What is a TERF?

First and foremost, she is a woman who says NO to men.

NO, I don’t have to cater to men’s feelings.
NO, I don’t have to create resources for men.
NO, I’m not responsible for protecting men from other men.
NO, I won’t have sex with men.
NO, I don’t owe men anything.

She is a woman who won’t give her time and energy to men.

NOT her emotional labor.
NOT her apologies.
NOT her admiration and fawning.

She is a woman who won’t ignore male violence.

She won’t pretend not to see what men do to women when they represent us as sex toys and porn fantasies.
She won’t pretend not to see men’s perversions and she’ll call them out when she sees them.
She has a sharp eye for identifying red flags in men’s behavior. She knows when she is being disrespected.
She doesn’t make excuses for men, minimize their abuse, or argue that #notallmen or “boys will be boys.”
She calls out sexual assault every time she sees it.
She recognizes when men want to consume women by appropriating our identities, invading our spaces, claiming to be better women than we are, taking our names for their own, and using us as props in their fantasies.
She will prevent male violence against women by separating the sexes in any context she sees fit.

She is a woman who won’t be gaslighted.

She won’t stop trusting what she sees with her own eyes.
She won’t believe that male organs are female organs.
She won’t believe that her female biology is oppressive or that it’s a social construct or a privilege or an identity.
She won’t believe the lie that women have privilege over men.
She won’t believe that her oppression is an identity that men feel they have.
She won’t believe that it’s violent for her to create spaces for women.

She is a woman who won’t shut up.

She talks about female biology, female reality, and female oppression, even when it’s taboo to do so.
She continues to speak even when being bullied.
When people shout over her, she shouts back.
She won’t back down even when she is told she is not being nice and inclusive.

She is a woman who is devoted to women.

She puts women first in her life, in her friendships, in her politics.
She considers what effect this will have on women.
Her political allegiance is with women.
She loves women both politically and personally.

She is a radical feminist, a lesbian feminist, an untamed woman, an emancipated woman, a witch, an Amazon, and a threat to patriarchy.

The patriarchy will do everything it can to destroy her, but she will plant seeds of rebellion and more like her will spring up from the ashes.

The Genderbread Person, radical feminist edition

We’ve all seen that horrid Genderbread person that attempts to teach nonsensical gender theory using primary school pedagogy style graphics. Well, here is a “corrected” version of that graphic, radical feminist edition. You have my permission to download, repost, and share. When someone posts the genderbread person in a social media argument, feel free to use this as an answer! Have fun!

The PDF version for download.

Video: Chris Hedges interviews Maya Dillard Smith and Mary Lou Singleton

This is an excellent video on the transgender issue. Chris Hedges is a real leftist (read: not a neoliberal) who understands radical feminism. He interviewed two women active in the feminist fight against trans politics: lawyer Maya Dillard Smith, who wants to balance everyone’s rights and is concerned about the lack of due process in legal changes being made in recent years, and Mary Lou Singleton, a radical feminist midwife active in the women’s liberation movement. I particularly enjoyed when Smith explained the difference between separate bathrooms for blacks and whites versus separate bathrooms for women and men. They have discussed the issue from an anti-capitalist perspective, which I really appreciate.

How to make a PC ‘queer’ party

Today in “What Does the Word Queer Mean, Anyway?” is this article by homosexual male transwoman Rose Dommu, entitled “A Party Has to Be More Than Gay to Qualify as “Queer.”

As you can see from the title, the article is about how to make your queer parties more queer. I am always fascinated by the ways in which today’s SJW liberals use the word queer, and this article provides lots of notable examples. Here are some quotes that reveal what “queer” means to this writer.

“The meaning of queer has evolved over time, resulting in a generational divide in how people perceive its meaning. Starting in the early 1900s, “queer” was used as a synonym—and slur—for “gay.” In the 70s, the word was reclaimed by LGBTQ activists and intellectuals in their fight for gay rights—hence, the still-popular chant, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”

So the author is aware that “queer” first existed as an insult used against homosexuals—I’m relieved to know that, because some “queer” writers don’t seem to be aware of that. However, he uses some more modern meanings too.

“In a 2016 New York Times Magazine article called “When Everyone Can Be ‘Queer,’ Is Anyone?”, writer Jenna Wortham detangled the nebulous definitions and political connotations surrounding the term, explaining how it came to be reclaimed by the LGBTQ community from a pejorative to its current status as a self-applied term of empowerment. Queerness, she wrote, derives its radical power from its inclusivity. “But that inclusivity,” she continued, “offers a false promise of equality that does not translate to the lived reality of most queer people.”

Ha! I’ve asked myself the same question. Now that queer has become so vague a term that anybody can call themselves that, the word has become meaningless. It’s the equivalent of “trendy” or “edgy,” basically. The queer cult likes to erase the meanings of words, something they consider to be revolutionary, but which I consider to be unhelpful, because we actually need meaningful words in order to communicate.

Anyway, here is the first modern meaning of “queer” demonstrated in this article: “a self-applied term of empowerment.” Yes, “queer” is a label that people apply to themselves to gain something—usually cool points that can be cashed in among liberal friends. Sometimes calling yourself “queer” can even get you material benefits, like giving you an edge when running for a political position or career position in a liberal establishment.

“Empowerment” is a term that comes from the media-led third wave “feminist” backlash against actual feminism. Empowerment™ is a feel-good lifestyle product you can buy from the companies that market it. The thing itself could be anything that capitalism sells—makeup, clothing, plastic surgeries, sexy photos, etc, but the advertising campaign surrounding the thing gives it an aura of Empowerment™. (This consumer product should not be confused with actual power, which is something one cannot earn by purchasing products.) Calling yourself “queer,” in liberal circles, can get you the same vaguely defined Empowerment™ feeling.

“Queerness derives its radical power from its inclusivity.” This is a word salad. Power is the ability to exercise control or influence. You don’t get power from “inclusivity.” I’m not sure what “radical power” would even mean. This is one of those phrases that people just write because the words look pretty when sitting next to each other like that. It doesn’t actually mean anything.

“Part of what’s driving the term’s adoption by the LGBTQ community is a pushback against the rigid ideas and definitions of sexuality that were prominent in the gay rights movement for so long. Essentially, “queer” has transcended sexual orientations like “gay” or “straight,” and become a self-identifier for those who choose to live in opposition to social norms of sex and gender.”

This is interesting because he actually comes out and admits that “queer” has nothing to do with being lesbian or gay anymore. It’s something anyone can claim if they think they’re being subversive in some way. The heterosexuals with green hair who think they’re “queer” don’t seem to consider that it might be homophobic to call themselves by a word that was historically used to insult gays and lesbians in order to seem cool.

“You don’t choose to be gay, but I believe that you do choose to be queer. That choice—to reject heteronormative, patriarchal standards—is the root of queerness. Not all gay people are queer, and the inverse is just as true.”

So being “queer” means making a choice to support a certain brand of politics. One can “reject heteronormativity” while being a heterosexual in a heterosexual relationship. Sadly, there is no detail offered here about how that could be possible. If it’s by switching gender roles among the man and the woman, so that she earns the money and he takes care of the kids, then what I have to say about that is that we used to call that feminist back in the day when feminism wasn’t passé. If it’s by “identifying” as not being heterosexual despite actually being heterosexual, then that’s a load of horse shit.

“Queerness is the intersection of the political and personal, a way to quantify how the personal becomes political. It informs who we vote for, who we socialize with, the music we listen to, and the art and media we consume.”

Indeed. He’s just proving all my points for me. Queerness is a consumer lifestyle choice involving choosing to consume certain things. Consuming the right things brings us Empowerment™. Listen, kids: late-stage capitalism has sold you the idea that choosing consumer choices and buying shit will bring you Empowerment™ on purpose so that they could sell you products. This isn’t a liberation movement, it’s a successful marketing scheme.

(I just want to thank Twisty Faster here because I’m totally just repeating everything she taught me back in the day when she was blogging.)

“But when you apply the idea of queerness to nightlife, things can get dicey. You can’t simply call a party “queer”; there’s actual work you have to do make a space welcoming, inclusive, and safe for queer people. Calling something “queer”—or using any number of queer buzzwords or aesthetic identifiers in your party promo—comes with a certain level of responsibility to live up to what the term encompasses. And there is no place where that tension is more visible than in nightlife.”

“Queer” is about aesthetic identifiers—a group of artistic signals conveying the brand of politics you have. It’s an artistic style, a decoration scheme. It’s rainbow-coloured crap made in China bought from the dollar store, destined for the landfill after the party is over. Liberation through consumption!

“How can a party claim to be “queer” if the lineup isn’t diverse, the cover is too high, there isn’t accessibility for those who are differently abled, or it takes place in a club where the staff and security might antagonize people of color or gender non-conforming individuals? LGBTQ nightlife is still primarily dominated by white cisgender gay men, so how can a party be queer when it’s exclusive of the whole rainbow?”

Okay…I agree that community events should be accessible. But it almost sounds like “queer” is being used to mean “good party planning.”

“And when it comes to nightlife, the major difference between a party being “gay” or “queer” comes down to choices as well.”

There it is again: “queer” = “good party planning.”

This is his ultimate conclusion:

“The bottom line is that queer women, trans people, people of color, people with disabilities, people who are neurodivergent, and people without access to capital or privilege—we’re at these parties. We’re paying the cover—OK, I’m not, I’m always on the list—we’re buying drinks, and we’re in the party photos. We’re not tokens or aberrations; we’re part of the community. That means we should be represented on the lineup, too—otherwise, nightlife will never be “queer.”

So, the customers who are the consumers of a “queer” product deserve to be catered to by the sellers of that product. True—that’s one of the laws of the marketplace—market to your customer.

The thing about the “queer” community is it’s not a liberation movement. If it was a liberation movement, then it would be doing the tiring, unglamorous, and thankless work of finding housing, medical care and a stable income for those people who have disabilities, who are from racial minorities, who are without access to capital, etc. But instead they’re just demanding that these communities be marketed to and represented in marketing campaigns.

Sheila Jeffreys explained in Unpacking Queer Politics that the revolutionary gestures made by practitioners of “queer” politics amount to acts of “transgression.” Transgression means going against traditional social customs in terms of sexual behavior or dress. Therefore homosexual behavior is “queer,” but so are antisocial and dysfunctional behaviors such as public sex and sexual abuse. Both healthy homosexual relations and abusive heterosexual relations can be considered equivalent in terms of their ability to transgress and therefore both “queer,” which is a politics that equates homosexuals with sex offenders, without any consideration for the inherent homophobia in this position. Wearing the clothing and appearance of the opposite sex is a transgression, but practitioners require traditional social customs to be intact in order for their transgressions to be shocking. If we were to actually eliminate sex role stereotypes, then their transgressions wouldn’t be transgressions anymore, so they actually have no interest in challenging traditional gender roles, because that would ruin their fun. Jeffreys calls “queer” politics a form of “night club activism.” As we see in this article, “queer” politics can be practiced simply by planning a good party.

Now that I’ve thoroughly demolished queer politics, let’s take a look at what we learn about this author from this article.

“I get a lot of flack for being vocally opposed to this kind of femme and trans erasure in nightlife. But as a trans woman, I often feel like if I don’t speak up, who else will? Sometimes, when I vocalize some kind of criticism about a supposedly “queer” party being too male-centered, I even face a backlash from members of the LGBTQ community. Often, someone will say, “Well, two years ago, you were a gay man, so who are you to talk?”

“Yet, for decades, a majority of trans women like myself have actualized their identities through gay communities, often within the space of LGBTQ nightclubs. For many of us who first identify as gay men and then go on to transition, our gay and queer social circles function as family, social group, and dating pool all at once. Once we transition, those bonds are the same, but the way we experience them is irrevocably altered. We still want to go dance with our sisters, but we don’t always feel welcome in the same way.”

“Recently, I went to a gay male-centered sex party at a queer after-hours spot to celebrate a friend’s birthday, and within an hour, my friends had abandoned me to play in the darkroom—a space where I felt not only unnecessary, but unwelcome. Going from being a fag to a fag hag is a fucking trip, man.”

I’m just going to rephrase some of this in my straight-to-the-point language. This is a gay man who has had the same group of gay male friends who party together over a period of several years, and recently he has decided to disregard the facts of human anatomy and call himself a ‘woman.’ His gay male friends still all know he is a gay male, but now they’re supposed to call him by female pronouns. Understandably, not all of them are buying this.

He says he actualized his transwoman identity through the queer community, and that other gay men do this too. He completely misses the fact that it’s a tragedy that the queer community encourages homosexuals to view themselves as something else.

This is a man who is complaining that parties that he is able to attend are too male-focused. Even though these parties are literally for men like him, he does not feel adequately included since they don’t specifically cater to his silly and nonsensical identity.

Can I just mention here that if you are spending lots of your energy worrying about how well people are including you at a party, then you probably are not experiencing much real difficulty in life.

He attended a gay male sex party, which goes to show that he still knows he is a gay male and doesn’t take his identity as a ‘woman’ very seriously. Even though he is a gay male who knows he is a gay male, he found gay sex play in a back room ‘unnecessary’ and felt that he was ‘unwelcome’ there, because of his ‘identity.’

I agree with him on one thing. He is definitely ‘tripping.’

I am sad to see the way ‘queer’ politics separates lesbians from lesbian communities and separates gay men from gay male communities. I am angry to see how ‘queer’ politics erases the facts of human anatomy and therefore our ability to organize for liberation for groups such as women and sexual minorities such as lesbians and gays.

It’s time for lesbians and gays everywhere to resist queer politics. Leave that for the heterosexuals with green hair who think they’re cool. What we need is lesbian and gay community, and radical, liberation politics to fight back against women’s oppression and economic class oppression.

How trans activists erase homophobia and male violence

There are consequences to pretending that biological sex doesn’t exist—it leads to also pretending that sexual orientation doesn’t exist and it leads to ignoring who usually commits violent crimes and why.

An article written by a trans woman called “No, I Don’t Have To Tell You I’m Trans Before Dating You” demonstrates perfectly what trans activists get wrong.

He starts off by not understanding biological sex differences between humans.

“The gender binary forms the basis of European societies. It establishes that there are men and there are women, and each has a specific role. For the gender binary to have power, it has to be rigid and inflexible. Thus, from the day we are born, we are taught to believe in a very static and strict form of gender. We learn that if you have a penis, you are a man, and if you have a vagina, you are a woman. Trans people are walking refutations of this concept of gender. Our very existence threatens to undermine the gender binary itself.”

There are several issues with this paragraph, of course, but mostly the problem is that he is imagining that a cultural belief in “gender” coming from Europe is the reason why people believe that human beings come in types called “men” and “women.” In reality, all humans, from all continents, not just Europe, do come in two types: male and female, and we refer to adult human males as “men” and adult human females as “women,” regardless of what country we’re in. For the zillionth time, the existence of a rare few people born with atypical sex characteristics doesn’t change the fact that most people are unambiguously male or female and that this is how humans reproduce. Neither do men and women who make body modifications negate the facts of human reproduction. Regardless of what body modifications people make or what outfits they wear, only females can gestate babies and only males can fertilize ova.

Our culture does indeed place firm roles onto men and women, however, the way to change that culture is to constantly assert and men and women can be any kind of man or woman they want to be, and that they don’t have to follow cultural stereotypes about who men and women are. Denying the factual and observable sex differences between humans doesn’t achieve the goal of eliminating sex-based stereotypes.

Because Berruti is in denial about sex differences between humans, he is also in denial about sexual orientation, which is based on attraction to a specific sex. Almost everyone is attracted to one sex only—heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex and homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Only bisexuals are attracted to both sexes. Sexual orientation is not about attraction to a “gender.” If anyone wants to claim to be attracted to a “gender” they’re welcome to, but for most people, we do care about the sex of the person we are with.

Berruti discusses the tragic case of Jennifer Laude, a young transwoman who was murdered by Joseph Scott Pemberton. Pemberton murdered Laude after the two had sex and then Pemberton realized that Laude was male. The reason for Pemberton’s violent rage was a combination of violent masculinity and homophobia. Men are taught from a young age that they must only have sexual relations with women, (not just any humans with dresses on, but people of the female sex), and this rule is enforced so violently that men do things like beat and murder men who are homosexual and also beat and murder men who trick them into sex. An important part of the masculine gender role is domination over women and exclusively heterosexual behavior. Men who involve themselves in homosexual behavior, whether deliberately or by accident, or who play a “feminine” receptive role in sex, lose masculinity points in this system. When men who are invested in preserving their masculinity are forced to lose some of their masculinity points, they react with violence to restore it. This culture is a part of the system of patriarchy and women know it all too well, which is why there is a whole movement of women fighting against it.

The author of this article, Berruti, tries to explain this phenomenon without naming any of the relevant elements: not sexual orientation nor violent masculinity.

“As a trans person, I run into this attitude all the time. I constantly hear cis people raging about how a trans person is “lying” if they don’t come out to a potential partner before dating them. Pemberton himself claimed that he felt like he was “raped” because Laude did not come out to him. Even cis people that fashion themselves as “allies” tend to feel similar.

Their argument is that they aren’t not attracted to trans people, so they should have a right to know if a potential partner is trans before dating them. These people view transness as a mere physical quality that they just aren’t attracted to.

The issue with this logic is that the person in question is obviously attracted to trans people, or else they wouldn’t be worried about accidentally going out with one. So these people aren’t attracted to trans people because of some physical quality, they aren’t attracted to trans people because they are disgusted by the very idea of transness.”

Berruti, like most other trans activists, imagines that straight men and lesbian women can be attracted to men who wear dresses and makeup because they imagine that we are attracted to a feminine gender role. However, both of these groups are attracted to people who are biologically female. Since he doesn’t understand this, he attributes our not wanting male sex partners as evidence of being “disgusted by the very idea of transness.”

Whether or not someone is actually disgusted by the idea of transness very much depends on your definition of trans. Since trans is an umbrella term that can mean a whole bunch of very different things, it’s impossible for this accusation to be meaningful. Using me as an example, there are some people under the trans umbrella that I am attracted to and some that I am not. I am attracted to female cross-dressers and masculine women, but I’m not attracted to anyone with a penis, so I am both attracted to and indifferent to different people under the trans umbrella, in accordance with my sexual orientation. It would not be accurate to say I’m “disgusted by the very idea of transness” since my long-term partner actually falls under the trans umbrella and I am not necessarily disgusted by male humans, just generally indifferent to them. (I am disgusted by male humans who behave in misogynist and abusive ways, but that’s not on the basis of their being male, it’s on the basis of their being abusive misogynists. Sadly, there are too many men who fit this description.)

Joseph Scott Pemberton wasn’t necessarily “disgusted by the very idea of transness” (although he may have been), but he definitely was disgusted by the idea of having sex with a man. This is due to homophobia. In the absence of violent masculinity and homophobia, he would have just said “no thanks” and walked Laude out. Although the primary cause of violence against transwomen is this exact combination of masculine rage and homophobia, transwomen almost universally refuse to name the problem or fight against it. They prefer to focus their energy on bullying women, even though women never kill transwomen.

“So when a cis person argues that a trans person has an obligation to come out to someone before dating them, they are saying trans people have an obligation to accommodate their transphobia. Plus, claiming that trans people are obligated to come out reinforces the idea that not being attracted to trans people is reasonable. But as I’ve pointed out, not being attracted to trans people supports the idea that transness is disgusting which is the basis for transphobic oppression.”

There truly is no dichotomy between “cis” and “trans” people because all of us have a unique personality with a unique relationship to the concepts of masculinity and femininity, and the concept of “trans” is so broad and all-encompassing that anyone can claim it at any time. What’s actually happening here is that people (almost all people, in fact) need to know whether someone is male or female before entering a romantic or sexual relationship. Everyone who is heterosexual or homosexual, which is a lot of people, are only interested in one sex. This isn’t to say that bisexual people will always date a trans person either—not everyone is interested in dating someone who has made major, drastic body modifications so that they appear to be the opposite sex.

When trans activists claim that it doesn’t matter what sex someone is and that they aren’t obligated to disclose their sex, they are disrespecting people’s sexual orientation and demonstrating a lack of caring for their potential partner’s needs. This is abusive behavior.

It never “supports the idea that someone is disgusting” when someone declines a romantic relationship with someone. No one owes anyone a romantic or sexual relationship, and we can be as exclusive as we want when it comes to who we date. I wouldn’t date an extrovert, and that’s not because there’s anything wrong with extroverts and my not dating them doesn’t imply that they are “disgusting.” I just know that the relationship wouldn’t work out because I would find it too draining and she would get bored with me since I never want to go out. People are also allowed to decline to date people who have made drastic body modifications or who believe in nonsensical ideology because that is not something they are into. This doesn’t mean that anyone is “disgusting.”

Berruti’s conclusion, like the rest of his post, misses the primary problem entirely.

“It is easy to look at the story of Jennifer Laude and claim that her death was due to the actions of one bigot. But it’s more complicated than that. Pemberton was the product of a society that told him that disgust towards trans people was reasonable and natural. So when he found out that he accidentally slept with a trans woman, he killed her.

Every single cis person that says that trans people have to come out because they aren’t attracted to trans people feeds into the system that caused Jennifer Laude’s death. And until those cis people acknowledge their complicity in that system, there will only be more like Jennifer Laude.”

Indeed, Jennifer Laude’s death was not an isolated incident. There are countless murders and other assaults committed by men due to violent masculinity, perpetrated against both men and women. Pemberton was a product of a society that taught him that preserving his masculinity was of utmost importance, more important even than other people’s lives, and that sexual relations between two men are so horrifically disgusting that it’s worth killing someone over. So when he found out he slept with a man, he killed him. When people assert their sexual orientations by declining to sleep with someone they are not attracted to in a normal, non-murderous way, that does not contribute to violent masculinity or the culture that condones male violence. People are allowed to set appropriate boundaries and choose sex partners they are attracted to, and this isn’t a problem. In Pemberton’s case, he should have simply said “no thanks” to Laude, and he was absolutely not justified in murdering him. Laude’s murder was a terrible crime.

As long as we continue to condone male violence and toxic masculinity by teaching it, glorifying it, and refusing to punish it, there will be more incidents like this one. It’s puzzling why trans activists don’t try to do something about it, since it’s negatively affecting their community. The primary group of people who are concerned about ending male violence is still radical feminists.

Court rules against women’s right to privacy in Planet Fitness case

In 2015, Yvette Cormier was using a Planet Fitness gym when a man who appeared unambiguously male used the women’s locker room. She complained to the gym’s management and was told the man was allowed to be there. After she warned other female gym members that men were allowed in their locker room, the gym revoked her membership. [Link to article on Gender Trender.]

She took them to court, with the following results:

From CBS Detroit:

“Michigan Planet Fitness Wins Key Ruling In Lawsuit Surrounding Transgender Woman In Locker Room

MIDLAND, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan appeals court has ruled in favor of a Midland health club in a lawsuit filed by a woman who said her rights were violated when she encountered a transgender person in the locker room.

The court found no evidence of sexual harassment, noting that Yvette Cormier and a transgender woman were both wearing clothes at Planet Fitness.

Cormier’s membership was terminated a week after the 2015 incident after she returned to the gym and warned other women. Planet Fitness told her that it allows people to use the locker room that matches their identity as part of a “no-judgment policy.”

In a 3-0 decision Thursday, the court said there was nothing illegal about the club yanking Cormier’s membership.”

As Gallus Mag found out in 2015, the man who scared Cormier at the gym was not living full-time as a woman but had a sexual fetish for cross-dressing. He considers himself a member of the “kink” community and conceives of women in misogynist ways.

This court case sets a precedent that is seriously dangerous for women and girls. Men who have not taken any steps toward transitioning—in other words, regular men—are allowed to use a female locker room on a whim, and the law will not deter them. This is due to the success of the trans movement which has convinced many that men’s subjective feelings are more important than their physical reality, and certainly more important than the needs or concerns of women.

It is significant that the court ruled that this was not sexual harassment. Their justification for that is very weak—the two may have been clothed at the time, but a locker room is a place specifically designed for undressing, so it is likely that if they both kept going to the gym, they would see each other undressed at some point. The entire reason Cormier objected to the man’s presence was because this was an area reserved for women to undress privately away from men. That she was dressed when he entered was a lucky circumstance but doesn’t change the fundamental problem here.

Knowing what we know as women, when a porn-soaked “kinky” man tests women’s boundaries by entering our private spaces and making us uncomfortable, that is a sure sign he is an unsafe person to be around. Despite the ruling by the Michigan appeals court, this is an obvious case of sexual harassment.

From here on, any time women join a gym, we should be asking ahead of time whether there will be sex-segregated facilities for our use, and we should refuse to join any gym that does not accommodate us. Women should not be required to undress in front of strange men, and certainly not those who have misogynist sexual fetishes.

At this point, appropriate activism to protect women’s rights to safety and privacy will involve multiple lawsuits to get businesses to provide sex-segregated spaces again and enforce that sex-segregation the way they used to. We are having to redo battles that we already fought and won, because our rights are being systematically taken away by transgender activism.

Since transgender activism seeks to eliminate the rights of women, all women need to vigorously oppose it.