to stress the idea that TG is a mental illness.

      I don’t want to argue for or against, but rather ask you: assuming this is so, what precisely follows from that?

      What good, if any, results for either transgenders themselves, or for society, from subscribing to the idea that TG is a mental illness?

      • E. Olson says

        Should we also say that anorexics are normal, and praise them for the “courage” they display in being dangerously underweight? Is the the guy who thinks he is Napoleon and that you are his arch-enemy the Duke of Wellington also normal – how about if he aims a musket at your head? What about a 10 year old who doesn’t like his left arm – should we offer to cut it off and hope he will feel better? Delusional people need help, not encouragement and praise for their craziness.

      • Paulo says

        It’s at least a mismatch between body and mind (hope you don’t mind I put it this way :-D). That’s not healthy, I assume. So, the minimum we can do is help them finding a way to be. This is what we should do with people who suffer from any kind of illness, mental or otherwise. By the way, Dennis, if you don’t believe it’s a mental illness what is it, in your opinion?

    • Stephen Phillips says

      I worked in Mental Health for years and still do the odd shift now and again. Trans people are victims of a delusion. That’s it. Wishing will not make it so. Wanting to be the opposite sex is not healthy or desirable. It is no good blaming the world for their unhappiness.

      • mehboring says

        Except there’s actual neurological basis for it, but hey, you do you.

        Freaking hell, prenatal hormones alone have a huge influence as to how a person turns out, and it’s why some girls end up being more boyish (play style, behaviour, etc) and boys like “tomgirls.” This isn’t much different.

        • So what if there is a neurological basis for it? There is neurological basis for every mental illness.

        • No, there is no neurological basis for “being trans” other than in the sense that you have let yourself be influenced by other people’s stupid ideas instead of thinking for yourself. And of course it’s your brain doing that thinking and your brain’s a neurological organ.

          We already discredited the idea of pink brains and blue brains. Get over it.

          Brains have the exact same DNA as the rest of the body does. That includes the sex chromosomes; they have the same ones every other organ in the body does. A male body always contains a male brain, to so speak, and a female body a female one. Even most people termed “intersex” are either male or female, but they either failed to develop some bit or they developed too much of another bit.

          There is no behavior that is “boyish” because boys don’t make babies. There is no behavior that is “girlish” because girls don’t have babies. What are you, a reject from the 1950s? Socialization is a powerful thing. Socialization gendered these behaviors. Doesn’t mean you have to go along with it. Instead of saying that a boy who plays with dolls is really a girl, say that boys play with dolls, and that boys CAN play with dolls, and in fact I devoutly wish more of them would, and then men might be better fathers.

          • “Instead of saying that a boy who plays with dolls is really a girl, say that boys play with dolls, and that boys CAN play with dolls”

            I completely agree with this statement. When a “woke” person sees a boy playing with dolls, their thought process seems to go something like this: “He’s doing girl things, so he must be a girl. We need to persuade this boy (for his own good, of course) that he’s actually a girl and transform him into a “proper” girl using hormone therapy and surgery, along with dressing him up in pretty dresses.” An alternative thought process people might want to consider is this: “This boy is playing with dolls, which isn’t very typical for a boy. Some other boys do that too, though. Hmm. Perhaps, some boys like playing with dolls when not subjected to too much societal pressure to play with car models instead?”

          • I hate to appeal to authority on this one, Dana, but there indeed is a distinct biological difference between men and women that extends to behavior. Both biologists and neurologists disagree with the notion that gender is entirely a social construct. While it may be influenced slightly by culture, make no mistake, boys being attracted to things and girls being attracted to people is a biological reality shared across all cultures, throughout all of history, and even across species! Give a baby female monkey a doll and she will coddle it. Give a baby male monkey a doll and he will take it apart and examine it. Is that social conditioning? How about the fact that we know children as old as three months express signs of “maleness” and “femaleness”? Is that social conditioning? Do you truly think that testosterone, an incredibly powerful hormone that is responsible for a man’s muscle mass, sexual fertility, aggression, and even his happiness has no influence on his choices in life, choices that make him uniquely male? I ask that you reconsider your position and really look into the science of the subject. I’m not talking about studies done in the 1950’s. I’m talking about research being done right now, some of them even by women!

    • Debbie says

      Leftists supporting rights of pedophiles was a thing that actuAlly happened in places like Germany during the 70s. It was even a thing in the US, the famous beat poet Allen Ginsburg was actually a defender of NAMBLA. Look it up.

      • It happened in the U.K. too.

        Look up ‘National Council for Civil Liberties’ (now Liberty) and the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

        • And in the NL, proponents even got the opportunity (some 30 yrs ago) to advertise the right on pedophilia on TV. Now almost unimaginable.

      • Some MEN defend the “rights” of pedophiles. Some of those men identify as leftist. There is nothing essentially leftist about supporting pedophilia, and it is not a prerequisite of leftism.

        • If fighting for the suppressed and equal rights is a feature of left, Dana, then, indeed, you would expect your MEN being disproportionally more leftish than rightish (all time dependent of course, because, what is left now can become right lateron, and the reverse of course). Pedophiles, I imagine, suffered a lot of suppression, as is the case with ordinary criminals,of course.

          • Gringo says

            I will reproduce a comment I made in The Man Who Predicted the Venezuelan Catastrophe in 1893.

            Consider potatoes. In the tropics, potatoes are a high-altitude crop. Such land abounds in Peru and Bolivia. In Venezuela, much less so. Kilos of potatoes produced per capita in 2016: 138 for Peru, 99 for Bolivia, and 12 for Venezuela.

            Your reply:

            Why don’t we fly together to Venezuela Gringo, and stroll through the hinterlands to see? I saw in my Atlas that about half of the country is mountainous (south of the Orinoco and near Maracaibo),

            Yes, there are mountains in Venezuela, but not at the altitudes of Peru. Andes south of Maracaibo- very little above 2,500 meters- land with which I am somewhat well acquainted. South of the Orinoco- you will be lucky to find much land above 2,000 meters. Loads of altiplano- good for potatos- in Peru, but very little in Venezuela.Example: Consider some cities in Peru: Puno is at 3,830 meters.Cuzco is at 3,400 meters. In both cities, winter lows below freezing are not uncommon. Find a city in Venezuela at that altitude. For that matter find how much LAND in Venezuela is at 2,500 meters or above. Not much.


            More than ninety percent of Peru’s potato crop is produced at altitudes above 2,500 meters above sea level (masl) to a limit of just over 4,000 masl (for bitter potatoes), in the central Andes. A smaller area (estimated 5,000 to 10,000 hectares) in the coastal valleys west of the Sierra is devoted to commercial production under irrigation to meet the demand for potatoes in urban markets, primarily Lima, when potatoes from the Andes are less available (Brown and Scheidegger 1995, p. 65). Although this area is at a much lower altitude than the Andean potato crops, the Pacific Humboldt current keeps night temperatures sufficiently cool to allow for potato tuber formation.

            Venezuela has very little land above 2,500 meters, so I am correct in stating that there is not much room for increasing potato production in Venezuela. Nor does Venezuela have the equivalant of the Humboldt Current, to reduce temperatures at lower altitudes.

          • dirk says

            Hi Gringo, but this is not the place and the time to talk about potatoes anymore! Nevertheless, maybe interesting to know that the NL export about 10 million kg/yr of seedpotatoes to Cuba (for ca 4000 ha). The country has a tropical climate and no mountains above 2000 mt, most highlands far below that, variety is Desire (variety is important, not all types grow in the tropics). In Cuba, consumption is not very high, but about 2x that in Venzuela, with 25 kg/head/yr. The crop is rotated with banana and cassava, typical tropical crops thus, it’s possible, but I also think, better stick to sweet potatoes, cassava and other root crops (arracacha in V.) , or plantains, these have a longer history there, and better adaptation (diseases, pests). Best greetings!

    • mehboring says

      I’m honestly unsure if anything you have said should be taken seriously to whatever degree, given your inability to separate “transgenderism” and gender dysphoria, the latter of which is a mental disorder while the former isn’t. Furthermore, you haven’t actually said much and if anything you are proving the point – that transition is necessary.

      Simple reason being – it causes distress, due to *who you are* (think, brain sex) not being in line with your body (think, biological sex). Now, there’s plenty of reason to believe that such thing is possible – there’s even some proof suggesting that people suffering with gender dysphoria have brains more in line with that of the opposite sex, and the fact alone that XY females or XX males are a thing speaks for itself, really, on how much influence prenatal hormones can have.

      Anyway, that distress, the inability to function and your perception of you who are vs your body, is a “mental disorder.” The question is, what are the solutions? Well, there are no drugs that can “cure” it. Just like there are no drugs that cure depression, borderline personality disorder, anxiety, etc. They merely treat the symptoms in effort to try and help the person suffering with such issues, and plenty of times it doesn’t always work. BPD, for instance, has like 8-10% suicide rate.

      And that’s just BPD. Other disorders also tend to have higher suicide rates than general population, and gender dysphoria is even worse, really. So, it’s expected. Not to mention such things also tend to cause/come with other disorders, such as depression/etc.

      Transition, meanwhile, is the only actual solution that seems to help.

      It should be noted that trans suicide rate is likely overstated… the one often mentioned seems to be based on a bad study.

      As for “leftism itself” being a mental illness, haha, yeah, I mean you’ve basically discredited yourself with the first line, but this really shows the state of your worldview. Especially given plenty of right-wingers aren’t that different from average leftists when it comes to things like immigration, cheap labor, border, identity, etc. But no, that doesn’t still make it a “mental illness.” Jesus dude. Think before you spout nonsense.

      I’d continue because your whole post is full of nonsense (“at expense of the rights of… rest of us,” “given their violent nature,” “I can’t wait until leftists start promoting the rights of pedophiles,” etc). Honestly, why in the world did you think any of this was worth writing down?

      • E. Olson says

        Mehboring – Perhaps you should think before you get your knickers all bunched up. All the ailments you mention such as BDP, Depression, Gender Dysphoria are considered mental illnesses/disorders, but somehow you think transgenderism is not because there is no effective treatment or because the suicide rate isn’t high enough? Does this mean you also think it should be promoted as something heroic or at least normal? Perhaps you also believe 10 years old children should be encouraged to permanently transition rather then “grow out of it” as most children do? And if transitioning is such an effective solution, why do so many transitioners regret their decision and/or commit suicide?

        As for your viewpoints on leftism versus rightism – you are also generally wrong. Leftists want open borders for votes and to subvert hated Western culture, while RINOs (but not Rightists) often want open borders for cheap labor. Thus the difference between Leftists and RINOs is only the RINOs expect immigrants to actually work, because Leftists are also big proponents of the welfare state. Leftists also believe that women/gay/transgender are victims, diversity is our strength, and that profits and wealth formation are products of exploitation and unfairness. In the real world this means that for the sake of diversity Leftists are eager to let in Muslims who think women are 2nd class citizens and gays/transgenders and/or infidels in general should be killed. They also are eager to import low IQ/productivity “refugees” from intolerant cultures who not only kill host country natives, but also the welfare state by not paying taxes and taking lots of “free” benefits. Meanwhile they desire to tax and regulate the corporations and individuals who generate wealth because they “didn’t build that”, but then wonder at the great mystery regarding the subsequent stagnant economic growth and consequent lack of revenue to support the welfare state, and then commence another round of taxes and regulations to solve their dilemma. In other words, Leftists believe lots of things that aren’t true and/or are totally contradictory, as well as generally being unhappy and frequently suicidal, which are all clinical signs of mental illness.

        As for Leftist support of pedophiles – several posters above have really opened my eyes about how much there already is – and it is all Leftist.

        • mehboring says

          I’m actually quite amused, if anything.

          Being trans, in and of itself, is not a mental disorder. Gender dysphoria, however, is and it’s why they opt to transition. Transition is a treatment for gender dysphoria. It’s really not that hard.

          I do love how you kept building straw-men though. Reminds me of Cathy Newman. But I will answer most of them regardless.

          “Because the suicide rate isn’t high enough.” – No, I’m noting that the study often cited about it is shoddy.

          “Does this mean you also think it should be promoted as something heroic or at least normal?” – Why would it be heroic? That’s kinda weird. Whether it’s normal or not depends largely on facts, and if the facts are as they seem to be, then it’s certainly as normal as it can be given what it is – where brain sex and sex aren’t in “sync” as they should be, and where the only thing that can actually truly help is transition. The fact we have so far suggest that. I have no doubt plenty of trans people would embrace a “cure” if there was one. But again, it’s unlikely that there’ll ever be such thing since you can’t cure the way your brain has been influenced by hormones/etc.

          “Perhaps you also believe 10 years old children should be encouraged to permanently transition rather then “grow out of it” as most children do?” – That’s also a shoddy study in fact. There was recent critique of it I saw, thus hard to tell actual numbers. No, I don’t support that. They are kids, and should wait until 16-18 at very least before hormones are even a possibility..

          “Leftists want open borders for votes and to subvert hated Western culture, while RINOs (but not Rightists) often want open borders for cheap labor.” – Reasons don’t matter much when the actions and results are the same. Also, Koch brothers.

          “Leftists also believe that women/gay/transgender are victims, diversity is our strength, and that profits and wealth formation are products of exploitation and unfairness.” (And the rest). Most of conservatives believe people are equal which speaks for itself, believe in melting pot which has always been false, as for last bit, it’s mostly correct. It’s why immigrants (and as we’ve said, “cheap labor”) are a thing, why sweatshops are a thing, etc. But again, beliefs =/= actions. The former is irrelevant, although I do agree the reasoning for a lot of things are different. And I’d say that in a good way – because their ideologies are ingenious. It’s why they are winning. They present themselves as for equality, when it’s in fact merely in-group preference, both racial & ideological. Does the right have anything comparative? Not really. Lol, you can barely wear a “It’s okay to be white” shirt without being forced to conform to leftist rules.

          The issue is, conservatism (and to extent, liberalism) have been failing, and rightfully so. Because they are both wrong. Not all of it, not even most of it, but enough for them to be failing. And they won’t be the solution to this. The chances are, whites will end up a minority (25 years) and they’ll be having fun, ’cause every other race votes overwhelmingly democrat. Now, it depends how you look at it. I consider their ideologies rather ingenious, but you might find such things – and actions – bad. But some might see it at survival of fittest. After all, it’s working… is it not?

          As for last point… Roy Moore. I’m sure there are others. But this one is still fresh in memory.

          • Liberalism isn’t leftism. It’s centrism. The USA has gone so far to the right that most of us don’t know what leftism even looks like anymore.

          • E. Olson says

            You seem to think any study with a result you don’t like is shoddy. Given that 99.9% of the research on transgenderism is done by leftist academics, it seems unlikely they would conduct or publish studies that show transgenderism in a negative light by showing high suicide rates and “temporary insanity” characteristics unless they were true.

            Roy Moore was never accused of pedophilia, his accusers were all at least 14 at the time that he is accused of showing them sexual/romantic interest, which is well above the age of pedophilia. Furthermore, Moore never promoted pedophilia as a “normal” way of life, and I don’t think you will find any on the political right that do.

        • Alpha Dussentor says

          Thanks e. Olson for your posts.

          BTW, J.M. Keynes was a pedo predator, according to his own notebook in which he rated preys as young as “16 y.o. elevator boy”, which was clearly below sex majority at the time. Some scholars frowned upon his homosexuality, but i.m.o. i’ts his will to discard consent, and to break law that his the more telling of his ugly deceptive mind.

        • You don’t know anything about leftism, but as with most men you sure like to bluff and bluster and lie through your teeth.

          And I wasn’t aware the Catholic Church were a bunch of dirty, dirty Marxists. Because they sure don’t seem to care much about child molestation.

          • Dana, I’m beginning to think you don’t particularly like science and proof at all. Could you please provide us the metric you’re using and your data that proves your belief that America has moved to the political Right? Also, you sound a little bigoted. Do you think it’s wise to suggest that men like to lie? Oh, but wait, is that something that makes them male? Is their ability to lie a biological reality or is it a social condition? 😉

    • @ E. Olson

      “Transgenderism is a mental illness pure and simple.”

      Perhaps. But science is not as clear as all that.

      “and given their violent nature in attacking people like the author of this article”

      You are over-exaggerating. This has got nothing to do with nature but rather ideology.

      • E. Olson says

        Nomad – do you mean the totally unbiased “science” derived from leftists who dominate the “study” of the transgender topic – particularly the social scientists? Is there still some controversy over the xy or xx chromosome thing?

        As for violence – if we use the current “woke” vernacular and assume violence can be words, then I can think of few groups that have been as nasty as the transgender supporting community in trying to economically, psychologically, and in some cases physically destroy all dissent and reasoned discussion of the gender as a social construct viewpoint. Only crazy people act like that – as in mental illness.

        • mehboring says

          I’m answering here, because there’s no reply button there… lol.

          “You seem to think any study with a result you don’t like is shoddy. Given that 99.9% of the research on transgenderism is done by leftist academics, it seems unlikely they would conduct or publish studies that show transgenderism in a negative light by showing high suicide rates and “temporary insanity” characteristics unless they were true.”

          On the contrary. They (leftists, not trans people – there’s plenty that oppose them) use those numbers to push narratives and how others should conform and act the way they want them to. And no, the studies are shoddy because they are. The one in regards to suicide rate I went through myself.

        • What I think more and more these days (influenced by Quilette) is that that whole transgenderism thing simply is a logical outcome of the second wave of feminism. The first was about females as a distinct identity, as good as, or better than the male world, the second was a reaction, denial of that identity, no, there is no machismo and feminity, it’s all one hash, I don’t want to be put apart, no male and no female bathrooms,the male tends to the female, and the reverse of course. Nous ne sommes pas jetees! Nohow!

      • It might indeed be possible that trans people are more violent than non-trans people. They do experience more interpersonal violence and most of that comes at the hands of people within their own social circles. A lot of people are unaware of the fact that the highest instances of domestic abuse are from Lesbian couples. Interesting information that requires further examination.

        • @ Amanda Web

          Eh? A lot of difference between being Lesbian and Trans.

          “It might indeed be possible that trans people” I doubt it.

  2. Farris says

    This is an article that needed to be written and read. There are several issues with which I would disagree with the feminist movement but as a husband and father I do not wish to see the dreams and aspirations of my wife and daughter usurped by males, even males claiming to be women. The trans movement is a threat to females and female issues and it doesn’t have to be. At least one feminist in the U.S. has noted that the trans movement is a threat to Title IX, which provided females equal opportunities in college athletics. If men claiming to be women can commandeer these opportunities, then females accepting of their birth gender are displaced. Females should enjoy the right and safety to enter into private areas (bathrooms, locker rooms ect.) comfortable that no men or persons only claiming to be women are present.
    Thirty years ago I was confronted with this issue while working as a department store security guard. A sales associate informed me a man wished to enter into the ladies dressing room to try on a dress. The man was a large burly biker type. I suspected this was a prank or part of an initiation, but I didn’t know for certain. I asked the associate if the dress would fit him, in other words could he try it on without damaging the garnet. She replied, “yes”. I then approached the gentleman and told him he was welcome to try on the dress in the men’s changing room. We placed the dress in a bag, so that he did not have to be seen carrying it into the men’s dressing room. He entered the men’s dressing room, I assume tried it on, returned and informed us he did not wish to purchase the item. I know there are many who would consider my actions then a transphobic act. However I have no doubt I did the right thing as I protected the privacy and dignity of the female customers while simultaneously allow this person to try on the dress he selected.

    • E. Olson says

      Unfortunately, your common sense “don’t ask, don’t tell” solutions seem to have no place in modern society.

    • What exactly is a women’s issue that needs legal support beyond liberty and equal protection? We need an anti-authoritarian, anti-coercion movement, not a men’s movement, a women’s movement, a gay movement, a straight movement, a transgender movement, a blacks movement, a whites movement, a rich movement, a poor movement.
      Liberty and equal protection work. We should keep on trying to live that as we clearly have benefited greatly over time as we perfect our practice of these ideals.

      • puddleg58 says

        A woman’s issue that needs legal support would for example be the right of women and girls to use changing rooms, domestic violence refuges etc without biological males being allowed entry.
        A much higher statistical probability that a male will commit an act of violence, a risk which is not altered by gender self-identity (so is associated with sex, not gender), probably does require legal support to prevent harm, just as the legal requirement for keeping a tiger is different from that for keeping a horse.
        One rule for the lion and ox is tyranny…

      • mehboring says

        Haha, well, I think your idea is actually good. It’s just that it’s also bad. Because people aren’t equal. They will never be equal. Now, you can work through it when it comes to gender. As some say, too much fraternizing with the enemy. But you can’t when it comes to race. You need to have something more unifying, and race, oh my gosh, well, diversity to be more honest breeds distrust and further, tribalism. Because, as studies have repeatedly shown, people prefer their own (those who are more genetically similar to them). Even babies do. Isn’t that amazing?

        For example, did you know that Sub-saharan africans have an archaic archaic hominid admixture not present in Caucasians and Asians? It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Well, it might be for them, but differences aren’t a bad thing really. Or a good thing. They just are. But they also play a role in how your society functions. The more differences = worse. Especially if we consider all sort of things that such differences bring, which I’ll leave out at this point. Not really worth it lol.

        But, to continue, the main issue is liberalism & conservatism. They are built on false notions of equality. And it goes well beyond race, because individuals aren’t and will never be equal. There’s a reason why “Survival of the fittest” is a phrase that exists, and one of the biggest issues is we are trying to ignore reality rather than accept it as what it is. You, in this case, are ignoring reality. In fact, your values are likely to lead to disappearance of whites as a race. It’s really an objective fact = import millions of people (legally or otherwise, take not at UK, US, etc), and they will not only outnumber you within decades (or their children, more accurately) but your low birth rates & interbreeding can only lead to one thing. The question in that sort of scenario – with your values – is not “Will it?” but “When will it happen?”

        And I’m 100% that you, and most in fact, don’t care. You don’t really have to, I’m mildly indifferent myself. That’s the beauty of values, morality, and nearly everything as to what we believe in is a social construct.

        But even so, it’s an interesting thing to note, because despite knowing that such outcome is not just likely but inevitable with your values, you will still proclaim that your own values are “good.” Which is kinda weird, no? How can values that lead to disappearance of a race, their culture, country, be… good? It goes against the basic instinct – that of survival – and against natural preference of your own. Just like your preferences of your own family, or people you know. Yet, if a person was to hypothetically attack them, you wouldn’t let it happen (or support anything that may lead to them being attacked) because you, say, believed in absolute pacifism. Why would you? That’d be crazy.

        With all of that said, I’ll just paraphrase what someone said recently since I forgot the exact words; basically, that if enough people of a different race, or even ethnicity, live in your country – be it if 20% of Japan was white, then that part of the country, and eventually if it ever raises to 50%, is no longer Japanese. But has been invaded by those people.

        But, that’s what your values stand for, anyway. Enjoy them?

        • Hi, this is not the KKK and we aren’t interested in your disproven/unproven nonsense (whichever applies depends on which individual claim you made).

          Also there’s a difference between being equal and being the same. It’s like five pennies versus a nickel. But you’d have to actually THINK to figure that out.

      • Because all the people going on about liberty and equal protection seem to be white men who don’t want anyone else in their clubhouse. When we tell you that some issue unique to women or to LGB or to black people or Native Americans is a liberty or equal protection issue, you laugh us off. Then you come to blogs like this one and write comments like this playing dumb about it. And speak for yourself on who has benefited, because I sure the hell haven’t, and neither have a lot of other people. The law is NOT equally enforced. The law does NOT equally protect everyone. Hell, a federal judge once ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to sex–no, I don’t know why… are women hatched in this country instead of born?–and as far as I know he’s never been overruled.

    • mehboring says

      Title IX hurts men, but hey, feels of some women > harming men. There’s a reason, for instance, why male soccer pays more than female soccer – more… people… watch it. Title IX meanwhile mandates that if you give x to men, you have to give x to women, which itself is anti-meritocratic. So, male sports for instance are harmed, while programs that benefit women (and there’s too many at colleges to even consider) and completely ignored and even supported, despite the fact that more women go to college and have been going more to colleges for over a decade.

      But, you’re more worried about who goes to which bathroom, lmao. And yeah, I’m gonna tell you a secret: so called “Trans movement” is a product of feminism. Wonderful, isn’t it? Here’s a hint: Queer Theory. Which itself was based on feminist theory and neo-marxist critical theory.

      And aren’t like… trans people 0.3% of population? How many of them are trans men? What is, then, such a big deal?

      See, that’s kinda the issue here. You aren’t sure how to build the narrative – there’s too many of them that women’s “opportunities” aren’t “harmed,” and oh my gosh not the bathroom nonsense, but there’s so little of them that they shouldn’t be indulged to begin with.

      The thing is – and please, ignore the mildly hostile approach, it’s what I take on when I read something borderline idiotic – you’ve already stated your in-group preference, which would be: females, rather than more objective approach. But, what if I told you that those “men in dresses” you so dislike are not only statistically insignificant, but there’s no proof *whatsoever* that their presence in places such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and so forth, will lead to anyone being harmed? In fact, if you compared them, say, to lesbians or similarly so homosexuals, the chances are that those groups of people will cause more (actual) harm, assault someone, etc. But even that is statistically insignificant, and more so people who want to assault someone will do so whether or not they are allowed in someone’s bathroom.

      You know, like people that want to kill will use whatever means they can, even if guns are illegal?

      • puddleg58 says

        I believe there are already statistics available regarding offenses by self-identifying men in women’s prisons, these and other statistics have been collected by the author of this article on her blog. Bathrooms are only a small sub-section of the spaces involved and it is curious that there is so much focus on them, as Freud would say. Further, a man need not wear a dress, let alone transition sexually, to identify as female under the self-identity laws proposed in New Zealand. Few who are opposed to self-identity laws oppose the right to re-identify after reasonable tests of appropriateness and good faith, which is the status quo in most countries without self-identity laws.
        If we are talking about only 0.3% of the population, why was it necessary for NZ politicians to redefine suffrage for the entire population as a gender issue instead of the sex question that it definitely was historically? There are wider concerns involved here, including the epidemic of ROGD in girls specifically, and the future of gay rights if a coming generation of homosexuals of both sexes are to be brought up in a society where the dominant or implied narrative will be that they are closet transexuals.
        I agree with your point that feminism has been hoist with its own petard, after turning its back on biology and for decades swallowing post-structuralist theory holus bolus, and therefore insisting that gender is a social construct as if this were a value judgement, as if no construction were better than any.
        This has plainly left a vacuum which anyone today can exploit.

      • Farris says


        “that those “men in dresses” you so dislike …”

        I never expressed a dislike for anyone. That’s your inference and I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

        There have been a plethora of articles documenting conflicts between old line feminist with transgenders. This is not a new or imagined topic as the article author demonstrates.
        Regarding Title IX, there are several articles in both the U.S. and U.K. questioning the propriety of allowing transgenders to complete against females. Here is but one https://www.google.com/amp/www.courant.com/sports/high-schools/hc-sp-hs-transgender-high-school-athletes-0520-story,amp.html

        You may be correct that the odds of being sexually assaulted by a transgender is somewhat remote. But what prevents sexual predators from posing as transgendered to gain access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms?
        Lastly, imagining (or deluding yourself) those with whom you disagree may be personally gratifying but it is stunting your intellectual growth. Try not to be so narrow minded.

        • Farris says


          Pardon my fat fingers!
          Lastly, imagining (or deluding yourself) those with whom you disagree are hateful idiots may be personally gratifying but it is stunting your intellectual growth. Try not to be so narrow minded.

          • mehboring says

            “There have been a plethora of articles documenting conflicts between old line feminist with transgenders.” – That’s because “old line feminists” are a bit closer to today’s radical feminists in their approaches. That’s not to say, feminism in itself isn’t extreme (they still believe patriarchy is a thing and feminist theory), and “radical” in itself doesn’t mean with feminism as it usually does, just… goes a bit further than this does.

            “You may be correct that the odds of being sexually assaulted by a transgender is somewhat remote. But what prevents sexual predators from posing as transgendered to gain access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms?” – What prevents people either way, sort of their desire to do so? Despite that, I do still think certain regulations should apply, such as having started (at very least) hormones/transition, albeit not for such reasons.

            If it comforts you at all, though, most of those who are considered trans at such point tend to be on puberty blockers, which among other things affects development of sexual desire.

            “Lastly, imagining (or deluding yourself) those with whom you disagree are hateful idiots may be personally gratifying but it is stunting your intellectual growth. Try not to be so narrow minded.”

            You’re right, fear (given your stated in-group preference) might be a more accurate motivation, albeit I don’t think it matters either way, if I’m honest.

            I will however say that this sort of thing, as I’ve stated before in fact, is likely to backfire. See, the way things are going men’s & women’s bathrooms/etc are likely to disappear. It’s really not worth the hassle, and in today’s day and age? Companies/schools/etc won’t risk it. Similarly, they won’t simply create “gender neutral bathrooms/etc” (some do, but most won’t) because it’s not cheap. So, what’s the solution? Turning both into gender neutral. Some have done that I think. And far-left (Queer Theorists & intersectionalists) tend to support it.

    • Farris, you seem to be saying that if males were free to change their legal gender, a whole lot of them would use that opportunity to play women’s sports and enter women’s locker rooms. Please, stop with the ridiculous fear-mongering.

      • I wonder how a woman who has been sexually assaulted by a man would feel knowing that a male was in the cubicle next to them? And might I say, irrational fear is still fear and profound traumatic experiences can overwhelm emotional responses.

  3. Why ignoring your sex? As a man, you don’t even think about that dilemma (am I right?). And about the suffragists: started all in Paris, 230 yrs ago, the women force, they were seated in front of the audience/spectators of the executioners Guillotine, and applauded loudly whenever another head of the elite (landlords, scientists, politicians, authors) fell, were put in a basket, and were removed (God knows where).

    • Sorry, not suffragists but tricoteuses, so nothing to do do with the above. I was again too quick to react!

      • puddleg58 says

        Indeed, and it is interesting to note that Mary Wollstonecraft, author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and generally considered the first modern feminist, experienced the Terror first-hand and was lucky to survive it.
        I doubt she would be joking about the Gulags were she active today.

        • A most courageous woman, Puddle, never heard of her (but yes, of her famous daughter). I just read she also authored A Vindication of the Rights of Men (2 yrs before that of Women), an extended letter to Edmund Burke. Fantastic times, then, much less boring than ours.

          • Elizabeth Lilburne agitated for the franchise for women in London in 1650 and Abigale Adams and Mercy Otis Warren did the same in Boston in the 1770s.

          • puddleg58 says

            Thank you EK, and dirk, one of the reasons Mary Wollstonecraft was in France, if I remember right, was to try to get Tom Paine, author of the original Rights of Man, out of a revolutionary prison and away from the guillotine, the revolution having always eaten its own.

      • Though, both are of course kind of proto-feminists, with a major difference: the tricoteuses of the French revolution were ordinary market women, and the feminists of 20th/21st century are from the educated, intellectual class. The link with Burke and Paine is new for me, most interesting, oh tempora, oh mores!

  4. Cerastes says

    The entire conflict is an illusion. The differentiation between “sex” and “gender” treats the brain (gender) as if it is not simply part of the body. Neuroimaging studies show that trans individuals have brain structures identical to their gender, making “gender” meaningless – it’s just that the lump of tissue insde the skull has a different sex than the rest, probably due to a mutation affecting the binding of sex-specific developmental proteins to regulatory regions (not genes, but non-coding promoter/inhibitor regions) for various brain structures. I’d lay good money that within 20 years, we’ll actually have genetic tests for individually currently called “trans”. So why the conflict? It’s just a genetic quirk, and by 2040 we’ll probably be able to fix it with an injection of CRISPR-based gene therapy.

    • ouztbsce says

      Neuroimaging studies have proved nothing of the sort except that politically-minded people have become adept at selectively excising data from minuscule studies and drawing targets around it to prove a point.

      What is measurable is that girls deciding to “trans” together is fast becoming a thing in high school, even in conservative areas like my hometown. It’s the cooler-than -gay update to emo, except that instead of slicing yourself, you threaten suicide until your parents pay a surgeon do it. Imagine giving up your child’s college fund for her cosmetic hysterectomy and breast amputation.

      CRISPR-based gene therapy ain’t going to stop “trans.” The end of trans will be 10 years from now when people who were mutilated and sterilized as teens start suing the doctors, therapists, schools and parents.

      • Bronwyn Williams says

        I agree. The very few extant studies that purport to validate the notion of a ‘transgender brain’ are scientifically and methodologically extremely flawed. Even the authors acknowledge their limitations, and the inability to draw any definitive conclusions from the results. But that doesn’t stop trans activists referring solemnly to the ‘science’ that ‘proves’ an individual can be born in the wrong body.

        In constrast, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, especially among teenage girls, has been well-documented in recent years.

        And, I have long thought transgenderism, as we now know it, is a train wreck waiting to happen, and the only people enjoying the spectacle in 10 years’ time will be the personal injury and medical malpractice lawyers. They’re probably estimating the value of their windfall fees as we speak. Once the ranks of those disaffected by the removal of healthy body parts and drug induced infertility reaches a critical mass, the floodgates will surely open.

        In the meantime, however, female bodied persons are watching their sex-based rights being rapidly eroded and the ‘rights’ of trans persons enshrined in law. It’s going to take a lot of political and social will to reverse these changes – I just hope we’re up to it.

    • If they aren’t harming others, your idea that they need to be “fixed” is just your belief that you know better about other than those others do.

    • Charlotte says

      Err…neuroimaging does NOT show any of the sex differentiated brain regions to be the exact same as the gender they ‘identify as’ – most of the brain is basically the same between the sexes, certain areas are more typical of one than the other, but there hasn’t been a single study that has shown just one structure to confirm a transgender persons view of themselves. The most they have ever found is an ‘inbetween’ state of one area – this was tested on MTF transsexuals on hormone therapy and were likely homosexual, similar to studies of homosexual men showing atypical variance in these regions. Stop telling outright lies and covering it up in genetics language in the hope people will just believe you.

  5. Will Crusher says

    This is the world your sisters in the struggle “fought” for. (Really, men allowed women to vote in a monumental case of “yes, dear.”)

  6. Kathleen Lowrey says

    Great piece. Leaving aside the horrendous implications for women and children, trans politics is an interesting case to watch because we are going to be seeing — in a short temporal arc — how progressives react to realizing they have been entirely on the wrong side of history about something. Trans activism is incredibly misogynistic and fairly homophobic. The tide is turning fast and many people who have pinned their entire sense of self worth to always being on the politically correct side of things (anti-racist, gay friendly, feminist) are going to have to double down, or walk back, or learn a bit of humility. I am betting the sequence is going to start with “double down”, but I’ll be interested to see how long that stage lasts and where it goes from there.

    I’m betting we’ll see a lot of plays from the neocon Iraq war supporting playbook, in terms “oh everyone thought the Iraq war was a great idea, who could have known, my heavens we were all misled but we are so much wiser now so keep trusting our judgement and punditry”. Trans ally virtue signalling is going to be the center-left equivalent of center-right Iraq war mongering and consequent collapse of public plausibility.

  7. Thank you for putting this all in writing. We need peak trans to happen oh so much faster than how the transcult has managed to get it’s agenda put into so much legislation.

    • puddleg58 says

      If there is a genetic basis to partly explain personality differences between men and women, something Quillette readers tend to accept, why is it hard to believe genetics to a similar extent underlies homosexuality and even transexuality (at its low normal background incidence rate, because genetics cannot explain the recent spike of ROGD)?

      • philophosphorus says

        One argument that makes it difficult to believe that homosexuality has an underlying genetic factor is that homosexuality seemingly has an inherent, significant pressure against it from an evolutionary perspective – your likelihood of passing on any genetic material is effectively zero if you aren’t having sex with a mate of the opposite sex. i.e. Homosexuals reproduce far less frequently and, since they aren’t regularly reproducing, aren’t passing on the homosexuality gene(s).

        In order to reasonably level the claim that homosexuality is genetic, one could suggest that homosexuality historically has not prevented homosexual men/women from reproducing. This is not an impossible claim to make, however it requires many more assumptions about unknown variables than its alternative (and, consequently, is a much weaker hypothesis).

        As for the differences between men/women existing at a genetic level, this makes more sense as a hypothesis due to positive sexual selection pressures. Men with lower levels of neuroticism would be better suited to protecting tribes, and women with higher levels more responsive to needy children (for example). Over many generations, these societal standards would embed themselves genetically into humans – those genetically predisposed to traits important for their societal role would be more likely to reproduce, and their offspring would be more likely to be predisposed to the same positive traits.

    • There are a couple of trans (MTF) people that I follow on youtube and they freely call it gender dysphoria and acknowledge that it is a mental disorder. This doesn’t diminish the effect that it has had on their lives and both are mostly happy with their physical transitions. Let’s not allow the overwhelming noise of the trans activist movement to prevent us from having compassion for those genuinely affected.

  8. puddleg58 says

    New Zealand celebrated 125 years of women’s suffrage last week and the news media consistently reported this as a blow for “gender equality”. The word “sex” wasn’t used once on TV.
    I wondered about use of these words in the historical argument so looked at a copy of Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. She uses the words “sex” or “sexual” 211 times to make her argument. She doesn’t use the word “gender” once. I presume gender was once mainly a linguistic term, it became useful as a euphemism for “sex” during the post-Freudian era, and became more widely used as the study of language and expression came to displace the study of phenomena in universities. Today it is used to avoid offending those to whom “sex” would not apply. But this is rewriting history, in a way that is offensive to the memory of the suffragists and what they worked and fought for. Amy Bock did not get the vote for “identifying” as male, and men who may have “identified” as women did not thereby lose their vote. Gender expression had nothing to do with it.
    So why is there such a rush now to pretend that it did? This rewriting of history is akin to claiming that NZ fought in WW2 to defend socialism against the Nazis, rather than democracy.


    • TarsTarkas says

      Get with it. NZ fought to maintain white male cisgender supremacy. History must always be made to conform to the current narrative because history was written by the WMCS’s to glorify their exploits. The past is always more oppressive than the present, except that the present is the most repressive era of all. No one has ever been and ever will be wiser and more intelligent than the leaders of the Great Awokening. Long live Comrade Ogilvy! (the last courtesy of G. Orwell, 1984).

    • Probably I am somewhat older than you puddleg, and, besides, English is not my mother’s tongue, but am reading professional language maybe more than my own. Gender was for me, until the1990s, a completely unknown term, I had to look it up in a dictionary at the time, now I hear it wherever I go, whatever I read, look TV or sit down for a moment. It was just the prelude for the #Metoo movement. It’s something disturbing like the wasps all of a sudden in late summer, they are everywhere, you can’t avoid them.

      • We don’t even have a word for it, we simply use the English term for the case and the subject! How is that in Sweden? Germany? Switzerland? The same, I guess (though, the Germans are more puritans in language, and call even the TV Fernsehen).

  9. Anthony Tate says

    The only thing more dangerous to women than a man (all of us?) is a mentally unstable crazy man.

    You made ‘em. You encouraged ‘em. You, conveniently, pointed your finger at guys like me to show your creation who the enemy is (in perpetuity?).

    But horror of horrors, the freaks turned inward.

    Kind of like when those white trash losers are baffled, just baffled, when their pit bull eats the neighbors kid.

    Oh I see how it works. After “having a conversation” about trans (telling anyone who doesn’t think like you to STFU type on “conversations”) now these weirdos are back to being men? Convenient.

    Thanks for “bravely” telling us your story.

    • The sad thing is, I have to agree with the substance of your comment. The tone of it, though, makes it obvious that you used to spew the same kind of hatred towards queer people a few years ago, and presumably, every other marginalized group in your lifetime. When progressives are terribly wrong, the last thing a dissenting progressive wants is to find themselves agreeing with people like you on anything. And that is exactly why most progressives are doubling down on the trans rights issue.

  10. Newsflash: extreme left wing activist shocked that she’s not extreme left wing enough for the mob. More at 11.

  11. mehboring says

    See, this is the issue I have with those who oppose feminism (or, simply, speak out against parts of it). Suffragists & suffragettes weren’t feminists – period. They were suffragists & suffragettes, standing behind “Women’s Suffrage,” not feminism. As “The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History, Volume 1” demonstrate, *some* did identify at certain point as “feminists,” but *most* didn’t. So why whitewash history? Especially when such whitewashed history benefits feminism?

    Feminism, as ideology (and movement that exists today) started in 70s (though it can be traced back to 50s, and even 30s) with patriarchy theory of the likes of Kate Millet, and that other radical feminist. It was “Women’s Liberation.” Most didn’t identify as feminist until that point, but the word “feminist” and “feminism” was popularized around that time, and they took on it because it’s a friendlier word and had less negative connotations that “Women’s Liberation.”

    To feminists, equality is “social justice,” and that type of “equality” is inherently illiberal, it’s about distribution of “power,” “privilege,” etc, among groups, because any group differences that in whatever way negatively affect a “group” = oppression, injustice, etc. So, if blacks are paid less than whites as a whole group (irrespective of a job) = bad. If men are shot more than women = irrelevant. If some men suffer so women can benefit (E.G., Me Too, Dear Colleague Letter) = it’s okay. Because individual harm to “oppressors” can’t, isn’t, and will never be equal (heh) to group security, benefit, etc, of “oppressed.”

  12. ga gamba says

    There’s a lot a wishy washy and woolly headed thinking in this piece, for example: “Indeed I can think of no other reason why government representatives would target a newly formed lesbian collective, unless that lesbian collective had truth on its side.”

    Does this hold for any political group targeted by a government? The Symbionese Liberation Army? The Nation of Islam? The KKK? The Canadian Tamil Congress which provided aid the Tamil Tigers? The Baader Meinhof Gang? Shiv Sena? Antifa? Do all of these too have truth on their side?

    Lookie here radfams, the trans people are using the tools of your creation against you. For example, all the laws and workplace policies that followed your “perception trumps intention”, which completely discard the long history of mens rea. “I don’t care what the intention was, I was offended, and you must be punished.” This was birthed by the radfems of the ’70s and ’80s. Were the consequences of your ideas and actions foreseeable? Yes. Did you ignore it? Yes. It it kicking your arse now? Absolutely. But, you wanted to play power politics then and today the script has been flipped on you. Boo-hoo. Dr Frankenstein finally recognises her monster as it tears apart her house.

    The LRAA’s first press release challenged government proposals to implement one-step sex-self identification in New Zealand, which would, with no questions asked, allow men to change the sex markers on their birth certificates at their own discretion.

    This also allows women to change their sex markers on their birth certificates too. You’ll notice something about radfems: they almost always miss half the picture. Deliberately. Same goes for the SWERFs, a radfem subset. They’re angered by heteronormative sex (radfems espouse political lesbianism, which is a form of gaslighting), sex work such as female prostitution, and women acting in pornographic film, but they sure do embrace and celebrate gay and lesbian sex and sex work as empowering.

    And who is the LRAA?
    We agree with the foundational principles laid out by the Women’s Liberation Front (WLF):
    * That female humans are oppressed by men under a male-supremacist system called patriarchy.
    * That patriarchy is organised around the extraction of resources from female bodies and minds to serve men, including female reproductive, sexual and emotional labour.
    * That gender is a hierarchical caste system that organises male supremacy.
    * That we are enmeshed in overlapping systems of power built on misogyny, white privilege, colonisation, and human supremacism. These systems must be dismantled. (The WLF writes: That we are enmeshed in overlapping systems of sadistic power built on misogyny, white privilege, stolen wealth, and human supremacism, and all of those must be dismantled.)

    Okay, they’re fantasists and catastrophisers. Many of them are from the hard, hard left, and even even the Trotskyites avoid them. The tactics of Pol Pot to reset society to year zero are admired and to be emulated.

    Where do they stand? “Physical integrity and emotional safety are basic human rights.” Yet, are they concerned about the emotional safety of others, for example trans women? Absolutely not. Radfems are some of the most emotionally manipulative and caustic people you’ll come across.

    What have WLM groups accomplished? They launched women’s studies programs introducing feminist history, sociology and psychology to higher education and adult education curricula to counter gender biases in teaching these subjects. The daily barminess we see played out in society, on and off campus, is due in large part to the radfems.

    Those of us who are not part of either the radfem or trans-trender camps need to understand this: they are framing their arguments to us as “we’re the reasonable ones” whilst they avoid revealing who they are and their diabolical aims. Neither are reasonable actors; most are very damaged people. Radfems are using their fight with trans-trenders as a way to gain sympathisers from beyond their ranks. By definition the WLF is a woman-only organisation, and they have so successfully marginalised themselves, and by that I mean they self snookered because they’re too toxic and chaotic to form stable alliances. Presently, they are at such a point of irrelevance that they have to rush to Quillette and like-minded publishers in the desperate hope they’ll find some allies. No way, sister twister. I don’t care whether the trans trenders are repurposing your heroines because this the same gambit you played for decades. Enjoy your self segregation.

    I will cheer you on as you toss rhetorical hand grenades at the trans-trender community. And when they return in kind I’ll cheer them on.

    Three cheers to the destruction of both your deranged movements.

  13. The only thing any women’s movement should be concerned with is the removal of laws that prevent economic independence and/or are applied to people differently based on what genitals they have. This has been achieved in Europe and North America. Everyone, just stop overthinking it, be who you want to be (no one is stopping you) but don’t expect other people to pay for your abortion/transgender surgery/children that you choose to have.

    Also, as a women my reaction to women’s only spaces: blech! (but that’s just me)

    • mehboring says

      “Be who you want to be (no one is stopping you).”

      – Domestic violence profiling.

      – “Violence against women,” aka “gender-based violence,” that not only pushes falsities based on gender, but results in ignoring victims of certain gender since they don’t fit the approach.

      – Dear Colleague Letter.

      – “MeToo” (and thus even lower standard that can ruin people’s lives than that at colleges due to Dear Colleague Letter).

      – “Diversity” (for example, “Some Tech Companies Are Trying Affirmative Action Hiring—But Don’t Call It That – Bloomberg”). To quote from it: “At one point during the interview process, Srivastava asked the four Penny guys why they were interested in her. They listed some aspects of her personality, and they were blunt: It was also because she’s a woman. ‘I liked that they didn’t tiptoe around that,’ she said. She starts this week.”

      – Treating boys like defective girls (mainly education, punishing boys, giving them drugs because they don’t behave like girls but are more rowdy. Good example, “The Drugging of the American Boy.”)

      – Scholarships (3x more for women).

      – Countless gender-based programs at colleges meant to help women.

      – Encouraging gender-based business & giving them billions. Well, women only.

      – Domestic violence shelters (most of which discriminate against men).

      – Giving boys lower marks not related to their ability, but how teachers – most of them female – perceive them due to their behaviour; or so they believe. (Good example: “Teachers ‘give higher marks to girls'”).

      All of that is without talking about any sort of gender disparity, but merely approach to things/policies that cause deliberately unequal treatment of men and women, and discrimination against men. Thus, “be who you want to be (no one is stopping you)” is false.

      The thing is, this isn’t even much of a criticism of what you said, mainly noting what you’re saying isn’t possible, but more so listing things where women are openly “advantaged” (not all women, and it’s because of feminists), because all of the above? None of it matters, none of it is enough for feminists. And they won’t stop at that.

  14. Circuses and Bread says

    Karma writ large.

    Generations of radical feminist ideology are coming home to roost. And now (biological) women are beginning to see the predictable end results of radical feminism. Feminists have agitated for a society where women are not just equal with men, but are treated as a privileged class. Is it any wonder then that (biological) men see that and want to have the same privileges?

    Feminist zealots have done everything they can to destroy traditional sex roles. They’ve done an admirable job of destroying traditional marriage and families. They’ve aborted their progeny in huge numbers. But now that the results of their “success” are becoming apparent with the widespread acceptance of the transgendered, they want to roll things back. They don’t want this brave new world they’ve worked so hard to create.

    Sorry. It doesn’t work that way. You broke it, you bought it.

  15. Anonymous Coward says

    Feminists hoist by their own Gender theology petard. My heart bleeds fo them (not).

  16. peterschaeffer says

    A women by the name of Harvey Jeni has written about how she has been (de facto) exiled from the Labor party in the UK. The title of one of her articles makes this all to clear “A Crisis Of Misogyny: A Plea To The Labour Party”.

  17. Peter from Oz says

    Yet another example of the tail wagging the dog, as the worship of the sterile goes continues.
    I have been polled a few times in the last few weeks. Each time they asked me not whether I was male or female, or whether I identifeid as male or identified as female. What a load of shite. How many people are there who have to identify as the sex they are not? Why do the rest of us have to worry about them? Can’t they just say ”male” or ”female” depending on the one they think they are?
    The things about these trans activists is that they don’t actually want to pass as the opposite sex. They want their moment of fame through victimhood. So they have to tell us all at inordinate length about their transition.
    I don’t give a fig. If you want to be a woman or man, even though you have the genitals of the opposite, just act like the sex you want to be and we will accept your choice. That’s it. You may have to make a lot of strange accommodations and choices, so that sometimes you are treated as your birth sex. Tough. That’s life. The world isn’t made to give you an easy ride.

    • Something tells me the world gave you an easy ride, since the privileged “elites” are most likely to display abhorrent lack of empathy for the disadvantaged or the marginalized.

    • The irony is that legitimate trans people actually for the most part wish to be recognised socially as the gender they are transitioning to, dress that way and behave that way. They are more interested in coping with their dysphoria than being activists. Although the ones I’m referring to tend to also be politically conservative/libertarian, so there may be selection bias in my results.

  18. Why this interesting subject and lively discussion already after 1 day from the front page, and, thereby, difficult to spot? To end all further discussion? For some reason (which one?) Or something else?

  19. Eric Allonde says

    There are few things I enjoy more than watching feminists slap each other around. That is absolutely primo entertainment. More, please!

    The only issue I have, and it’s merely a second-order problem, is that I have no one to root for. All feminists are horrible, I don’t really want to see one beat the other! I don’t want any feminist to “win”; let’s hope they all lose instead.

    My ideal outcome would be the metaphorical equivalent of the cheesy western where the two villains shoot each other at the same time, and both die. Ah, I can only dream! But at least this sort of feminist bitchslapping serves to remind all the normies of how irredeemably awful the feminist ideology is, and how much better we’ll all be with the hate cult expelled from polite society.

    Thank you.

  20. I used to think my home country of New Zealand was isolated from such nonsense, but unfortunately I was wrong.

    We’re in a situation now that men claiming to be women are being put into women’s only prisons in the UK. The result? Women are now being attacked by men [dressed as women] in prisons. How on earth we got to this stage I don’t know.

    I can’t stand modern day intersectional feminism. It’s some kind of shared Marxist delusion. However, I can’t stand women being attacked by men in prison even more.

    A doctor in the UK was recently fired for refusing to write down someone’s “self-identified” gender when it was clear the person was not whichever gender they claimed to be. This is utter madness. There are sound medical reasons for ensuring the correct gender of a patient.

    I can’t stand children being indoctrinated by Safe Schools in Victoria, Melbourne, either. Safe Schools teaches children — under the guise of “anti bullying” — radical gender theory such as gender fluidity. It’s an indoctrination programme. I will never send my children to a public school. Safe Schools has completely changed my opinion of the government vs. markets.

    The Regressive Left truly have become the Religious Right. We cannot even challenge this nonsense in public without fear of losing our jobs, the mob attacking us, or being called transphobic for having issues with women being abused by men in prison.

  21. Meanwhile here in NZ not one word on how universal MALE sffrage only happened a decade earlier. And no one will ever mention that indigenous (Maori) men had the vote a decade before even that. Doesnt fit the narrative of breaking free folllwing centuries of struggle against (white) male oppression.

    • ga gamba says

      Same for Britain. Until the end of WWI about 40% of men were disenfranchised. About 80 years prior, before the Reform Act of 1832, it was about only 3% of the population, all male, who were permitted the vote.

      We find a history going back many hundreds of years of aristocrats and other well offs running the show (serfdom, feudalism, and manorialism, which originated from Roman latifundia and then with the arrival of the stirrup in the 8th century the establishment of militarised nobility) for their own advantage yet somehow feminists have rewritten it as all the men were free-born oppressors and the women all oppressed slaves.

  22. When I saw the header and first few lines I assumed that men in New Zealand were unaccountably objecting to some very mild feminism and censoring you, and was shocked at the ignorance. A few sentences later the story became clear and…

    Well, just to be intellectually consistent, I was shocked \at the ignorance.

  23. JIMMYF says

    well i agree with some of it but at the same time don’t feel sorry i mean we live in matriarchy where women are constantly complaining about patriarchy and people are surprised where all of this is leading us. allowing women to vote was the biggest mistake of our species and i it doesn’t have anything to do with hate, it’s just a straight observation. but i believe things are set to change.

    • You have a point there jimmyf, women were long thought of not to be rational and more emotional (because of their periods and the related unbalances) , so, not really apt to judge properly in political (public) matters. In the # Metoo case, we see this is actually the case, there, they find their ground, nobody can prove they are wrong unless it is proved so. Yes, matriarchy reigns! But, why should we regret? Patriarchy also was not always the right thing.

      • Women are certainly in the main more emotional than men but that shouldn’t discount their contribution to public decision making, the more perspectives the better. On the point of being irrational due to periods etc., there are plenty of circumstances that may affect the rationality of a man’s decision making, we just don’t broadcast them.

  24. Pingback: Renee Gerlich: A lone voice fighting for women's rights in New Zealand

Comments are closed.