Jordan Peterson still getting his analysis wrong

Jordan Peterson is the most well-known Canadian man standing up to the trans cult, but unfortunately he keeps getting his analysis wrong. That’s because he’s a conservative and doesn’t listen to feminists. Lots of feminists have done excellent work laying out all the factors that have caused trans cult dogma to flourish and have also clearly articulated what the left should be doing instead, but Peterson isn’t about to listen to us or take us seriously.

He’s been fundraising to start his own online university where students will be able to learn without being indoctrinated into post-modern ideology, and now he’s creating a website that warns potential students against taking certain classes that are known for their indoctrination.

From the Toronto Star:

“Psychology professor Jordan Peterson’s stated plan to build a website aimed at reducing enrolment in university classes he calls “indoctrination cults” has drawn the ire of his University of Toronto colleagues, who say it will make them the target of harassment.

Peterson, who rose to fame in right-wing circles after his outspoken refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns, says he wants to use artificial intelligence to scour university curriculums for what he “calls post-modern neo-Marxist course content.”

“We’re going to start with a website in the next month and a half that will be designed to help students and parents identify post-modern content in courses so that they can avoid them,” he told CTV’s Your Morning in August.

“I’m hoping that over about a five-year period a concerted effort could be made to knock the enrolment down in postmodern neo-Marxist cult classes by 75 per cent across the West. So our plan initially is to cut off the supply to the people that are running the indoctrination cults.”

Post-modern neo-Marxist cult classes? Oh dear gawd. Conservatives like to call anything they don’t like “Marxist” without having any idea whatsoever of what Marxism actually is. Trans cult ideology is neoliberal, not Marxist, and neoliberalism is the opposite of Marxism, not a new version of it. Neoliberal ideology was created by capitalists in order to fight back against Marxism and other forms of collectivism. Neoliberalism was taken up by the anti-feminist backlash and it has been used to infiltrate and destroy all leftist movements, including labor, feminism, and anti-racism.

Speaking as a person who is both pro-Marxist and anti-neoliberal, it really frustrates me to see him equate these opposite ideologies. It’s also frustrating to see someone speaking publicly about a social issue from a position of authority as a university professor without learning anything about the issue, even though the information is out there and could be easily found.

“In a speech posted to his YouTube page on July 9, Peterson elaborates on what type of courses he aims to target with the website.

“Women’s studies, and all the ethnic studies and racial studies groups, man, those things have to go and the faster they go the better,” he said. “It would have been better if they had never been part of the university to begin with as far as I can tell.”

“Sociology, that’s corrupt. Anthropology, that’s corrupt. English literature, that’s corrupt. Maybe the worse offenders are the faculties of education.”

He has observed correctly that the arts and humanities have been taken over by the trans cult. Queer theory has taken over the arts and humanities because those subjects are populated with liberal-leaning, open-minded middle-to-upper class people who exist in the land of theory rather than reality and are concerned about social justice but without being actual members of the oppressed classes they claim to care about. Although queer theory was born in the academy, lots of these courses in sociology and literature aren’t inherently flawed but have been wrongly taken over by queer theory. The solution is to accurately identify the causes of the proliferation of queer theory and to rescue the arts and humanities from it. What Peterson is doing is trying to steer people away from these subject areas without even understanding the problem or trying to solve it. I don’t find that satisfactory.

People on the right like to consider anything that’s not right-wing to be left-wing, but they’re missing the fact that neoliberal Liberals and true leftists are completely opposed to each other. Liberals who have bought into the trans cult ideology are not coming from a materialist or a class analysis, they’re coming from an individualist pro-capitalist consumer culture. True leftists laugh at the silly claims of the trans cult and lament the way it’s ruined our liberation movements. If university arts and humanities courses were actually “Marxist,” as Peterson imagines, then they’d reject trans cult ideology completely and teach the reality of sex class oppression and economic class oppression, with the aim to instill in students a materialist analysis, not an enjoyment of choosing choices.

I’m seriously glad that I’m done with university and not going back, because everything that I love, from sociology to literature, has been ruined, and I wouldn’t be able to sit in a classroom and listen to stupid bullshit and pretend it made any sense. I’m so glad that when I attended university and studied these subjects the trans cult hadn’t completely taken over yet, and we were still allowed to acknowledge the difference between male and female without being told we’re “LITERALLY KILLING” members of the ruling class who have chosen identities for themselves.

These important and necessary subject areas are suffering from being taken over by nonsensical dogma, and Peterson isn’t helping to combat this. He’s not helping because he doesn’t understand what’s happening or why, and the things he’s saying are polarizing people without adding anything useful to the conversation. I love sociology and literature, and I’d rather rescue them than discard them.

Also, check out this tweet from him about the recent flood of sexual assault allegations publicized in the media.

Talk about totally missing the point.

 

Advertisements

Feminism and online fighting

Radical feminists, like many other groups, have an online community of people we hang out with and organize with every day. And like many other groups, sometimes we get into fights. We are not a homogenous group; we have a variety of different viewpoints on many things, and sometimes we find other women’s viewpoints to be very wrong. Every once in a while a fight rips through the community like a forest fire, destroying everything in its path, and leaving behind nothing but ashes, upon which new seedlings will have to grow. There are a few fights that happen over and over, and have been happening for a long time. Such as, for example, are straight women upholding the patriarchy by having relationships with men? Are mothers responsible for upholding patriarchy by giving birth to sons? Are straight feminists homophobic, and are lesbian feminists heterophobic? And there’s another fun fight, are meat and dairy eaters oppressing female animals by eating meat and dairy, and are vegans starving themselves and engaging in an elitist individual solution to a systemic problem? Honestly, I feel like rolling my eyes just typing out those sentences. No way do I want to get involved in any of those fights again!

There are many types of radical feminist. After a while you start to identify them when you see the stuff they write online. I’m gonna call my type a “traditional mainstream feminist.” One time a commenter came here and told me that I’m not a real radical feminist, I’m actually a traditional mainstream feminist. I didn’t take that as an insult, I thought it was a reasonable label and I embrace it. My feminism is real feminism, the kind that is about women, not the kind that has been ruined by post-modern academia, anti-feminist backlash, queer theory, and marketing schemes about buying products for Empowerment™. I’m not into certain extreme ideas that have come out of radical feminism, such as “kill all the male babies” or “all straight women are handmaidens,” but since I believe in analyzing patriarchy as the root cause of women’s oppression and believe that women are oppressed based on our biological sex, not our “feminine gender,” that puts me in the radical feminist camp.

There are lots of women who analyze biological sex as an axis of oppression and also have other philosophies, opinions, and viewpoints that don’t align with mine. There are essentialist types who believe that men are irredeemably evil, there are social constructionist types who think we are born completely blank slates and everything about ourselves comes from socialization, there are holier-than-thou types who want to die on the hill of political correctness and make it their mission to kick out anyone who isn’t politically pure, there are conspiracy types who are against Big Pharma and will heal the world with herbs and witchcraft (and there’s even a few anti-vaxxers in this group), there are vegans, and there are women who are against vegans, and there are women with personality problems who like to bully other women in the name of feminism. We are a wild and diverse group. It’s no surprise that the various personalities and viewpoints in our community lead to fights.

I’ve learned a few things about using the Internet over the last approximately ten years as I’ve engaged with online communities. Social media, as we all know, contributes to lots of misunderstandings and people saying extreme things anonymously that they probably wouldn’t say in real life. I have radar up that detect some of the following behaviours:

  • Ignoring what the original post said, and instead spewing out a bunch of their feelings of anger and frustration in a way that doesn’t respond to the original post, but just offers them personal catharsis, as if the topic or article someone shared was an invitation for people to vent their feelings about whatever is wrong in their lives
  • Ignoring what a person actually said, and instead responding to a strawman argument of their own invention, and delighting in getting angry over what they imagine the person to have said
  • Deciding to hate someone ahead of time, before even reading their work, and dismissing what they have to say or denouncing them without caring what they are actually saying
  • Taking things out of context to make them look bad, or getting angry about a statement that was clearly taken out of context and not looking for the original source to see if the anger is even justified
  • Immediately jumping to the worst conclusions about a statement without first clarifying what the person meant by it
  • Using excessive hyperbole, such as the ever popular claim that someone is violent and oppressive because they have a different analysis of a social phenomenon, or that someone is “literally killing” others by having a wrong opinion
  • Engaging in unnecessary and pointless drama, such as stirring people up on purpose on topics that are controversial, and jumping into arguments that don’t involve you just because you like arguing and adding inflammatory comments to an already smoldering argument

I have radar up for these behaviours because I know that people behaving like this will just take up my energy on pointless frustration, and I’m done engaging with people who can’t have a mature conversation. I’ve left many Facebook groups because I see lots of these behaviours going on, and I just don’t want to hang out with unreasonable people. The groups I stay in are the groups of people who I put into the “traditional mainstream feminist” category and where nobody is causing drama for the sake of drama.

Lots of these problems are a product of social media. Here’s a fun anecdote about how different things are between social media and real life. One time a feminist woman called me a troll. I forget what the conversation was or why she said that, but I was pissed. I decided I wanted nothing to do with her ever again. Then about three years later I met her in real life, and we had a lovely time together and she was very kind to me. I don’t think she even remembered that she once called me a troll.

We spend so much time trying to “correct” people who are wrong on the Internet, and we see people’s typed statements but not their flesh and blood reality, and we don’t take the time to ask “what did you mean by that?” when a statement sounds odd. But even people who type out dumb shit online might be perfectly nice in real life. You were just a screen name and a statement to them, they didn’t know anything about you and the dumb shit they said truly had nothing to do with you the real person, and it had everything to do with them trying to “correct” whatever they read into your statement. Internet culture encourages us to write witty comebacks and funny put-downs rather than engaging maturely with each other.

In my first few years of using the Internet, I did get engaged in online drama. I think that online drama can be addictive. You get a rush of emotion from reading stuff that you believe is wrong or stupid, and you enjoy both the anger and the righteousness of correcting someone who’s wrong. When there’s nothing to fight about, you get bored, and want that rush of anger again, so you jump into another argument. Years ago I used to argue online about abortion a lot, and I don’t anymore. I consider the matter settled that if you want abortion to be illegal then you’re a misogynist, and I’m done trying to convince people that a born woman is more important that a fertilized egg. People who think that a fertilized egg is more important that a fully-grown woman aren’t reasonable people and they’re not going to change their minds, and there’s no point in wasting energy on them. I must have argued about socialism at some point, too, because I remember this guy who was furiously angry over his idea that socialists wanted him to share his bed and his toothbrush with other people. That’s not true, socialists don’t want people to share their beds and toothbrushes with strangers. This is an example of inventing a strawman argument and delighting in getting angry over it. When you see people doing that, you have to walk away. That’s not a person who wants to have a real conversation.

Recently the fight that comes up among radical feminists came up again, the classic fight about whether it’s morally acceptable to be heterosexual. A giant shit storm happened, and lots of women were really upset. I read through a long comment thread and I saw that there were a ton of people who were misunderstanding other people’s statements without asking for clarification, jumping to the worst possible conclusions about other people, calling people names, arguing against straw men and jumping into the argument to add to the drama instead of just leaving it alone. All I could do was shake my head.

Every once in a while we have to remind ourselves of a few important things:

(1) “radical feminist” should not be thought of as an identity,
(2) purity politics gets us nowhere, and
(3) online arguments don’t define feminism.

Identity politics have infiltrated everything, including feminism. Some people get caught up in thinking that we can determine whether or not a woman is a “radical feminist” by assessing whether she meets certain criteria in terms of her personal characteristics and choices. This is totally the wrong approach. We should all understand the root cause of women’s oppression and we should do things to improve the structure of society to benefit all women. At no point does it matter whether someone is labelled “radical feminist” or not, or whether she meets certain personal criteria. There are women all over the world fighting against things like FGM and child marriage, and for women’s rights to be educated and to live free of violence. These women are working for women’s liberation and they’ve never read any of the radical feminist theory that comes out of first world countries. They don’t need to. They already know that men are enslaving women because they are enslaved. It doesn’t matter whether they take on the label “radical feminist” or not. The actions are important, and the label is irrelevant. Same thing in first world countries—our actions matter, our labels do not. If you see women policing whether other women are “real radical feminists” or not, they’re doing identity politics and this is in fact liberal, not radical. It’s also pointless. You don’t have to get upset about what they say, because it doesn’t matter whether or not you meet other people’s criteria for an identity label that they’ve constructed.

Purity politics is something that happens in many groups, and I’m sure it happens on the right as well (whether someone is a “real Christian” or not, etc) but of course I am familiar with purity politics on the left. I myself have attempted to be as ideologically pure as possible, and so I’ve learned how this approach doesn’t work. In high school I learned about environmental destruction and cruelty to animals and the wasting of natural resources and all these things that we on the left care about. I wanted to make my footprint on the world lighter, use less resources, and harm less animals. I stopped eating meat for a few years, and I was trying not to use much electricity for a while. At one point I thought that using a washing machine to wash clothes was too much energy wasted, and I attempted to wash my clothes by hand. Boy, is that labor-intensive! But here’s the thing. If you are alive and in a first world country, you are complicit in all sorts of systems of oppression no matter what lifestyle choices you make. No matter how hard you try to be a good person, you are still oppressing somebody. You can stop eating meat, but even the way our industrial agriculture produces grains and vegetables is harmful to animals. If you eat anything at all, you’re harming animals and the environment. You can wash your clothes by hand, but they were created in sweatshops by people working for low wages, and you are still complicit in their oppression. And even if you manage to be as eco-friendly as possible in your own home, you still haven’t overthrown the system that is destroying the planet and you are surrounded by businesses that are doing damage on a way larger scale than your household is. Anytime you buy a product from a store, pay interest on your debts, and pay either rent or a mortgage, you are contributing to capitalism. The computer you use to read about how to be more politically correct was also made in a sweatshop by oppressed workers. There will always be something else you are doing wrong, and you can never be politically pure. The only way you can avoid doing any harm to any other creature or the natural environment is by killing yourself. Of course, the paradox there is that if you kill yourself to avoid doing any harm, you are harming yourself, therefore you are still doing harm. So you literally can’t not do any harm. (Double negative intended.) This means there is no way to be ideologically pure and this pursuit is not worth your energy. People who are acting holier-than-thou and being a better feminist or leftist than you are actually not accomplishing anything. They are just being self-righteous, and it’s not justified because they are personally doing things to contribute to the destruction of the planet and the oppression of humans as they speak. Anyone who’s typing on a smart phone is not politically pure because there are suicide nets outside of the factories that make smart phones because the working conditions are so bad. If someone is typing to you on her smart phone that you’re a handmaiden because you have a boyfriend, ask her if she’s succeeded in unionizing the female workers who made her smart phone yet. If she hasn’t, then she’s a handmaiden. But seriously, if people don’t think you measure up to their idea of political purity, you don’t have to get upset. You just have to do the best you can with the situation you’re in, and try and do the least destruction possible, and try to do the most good possible.

My third point up above, if you have been keeping track, was that online arguments don’t define feminism. We who access the feminist community online start to feel over time like feminism is something that happens online, and that fights among Internet users represent rifts in the movement. Not really, no. Remember that work is being done all around the world for women’s liberation, and tons of women who have never read feminist theory or cared about labelling themselves with a particular strand of feminism are doing excellent work every day. Tons of women who don’t have Internet access, and some of whom don’t even have electricity, are working for women’s liberation every day. Even if there is a big fight online, and even if some women claim to be “quitting feminism” because of problematic people, there are still millions of women who get up every day and go to work in jobs where they are making the world safer for women, and there are women from all walks of life speaking out against the predators and the barriers they are facing in their lives, and there are mothers raising feminist children, and there are schoolgirls punching out the boys who pull their bra straps, there are police arresting pimps, there are survivors of prostitution helping other women get out, and the list goes on and on forever. The fights on the Internet are almost irrelevant to the movement, really. They are a tiny blip on the radar. The movement is much, much, bigger than any online community.

Obviously, if there are people you love and support who are getting into nasty arguments, it will hurt. Of course it will hurt! But the sun will rise again every day, and the worldwide women’s liberation movement will continue, whether or not some people on the Internet are behaving in unsatisfactory ways. Deal with the hurt quickly and then move on—there’s lots of better things to do.

Answering 10 questions for radical feminists

A website for conservative women posted this list of “10 Questions We Need Radical Feminists To Answer Pronto.” I just love answering questions! Thanks to Francois Tremblay for showing me this list and answering the questions very well on his own. I’m going to answer them, too, just for fun.

There are no comments allowed on the article, so I don’t think this list is meant to generate a discussion. It appears to me that these are “gotcha” questions that are supposed to disprove feminism just by being asked. The questions don’t accomplish this, though—they only demonstrate that the author knows very little about feminism.

1) How is being pro-choice, or pro-abortion, supporting equality for all: mother, father, and baby?

It’s not! Reproductive rights for women are absolutely not about equality between mother, father and baby. They are about women taking control of our own bodies, and as a result, taking control over our whole lives. If women cannot help getting pregnant any time a sperm enters our bodies, then we are not in control over our lives. We are dependent upon whoever got us pregnant to provide for us while we are giving birth and raising young children. Men who get us pregnant are not always willing to support us and sometimes they can be abusive. In order for a woman to control when and if she gets pregnant, she has to have methods to prevent pregnancy. Abortion is one part of a reproductive health care system, and it’s necessary because sometimes birth control methods can fail, and sometimes a pregnancy is the result of a rape, and a woman shouldn’t be forced to carry a fetus to term if she does not wish to be a mother.

The only way in which abortion rights create equality between women and men is in the sense of levelling the playing field. Men can already go through their lives without the fear of having to care for an unplanned baby, because they do not get pregnant. With a full array of birth control options and access to legal abortion, women can also plan their lives as they see fit without being derailed or burdened with pregnancies they haven’t wanted. If you see feminists claiming that abortion rights are about equality, this is what they’re referring to.

Children are not equal to adults because of their age. Being immature and in need of adult care means that they cannot be considered equal to adults. Children cannot drive or vote, for example. This has nothing to do with feminism, and it has everything to do with their immaturity.

2) Do you really believe that American women are horribly oppressed when there are women in other countries that cannot vote, drive, file for divorce, etc?

It’s not necessary to use examples of human rights abuses from other countries to prove that women are oppressed. There are human rights atrocities happening to women right in America. American women and girls are being trafficked for sex, they’re being coerced into unwanted and abusive sex acts in the porn industry, they’re being underpaid in their work compared to their male peers and they’re overrepresented among the poor, they are subject to rape, assault, harassment, stalking, and wife-battering. Feminists draw connections between all the abuses that men subject us to and the relations of power that create these abuses. Men are overrepresented in positions of power in government and the private sector, they have more money than women do, and they have created the laws and the religions that shape our culture. They have created a world that puts their interests above women’s. This is true in both America and abroad.

The reason why you believe that women have it better here is because you have relative privilege. You are a student at Yale, and your economic class privilege has given you opportunities that other women don’t have. However, even a rich woman such as yourself can experience sexual harassment and rape. Your perpetrator would likely get away with it, since perpetrators are rarely ever punished. Please remember that there are many women less fortunate than you, even in America, and that the reason you are able to attend university at all is a right that was won for you by the feminist movement.

3) How do you hold yourself on such a pedestal for promoting “equality for all women” but then bash women who do not agree with you?

I don’t hold myself on a pedestal, I’m just a regular person. Radical feminists are more about women’s liberation than women’s equality. We want to take away the power men have to abuse us and we want to stop the epidemic of male violence against women. The concept of equality is a liberal concept. I don’t, for example, want women to have the ability to abuse as many people as men do. I’m not gonna start campaigning that women have to do as much human trafficking as men do, in order to be equal to them. We do want to be equal in the eyes of the law but this doesn’t really address what the problem is. The problem is male power and the fact that they use it to exploit women.

I don’t think I “bash” women who don’t agree with me, but I’ll definitely call out a woman who is being misogynist or who is completely ignorant and nonsensical. Feminism doesn’t mean I have to support women who are doing something harmful or stupid, and it doesn’t mean that any woman’s behavior is beyond critique. Feminists fight for rights for all women, which includes the ones we disagree with. Feminism is not a therapy group where we have to support everyone’s dumb opinions no matter what.

4) Why do you consider government restrictions on abortion “politicians being all up in your business” but are happy with politicians and the government dictating which healthcare you must have, what you must learn in school, and taxing you left and right?

I don’t think the government should make personal decisions for people about their reproductive health or when and how to reproduce. As such, the government shouldn’t tell people they must have a specific number of children, or tell couples which form of birth control to use, or make decisions to sterilize people without their consent, etc. The government shouldn’t tell men when to have vasectomies any more than they should tell women when they cannot have an abortion. These are private medical decisions.

However, this doesn’t mean that the government shouldn’t collect tax money in order to do the things taxes were conceived of to do. The reason we have a government is to organize our political life and build infrastructure such as roads, schools, etc. These are things we need and someone has to pay for them. Consider this: the private sector would still have to build the same infrastructure we have now, even if they weren’t taxed, because they need things like roads and schools in order to conduct business. The money would be spent anyway, even if the private sector was in control of where to build roads.

I think it’s really poor logic to say that if I don’t want the government making private medical decisions for people then I also have to be against the collective organization of necessary public infrastructure.

“Dictating what healthcare people can have.” Is this about the creation of a universal health care system? I’m not all that familiar with U.S. healthcare, but I do believe in universal health care because it provides health care for the poor. Without universal health care, many poor people would simply die sooner because they can’t access medical treatment. This is morally wrong, obviously. I don’t think the government should dictate personal health decisions to individuals, though. I also don’t think the government should dictate what people learn in school. Students should choose for themselves what subjects to study. For obvious reasons, school instruction should stick to what is true and factual when teaching lessons—so no creationism, for example. This isn’t really about feminism, it’s about quality education.

5) Why are you more concerned about fictional characters on fictional television shows getting fictionally raped than real men having their real lives ruined by very false rape accusations? I’m looking at you, Rolling Stone.

Huh? I’m generally totally unconcerned about fictional rape. I mean, it sucks when TV shows unnecessarily include rape scenes, just to titillate the viewers who love rape, but I have to say that even radical feminists like watching Game of Thrones, so we must not be that pissed? I don’t watch Game of Thrones myself, but I do watch Family Guy, which makes jokes about rape. Sometimes feminists need to take a break from fighting the patriarchy and just watch some TV. If we were in charge of creating TV shows, we’d definitely decide not to include the rape scenes.

False rape accusations are not an epidemic. They only occur with the same frequency as false accusations of other crimes. What there is is an epidemic of men who really have raped and get away with it. You are citing Rolling Stone here. That is a mainstream magazine and is not connected in any way with radical feminism. I would advise you to never trust what a mainstream magazine says about feminism—they almost always get it wrong.

6) Why have you let Lena Dunham become a spokesperson for your cause, a woman who has admitted to taking advantage of her younger sister sexually and doing “anything a sexual predator might do”?

I’m really embarrassed for you that you think an actress/comedian is a spokesperson for radical feminism. That is some incredible ignorance right there.

First of all, there are no leaders in radical feminism. Radical feminism is a movement to liberate women from oppression, and it’s happening all over the world as women work to change the conditions they are living in. Radical feminism is an analysis of women’s oppression and a call to action against male violence. If our movement did have leaders, they would be the women who are leading campaigns to change the conditions for women. Celebrities such as actresses and pop singers are definitely not the people who are doing political work on behalf of women—they’re just women who happen to get attention from mainstream media since they work in the entertainment industry.

If we were to consider the women in America who have become well-known because of their political work to liberate women, we could name such famous second-wave feminists as Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, bell hooks, and Gloria Steinem. Currently, Gail Dines is a famous radical feminist living in America (although born in England). Of course, there are many more. Most radical feminists work on the front lines in places such as women’s shelters, and they aren’t getting attention from mainstream media.

It sounds like your knowledge of “feminism” is coming from scanning magazine articles about celebrities. You are a student at Yale, so I think this is not only a poor reflection on you, but also a poor reflection on Ivy-League education, if you think that hastily-written and poorly-researched magazine articles about celebrities are a place to learn about serious social movements.

Meghan Murphy wrote about the Lena Dunham situation here. Dunham was still a child herself when she looked inside her sister’s vagina to see what was there. The situation wasn’t even sexual, she was just curious about human bodies. Most kids are curious about human bodies, and I remember kids showing other kids their parts when I was little, too. Conservatives have spun this situation into something that it’s not just because they hate liberal women.

7) Do you really think being able to walk around topless is a freedom that women need to live a good life?

No, I don’t. I’d like the world to be safe enough for women that we wouldn’t get assaulted if we were topless, but being topless in public just for the sake of toplessness isn’t generally a thing that women want. Are you confusing the publicity stunts that some women pull while topless with radical feminist political work? Because once against, I’m embarrassed for you.

8) How do you make supporting the right to abortion a tenant of feminism when the majority of abortions performed worldwide are due to the child being female, or also known as gender-selective abortions?

The right to legal, safe abortion is one part of the reproductive rights that women need in order to be in control over our bodies and our lives, as I’ve already mentioned. The reason some societies perform sex-selective abortions is because women and girls are undervalued and considered subordinate to men. Feminists are working to change this so that women and girls are considered fully human persons. We do not approve of the selective killing of either female fetuses or born females, because this is wrong.

It’s really poor logic to say that because women are being killed for being female, we therefore shouldn’t have reproductive rights.

9) When you say “Teach men not to rape” are you meaning to imply that men have been, in the past, taught TO rape, or that men are the only people capable of rape. Mary-Kay Letourneau, anyone?

Yes, men are taught to rape. This doesn’t mean that parents sit down with their young boys and give them a talk about how they should rape women when they grow up. It’s not something that is named and taught so explicitly. Boys are taught that they are superior to girls, that men are the head of the household, that men are better at decision-making, that women and girls exist to please them, that a woman’s job is to be a wife and mother, that certain women are “whores” who are asking for it, and that men shouldn’t be held accountable for coercing women or taking advantage of women. They are taught this by law, religion, custom and culture (particularly porn). This all adds up to making men think they have the right to use women’s bodies as they see fit, and that women should accept being used as sex objects.

“Teach men not to rape” is a slogan that refers to teaching men to think of women as fully human persons who have their own autonomy and agency, and who have the right to decline sex. It means teaching boys that coercing women and taking advantage of women who are drunk or otherwise vulnerable is unacceptable. It means teaching men that they don’t own women, whether it’s their wives, their daughters, or women who are being prostituted. Men don’t own us and they need to stop behaving as though they do. No matter what a woman’s relationship is with a man, she always has the right to say no to sex. Even in 2017, there are men who believe that being married to a woman, or paying a woman money, means they have the legal right to rape her.

10) Do you really think the original feminists, the women who fought for the right to vote, would be proud of you fighting for the right to bare your lady parts, abort your children and shame men into submission like you claim they would?

Radical feminists aren’t fighting for the right to “bare our lady parts.” Where on earth are you getting this from? It’s liberal, sex-pozzie women who fight for the right to be naked and act as sex objects, and this is more aligned with anti-feminism.

Children don’t get aborted, since children are already born. Only fetuses get aborted. In fact, most abortions are performed in the first trimester when the fertilized egg hasn’t even reached fetushood yet.

I’m not sure who’s trying to “shame men into submission.” It certainly isn’t radical feminists. I don’t think anyone else is either. I don’t want any human to be ashamed or submissive. I want all humans to be happy and healthy and behave ethically.

I do think early feminists would be proud of the current work that radical feminists are doing. You seem to know absolutely nothing about what radical feminists are doing today. You appear to spend all your time making fun of what you see in celebrity gossip columns and thinking that that is feminism. What radical feminists are actually doing today is campaigning against pornography, prostitution, surrogacy, and other human rights abuses. We have succeeded in getting the Nordic Model passed in several countries and we have brought awareness to large numbers of people that pornography is a public health crisis. We’re doing great work—you should really check it out sometime.

In which I answer a reader question and get rather depressing

Reader Yinzadi asked me the following:

Would you consider writing a post about why you’re a statist communist, and not anarcho-communist? I’ve never met a communist/socialist IRL whom I felt comfortable asking that, and with your insightfulness I’d trust your answer as representative more than most people’s. With statist capitalists and anarcho-capitalists the difference seems to always be whether they’re utilitarian or voluntaryist, but I don’t know enough about socialism to know if that holds true across economic philosophies.

This was on my post Personal Freedom, where I talked about how, despite what capitalists claim, communism would actually give us freedom. Apparently what I wrote there makes me a “statist communist.” Interesting!

I think you overestimate me though, Yinzadi. I do consider it a compliment to be referred to as a communist, but I’m still at a beginner level with understanding what communism is. I know that attempts have been made at communism in a few countries already and generally have not succeeded as well as we’d like them to have or have ended completely. I haven’t read anything about any of these countries and I know nothing about what exactly was implemented, why it didn’t work, or how close it was to “real” communism.

I always do respond to reader requests as long as they’re sincerely asked, so I will jot down a few things here, as long as you understand that I’m not an expert on communism.

Generally speaking I have remained undecided as to whether I lean more anarchist or more authoritarian. Sometimes I lean toward one side, and at various times I’ve leaned on both of those sides. It’s really hard to know what would work because I’m limited to only knowing how it is under our current system, and I can’t possibly compare an anarchist communist system to a statist communist system since I haven’t lived them.

What I care about even more than I care about anarchy vs authority is whether or not patriarchy has been eradicated. What’s most important for women is not whether the government is big or small but whether we can live in safety without being held in domestic servitude and sexual slavery. I know from radical feminist writing (Particularly Right Wing Women by Andrea Dworkin) that there is a long history of left-wing men not caring about women’s rights, and from my observations of the so-called “Left” today, I’d say nothing has changed. (I say “so-called Left” because I don’t believe that most of the people who are considered “Left” in North America are actually on the Left. They’re generally just idiotic first-world liberals who don’t realize their politics are pro-capitalist.)

Both an anarchist system and a statist system could potentially be bad for women. As I wrote in my post Personal Freedom, when you give unlimited freedom to men, a lot of them make a choice to abuse and enslave women. If you look at the male-led extremist organizations in various parts of the world today, no matter how much they care about their own freedom, they still believe it’s acceptable to kidnap women and make them sex slaves. Anarchist men in North America (who call themselves anti-fascist but aren’t actually doing what actual anti-fascists do) similarly think that it’s acceptable to be violent toward women and that women’s purpose is to provide them with whatever they want. We can’t trust any sort of men of any political stripe who are fighting for their freedom to fight for women’s freedom, too.

Although it’s a nice idea to have a small government and everybody just get along and do what they’re supposed to do, I fear what men would do to us if there was no organized society and rules and expectations for decent behavior imposed on them. Even in our present civilization with a legal system that supposedly, on paper at least, protects women from harm, it’s still pretty much open season on women, so I certainly wouldn’t want to have less protection that we have now. Which brings me to my next point, which is that even with a state-run legal system, it’s pretty much open season on women, so a state-run system is not going to benefit us either, until we eliminate patriarchy.

There are some things to be said about statist communism, and that is that it provides women with things like an income and daycare, and therefore doesn’t make us dependent on men. Since women can’t spend their full days providing for themselves while pregnant and breastfeeding and caring for small children, we are dependent on somebody, whether a spouse, an extended family, or the state, to provide for our needs while we are producing the next generation. If women are dependent on the state, there is much less likelihood for wife-battering or marital rape because she can just leave if he’s being abusive. The sex trade also wouldn’t exist if women were guaranteed an income. The elimination of domestic violence and prostitution would go a very long way toward making women safer.

It’s an interesting question whether I’m a voluntarist or not. It does seem wrong to me for a government to impose an economic system onto a non-consenting public, so if people don’t want communism, then it becomes morally wrong to impose it. And this is where it’s going to become obvious that I’m part “doomer.”

Theoretically, I think if people understood that communism means fairness and equality, then they would be for it, and as soon as someone realized that they have more than they need while others don’t have enough, they would be willing to share, and as soon as someone in the first world realized that we are destroying the environment and exploiting other countries with our lifestyle, they would be prepared to willingly change their lifestyle, and that people would be willing to let go of their greed and work together for the greater good, even though it may not be fun. I think all these things are perfectly reasonable, and quite easy to understand, and also necessary for our very survival, but the problem is a really large number of people (maybe most people) are more concerned about their own immediate comfort, don’t think that greed is morally wrong, and don’t care about the greater good. This brings us to a philosophical question: is it morally right to impose the greater good onto an unwilling population that prefers to be greedy? I’m not going to answer that, I just wish this wasn’t the question we had to ask. I wish this wasn’t a question at all because I wish that people intrinsically wanted to do the right thing. The fact that people don’t want to do the right thing leaves me in despair and leaves me wondering why I ever bother with anything.

I believe that culture is part of what shapes our personalities, and we live in a culture that specifically promotes and rewards the vices of greed and self-centeredness. One in fact must exploit others in order to survive under capitalism, because the system is designed to run on exploitation. So we have vast numbers of people who believe that exploitation is not only acceptable but unavoidable and necessary, and, in a way, they’re right, because if they weren’t exploiting anybody they’d be earning no money, and if exploitation ended, the whole system would go down. However, if a whole generation grew up in a system that provided for everyone’s needs fairly and without exploitation, then I believe most of them would not believe in exploiting others and would find the idea of exploitation abhorrent.

The question becomes: how do we get there from here? I don’t know, and I don’t think anybody does, because the problem is unfathomably large, but one thing I know is that it won’t be calm or peaceful. Since humans are too stupid to cognitively realize what needs to be done and decide to do it, and since we’re trained to value greed and self-centeredness, we’re not going to end capitalism, and it’s going to reach its natural end when there’s no more natural resources to exploit, there’s no more suitable land to grow food on, and all the humans are left to kill each over the last remaining resources. I think this process has begun already. If there are any survivors, they will be indigenous populations living off the land in remote areas.

Last year I read the Deep Green Resistance book, and it’s meant to be a call to action, and it’s not meant to promote doomerism, but what it did to me is induce depression and despair. I think I’ll always be in despair because there is no real Left and everybody is doing nothing but navel gazing and avoiding solving any real problems. North Americans keep electing conservative politicians because our primary concern is keeping all the money in the hands of the rich and not sharing.

What would my utopia look like then, if human beings could survive the fall of capitalism and if we could create a better civilization? When I imagine a utopia I don’t necessarily even think about statism versus anarchism, because what I think about is what should be produced and how, and what values humans should have. We should only produce what we need to be healthy and happy, and we should produce it in a way that provides for everyone equally and doesn’t destroy the environment. What humans realistically need to produce is just enough food to keep us full, and houses big enough to shelter us and clothing that can keep us warm, and tools to help us with the processes that we need to perform. Then we need things related to health care, transportation, culture, etc. We should value being ecological, fair and humane. We should not value pride, showing off, and “looking rich.” The concept of looking rich should not exist. We should gain happiness from the basic things that human beings derive happiness from: spending quality time with our loved ones, eating together, seeing our children grow up, creating culture, and enjoying the beauty of nature.

We should design a system that requires these positive values to make it run, and that minimizes human vice. Our system should provide for our needs without destroying the environment. Whatever system can do this is a good system. I don’t know how to do this, but I do know that the question of how to create a better system should be the foremost concern of humanity right now, not dumb shit like what the Kardashian family is up to these days. I also know that we have enough research and knowledge already, as a species, to figure out how to create such a system, and we could do it, if we weren’t so stupid and greedy.

Sorry if that was depressing!

Non binary identity aka not fitting in with the popular clique

Here is a young woman who made a video called “How I knew I was non binary.”

Since this is the title of the video, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the things she talks about in her video are the reasons why she knew she was non binary. This is what she talks about in her video:

  • In fifth grade, a girl called her legs “gross” because she hadn’t shaved them, and she didn’t understand why her legs were gross. She hadn’t even reached puberty yet.
  • In middle school there was strong policing of gender by her peers and she felt depressed. She knew it was ridiculous to try and fit in by being as girly as she could, however, this is what she did.
  • A girl she knew put on lip gloss to kiss a boy she had a crush on but she didn’t like wearing that kind of lip gloss. (However in the video she has lipstick on, so….?)
  • She got up early in the morning to style her hair and do her makeup because she felt she had to do this to fit in. She considers compliments about her hair to be signs of “fitting in.” However, she didn’t feel like herself while doing this.
  • One day, she cut her hair short and wore androgynous clothes, and her mother expressed her disapproval because people might think she’s a boy. She thought it was okay if people thought she was a boy.
  • She remembers being happier and more extroverted when she was young enough that people hadn’t started policing her appearance.
  • In senior high school, she wanted to throw out all her girls’ clothes and buy all boys’ clothes, but she was dating a jerk boyfriend and wanted his approval, so she “pretended to be a girl.”
  • She felt validated while reading Tumblr posts about non binary.

Wow! Based on this information, being non binary means being a whole, unique person with a distinct personality who doesn’t meet the shallow, limiting criteria for behavior set by middle school kids. According to this explanation, I’m non binary and so are every person I’ve ever gotten along with, because we’ve also never met the dumb expectations of the popular clique. But I don’t call myself non binary, because I don’t think that’s a useful way to describe what’s happening here.

Non binary identity is an attempt to identify outside of your actual sex in order to avoid having sex-related stereotypes placed on you by other people. It’s not just a synonym for androgynous, which would make some sense, but instead it’s supposed to imply that the sex of your body doesn’t exist and you are neither male nor female (despite not actually having an intersex condition.) Actually, if non binary was a synonym for intersex, that would probably make more sense—if you didn’t have the usual sex characteristics that males and females come with 99% of the time, then “non binary” could describe that. But non binary is not about physical sex characteristics, it’s about the social gender role.

In this video, the young woman talks mostly about having her appearance policed by other people, (her peers and her mother,) and them wanting her to meet their current definition of how girls and women should look. This is a totally normal experience that girls go through as they’re growing up. Depending on how much sexism there is among the people they grow up around, girl children are taught to varying degrees that girls have to look a certain way in order to be acceptable. If a girl is lucky, and her family and peers are not sexist, then she’ll be allowed to be herself. But if her family and peers are sexist, as many people are, then they’ll teach her that she absolutely must look feminine or else she’s a failure as a human being. That’s what happened with the woman in this video. Her peers were very sexist, and it sounds like her mother was too, and that led to her feeling like she needed to style her hair and wear makeup in order to be acceptable, even though she didn’t feel like herself when engaging in these behaviours.

There are lots of reasons why kids and teens are sexist. They learn it from their families, their religions and the media, and a few developmental characteristics makes them very keen on enforcing the rules they’ve learned. Kids and teens are unsure of themselves and very concerned about fitting in. Since they are immature they haven’t developed the ability to find their self-worth from within, and they try to find it through superficial signs of acceptance from their peers. They don’t have well developed social skills and so they engage in bullying and other anti-social behaviours. Boys learn that they have to behave in domineering and aggressive ways in order to be acceptable as boys, and they enforce this on each other. Girls learn that they have to be pretty and pleasing to boys, and they enforce this on other girls. These sexist attitudes come directly from patriarchy, which all children are socialized into.

Lesbian and bisexual women are very likely not to fit the feminine gender role, since it’s entirely based on heterosexuality. However, there are also straight women who don’t fit into femininity. There are plenty of straight women who don’t feel comfortable being limited in life to wife and mother and having her whole existence center around pleasing her man. The reason why there has been a feminist movement going on for decades now is because large numbers of women don’t identify with the sexist expectations placed on us and the limited role reserved for us in patriarchy.

This particular “non binary” woman is attracted to men and eager for their approval, and she is struggling to find a balance between pleasing men and staying true to herself. Surely this is a common experience among all women who are attracted to men, especially when they are in high school.

When I see young women who are going through the normal experience of having their appearance policed by high school peers and believing this makes them literally not female, I realize that navigating a sexist, heteronormative high school social environment is just as difficult as ever and yet we are farther away from helping girls navigate it than we used to be. All these same things happened to me when I was in school. The girls around me had arbitrary, silly, nonsensical, strongly-held beliefs that I was supposed to wear certain clothes, listen to certain music, and say certain things, and if I messed up it was their job to punish me for my transgression. It was terrifying and confusing for me because no one ever explained to me ahead of time what the rules were, and I never knew I was breaking one until the punishment came. Completely random things, like a zipper being in the wrong spot on a pair of pants, or a jacket being “too shiny,” were cause for belittling people.

When I was in high school there was a different word for those of us who didn’t understand the social rules and couldn’t follow them. We called ourselves “outsiders.” We may have gotten this word from the excellent young adult book The Outsiders, actually. Whatever vocabulary young people are given to explain their experiences is the vocabulary they will use. In the 1990s, nobody was telling us that if we didn’t fit in with the popular clique then our biological sex didn’t exist and we had to take on a “gender identity.” The experience of not fitting it hasn’t changed a bit, but the way we conceive of our differences has changed into something totally nonsensical.

There are a few things that I would tell my younger self, to help her navigate the strange and scary world of middle and high school, based on my adult knowledge of the world. The first thing I’d tell her is that social skills aren’t what she thinks they are. I used to think that social skills meant being “cool” and popular, and knowing how to do and say the right things to not get made fun of. Now that I’m an adult, I know that I had good social skills all along, but my peers did not. I knew how to treat people with respect, honour differences, appreciate a person for her personality rather than her appearance, and be kind to my friends. The kids at my school who were bullies were the ones with poor social skills. They didn’t know how to get along with other people, they were shallow and superficial and mean. They needed to be taught better how to interact with their peers.

The second thing I’d tell my younger self is that it was good that I didn’t meet the dumb criteria set by the girls at school. It was good that I wasn’t so shallow that I thought clothing had to only be the latest styles by designer brands, and it was good that I didn’t make rude, snappy comebacks and put people down, because that doesn’t make you cool, it makes you an asshole, and it was good that I had interests in arts and culture and the humanities, even though this made me “nerdy” when I was young. All the things about me that the bullies didn’t like were the things that would make me the person I am, make me proud of myself as an adult, and save my life over and over. My interest in the arts has always been the thing that keeps me from being suicidal. It’s been the main thing that makes sense to me in life and the thing that makes me feel the joy of human existence. It was good that nobody managed to bully that wonderful blessing out of me.

I would then explain to my younger self that superficial approval from my peers in the form of them liking my clothes or hair didn’t actually consist of a meaningful friendship. Further, the people who are really shallow and superficial were not even capable of meaningful friendship. The deep friendships I had with a small number of other nerdy girls were worth thousands of times more than the superficial approval from shallow assholes that I kept craving.

I would also explain to my younger self that the reason I didn’t think I needed an expensive salon haircut and a push-up bra starting at age 13 is because I was a feminist who resisted being a sex object for men and who saw herself as a fully human person. This was a positive thing about me. One of the reasons I found a lot of my female peers’ behavior baffling is because I was a lesbian and I didn’t think the same way they did. I didn’t have this sophisticated understanding back then, but I had an instinct that being overly sexualized and dressed up was not for me, and didn’t make much sense for anybody. Those girls who were 13-going-on-20 were groomed by a sexist culture and they were entering dangerous territory. Some of them were hurt while trying to please boys in these shallow ways.

High school girls who don’t fit in with the popular clique don’t need a gender identity label, they need to be taught how to navigate bullying and sexism. They need to understand that this sort of bullying has been happening for a long time, at least several decades, and maybe since time immemorial, and their mothers dealt with it too. They need to understand what positive values and good social skills are and identify bullies and sexism as the problems. They need to understand that their natural personalities are not a problem and don’t cancel out their womanhood in any way, because women do in fact have a variety of personalities. Girls and women who resist sexist expectations are normal girls and women, and if they need to be given any sort of label, a really useful label would be feminist. Girls who take on a gender identity label are not exempt from sexist expectations, because they are still female and sexist expectations are enforced based on sex, not internally-felt identities.

The main thing the feminist movement has taught me is that trying to identify your way out of oppression by claiming to be “not like the other girls” doesn’t work as a strategy. The strategy that will work to end sexism and female oppression is the strategy of making structural changes to society so that women are freed from being sex objects for men. As long as women are oppressed based on our sex, we will be targeted for misogyny, regardless of how we feel we identify. The more steps we make toward the goal of ending patriarchy, the fewer girls there will be who feel extreme discomfort when they’re expected to meet the demands of femininity, which is literally the social role created to keep us subordinate to men.

Women: better flush twice, your toilet might be monitored

I couldn’t believe it when I saw this article from the small town of Cahokia in Illinois, U.S.A. A janitor found a discarded menstruation product in a toilet and thought it might be a fetus, so the police and the coroner were called to inspect the mysterious item.

From the site kmov.com:

Sheriff: Item found in Cahokia school bathroom was feminine hygiene product, not fetus

The item a custodian found in a Cahokia middle school bathroom has been identified as feminine hygiene products, according to the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department.

The St. Clair County Sheriff’s Office said they were called to the Wirth/Parks Middle School after the custodian found what he believed to be a fetus in the girls bathroom Wednesday night.

After the discovery was made, a hearse was brought out to the school to take what was found to the coroner’s office so authorities could figure out what it was.

Thursday morning, the sheriff’s office said the item was not a fetus but feminine hygiene products.

No other information has been released.

Un-fucking-believable! Men are so paranoid that women might discard undeveloped fetal tissue instead of incubating it that they pull tampons out of toilets and have them inspected by the authorities. They are so ignorant about how female bodies work that they can’t even identify a tampon while looking at it. It’s not anyone’s damn business what women flush down toilets after it’s discarded by our bodies. And this was a middle school! Like, you can be just 12 years old and getting your first period and the local male establishment is already inspecting your bodily secretions to try to identify any signs of wrongdoing so they can persecute you.

Imagine how paranoid and fucking hysterical you have to be to call a hearse just because you found a bloody tampon. For gawd sake, boys, stay in your lane.

I hope the girls at this school all grow up to be radical feminists. Let’s BURN THIS SHIT DOWN!

Changing definitions

If you are reading this blog, then you likely know that there is a push to change the definition of the word ‘woman.’ This word has always been what we call female humans, much in the same way that we call a female horse a ‘mare’ and a female deer a ‘doe.’ We give specific names to the male and female members of species because sex differences are significant in animals that reproduce sexually.

Male humans who feel they identify as female humans want the definition of the word that designates female humans changed to include them. This would cause the word ‘woman’ to be synonymous with ‘human.’ In the transgenderist belief system, a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. (This is a circular definition, and doesn’t name what a woman is at all.) Since identification with the social category of ‘woman’ is something any human can claim, regardless of their personal characteristics, there is nothing to distinguish the category of ‘woman’ from any other category. A fully-intact male with a beard and mustache who behaves with typical masculine socialization can call himself a ‘woman’ as long as ‘woman’ is a broad social category that includes anyone who makes a self-declaration.

Feminists disagree with changing the definition of ‘woman’ to accommodate human males for two reasons. As I have shown above, it makes the word ‘woman’ meaningless. In addition, violent males can legally declare themselves ‘women’ under this system, and that means they can gain access to sex-segregated spaces designed to protect females from dangerous men such as them. Those same dangerous males would also be counted as females in crime statistics, making it impossible to tell who is actually committing crimes.

One of the tactics that trans activists use to attempt to dismiss feminists’ valid concerns is to compare our not wanting to change the definition of ‘woman’ to conservatives not wanting to change the definition of ‘marriage.’ These are quite different situations. Trans activists want to present feminists as unreasonably rigid, old-fashioned, and prejudiced because we don’t want to update definitions. This is not the case.

I’d be completely willing to change the definition of ‘woman’ if it made any sense to do so. However, after giving it a lot of thought, and realizing that there is no other coherent definition of woman other than ‘adult human female,’ and considering the real-world impact on women of allowing human males to call themselves by our name, I cannot support this change.

The reason we have words is to communicate. If a word communicates absolutely nothing, then it’s useless as a word. I could go around calling myself a Ghrymk, but unless I define the characteristics of a Ghrymk, you will not understand what I mean. Having a word with no meaning is already absurd, and taking a word that has had a universally-understood meaning for hundreds of years and suddenly making it devoid of meaning is doubly absurd.

The change in the definition of marriage is quite another story. Marriage is a social institution whereby two people declare a commitment to each other and are legally considered a bonded pair. Changing the conception of marriage from between heterosexuals only to between people of any orientation doesn’t significantly alter what marriage is. It’s still a legal union between two romantic partners. It’s still a coherent concept, and in fact when same-sex partners enter into marriage their union is almost identical to the union of opposite-sex couples. The only difference is that the same-sex couple cannot produce children through sexual intercourse. Everything else is the same about the relationship—living together, being in love, cooking meals together, celebrating anniversaries, supporting each other through illnesses and hard times, spending quality time together and having sex. The opposition to this very slight change in the meaning of the word marriage has not made much sense. People argue that a union between same-sex persons is not a marriage because it doesn’t produce children, but there has been no movement to stop infertile or voluntarily childless couples from being considered legally married. People also argue that their belief in a non-existent mythological character means that homosexual persons should not have civil rights. However, this fails as an argument because people’s imaginary beliefs cannot dictate the law.

Since the definition of marriage remains coherent, and in fact not very different from before, and since opposition to the change has been nonsensical, this is a completely opposite situation from the change to the word ‘woman.’

I’d like to see anyone define a social category of person called ‘woman’ that includes both human males and human females. It would be gloriously entertaining to watch the attempt. What characteristics are shared universally among both human females and human males who wish they were female, I’d like to know? It isn’t biology, we know that. It isn’t thoughts or feelings because women have all sorts of different thoughts and feelings. It isn’t behavior because women engage in all sorts of different behaviours. What is it? If the definition of ‘woman’ is to ever change, then someone is going to have to name the characteristic that is universal to all ‘self-declared women,’ and I predict this will be impossible. And no, it can’t be that the person ‘identifies as a woman,’ because that phrase gives no indication as to what people are identifying as. They might as well identify as a Ghrymk.

Ironically, if trans activists do bully linguists into defining ‘woman’ in a way that includes males, that will likely result in another large wave of Peak Trans. That’s also a show I want to watch. I’ll be making a big bowl of popcorn for that one!