as much as they dread to hear it, those who think of themselves as โgender-criticalโ, most of all in the united kingdom, are a cohort based not in political interests along biological sex, a great number of gender-critical activists, and some of the most influential activists within the movement, are male. rather, what i see to be a lot more common among the GC movement in particular is that they share a background in more prestigious careers such as directors and thespians in popular culture and television, media pundits, novelists, writers and editors in the press, especially journals appealing to a target audience of conservatives, to less notably, public servants, educators, tenured staff in higher education, even as capitalists and landlords, and so on. what they have is only internal solidarity within a cohort of white middle-class citizens of a western imperial power still in great standing among other nations of the north atlantic treaty organization, an anti-socialist international pact.
and they are repudiated by leftist and communist women as transphobic in such countries as india, laos, and vietnam.
their sense of solidarity is not that along lines of biological sex, but ideology and economic class.
think about it.
how they thought earnestly of overturning gillick competence, which to my understanding, is a legal statute protecting the medical and bodily autonomy of young women and girls under 16 and their right to access contraception and abortion when needed ( there are going to be boys they like, and boys are not always so thoughtful of othersโ interests to say the least ), if they understand the treatment in question, which in my opinion would be an understanding only made full when weighed against an understanding of the socioeconomic and medical risks that would go with carrying a pregnancy to term. however, an unwanted pregnancy will still be unwanted, regardless of anyoneโs level of understanding on the matter. but forestalling puberty for youth who are trans, until they are of the age recommended by doctors to decide whether to fully transition, is medically of much lesser consequence. they contemplated the overturning of this statute protecting womenโs rights โ rights deemed indispensible to women of lower socioeconomic standing โ as one of their means in withholding from trans minors the right to transition.
if the idea is based on the notion that someone else led me to transition, then how can we be so sure that nobody was trying to force me not to? generally speaking there had always been someone trying to coerce me out of transitioning with talk about how i must have been groomed, though nobody asked me to be trans or to transition.
so itโs not about love for women, but hate toward trannies.
think harder about the uptick in conservative efforts to undo laws protecting womenโs rights, and how, as if by mishap, it came at the same tide as the uptick in gender-critical tranny-hating.
think about how they equate transness with sex-denialism from the likes of judith butler while acknowledging in some obscure corners far more truthful to radical feminism that the idea predates the work of butler by decades and is at least in part attributable to andrea dworkin.
so i must ask, is it sex-denialism when dworkin wrote in her ninth chapter of โWoman Hatingโ that there are more than two ways that folks may be categorized along physiology and anatomy associated with sex? is it sex-denialism to read and write scientifically observed facts suggesting that sex characteristics are defined into logical categories, and that classical sex science may be outdated as predominantly authored by male scientists justifying male supremacy since the 1600โs? is a woman recorded female at birth no longer a woman the moment sheโs found to have male gonads and chromosomes and no uterus?
if so, then i should think that you would have much to gripe to dworkin about, especially when it comes to her thoughts on sex-based attraction.
that is if some of us are still wanting to quote dworkin to do naught but bash the trannies. even though Get the L Out often deals quotes from the book โThe Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Maleโ, written by janice raymond, who received the following letter of repudiation from dworkin for the book in question.
think about how they selectively endorse sex-trade expansionism as they pray for transsexuals to fully replace women as sexually exploited in the sex trade. as if to say that transsexuals are not being sexually exploited as we write. saying that it would be โa good matchโ.
in fact, male-to-female transsexuals are quite often sexually exploited, under conditions of abject workplace discrimination and poverty, such that even today within the imperial core, up to 1 in 10 of us either are or have been in the sex trade.
it is also an expression of capitalist realism in believing the sex trade canโt be abolished, so their next best move is to pull women out and shove trannies in to get raped in the sex trade instead.
and as a former prostitute, i think it would be wise to inform everyone that i know of women who bought sex from us, so some women would be our punters, the idea is to put us beneath everyone else.
and itโs mackinnonโs opinion that per capita, mtf transsexuals oppose the sex trade at rates that outclass those of women.
think about how they tolerate such harrowing displays of male chauvanism out of GC men, in the name of defeating the so-called misogyny of transness. how GC men get away with calling trans-inclusionary radfems โfrontholesโ and making hypermasculine references to โnagging wivesโ to disparage women who spurn their beliefs, and getting upvotes from GC women.
obviously, these men get a rise out of haughtily beholding themselves as bold knights to whatever they might call the sake of womenโs rights, even whither they end up saying they know better than women do.
think about how they characterize the bugbear transsexuals as the big scary rapists of the world while over 1 in 3 of us are raped.
moreover, most of all, dare i say, we must look at the circumstances of the growing of their insurgency, that evermore does it get institutional backing by the state, most consistently under the leadership of conservative factions, greatly against widespread popular opposition to their sake and their means of fulfilling it. that evermore, in spite of considering themselves more widely socialist, do they gather stronger and more gainful affiliation with these conservative factions in question, with whom they share the same economic standing, which casts doubt into their sense of commitment to socialist doctrine, seeing how itโs but the first compromise being made throughout their movement in favor of teachings that make bugbears of trannies and laws that treat us as such, so too does it cast doubt into their sense of being a popular movement, even among women, seeing how they wield connections to institutional authority, consistently against public opposition, in this case, public opposition where the women outnumber the men wholesale.
in other words, the class relations and conditions consisting in political affiliations are all the same; what the gender-critical movement has sparked is not a revolution for womenโs befreeing, rather, what it is indeed can be none other than a tranny-hating pogrom in the making.
truthfully and by all accounts, and by every conceivable socioeconomic criterion to the designation, and by every conceivable definition of the word, the gender-critical movement are what we long-time communists like to call reactionaries