The calling me a TERF snd hater came from a coworker but the condemnation of me the next workday included and was supported by management. Then i was fired two days later. My employer even denied my unemployment for “misconduct” related to my alleged mistreatment of my trans identified co-workers. However, there was nothing but the email exchange about abortion rights. My employer didn’t even bother showing up. I won my unemployment hearing.
Feminism is not to blame for this ideology erasing sex. We fought for the elimination of sexism, NOT sex. Women can and have done every job and profession that men have done when given an opportunity. We are still female. Male supremacy or patriarchy is a social phenemenon, rather then an inevitable result of the biologucal differences between the sexes.
My parents both grew up in abject poverty. While my mom leans left politically, the group she most despises are feminists. Her own mother was a night time union organizer. My mom’s watched feminists with this bull 💩 attitude that women and men can do the same jobs cost countless poor women good paying factory jobs. Why? Feminists demanded equal pay, but women can’t physically haul around 60ibs all day long. Poor women women lost their jobs in mass in the name of pretending men and women aren’t different. We are!! How many young women have to be sacrificed to this anti-science nonsense before that plain truth is acknowledged?
Have you ever watched women and men work physical jobs together? I have. It's interesting.
The men are faster and stronger, the women are more consistent, make fewer mistakes, and maintain peak performance for longer.
For every company that went out of business due to the physical performance of the female workers, there's 100 companies that went out of business because the men did some stupid reckless shit that never would've happened had they had a few women on hand to knock some sense into them but didn't because they'd frozen women out of advancement in the profession.
And just to be clear, all-female management teams do stupid shit too because of the testosterone shortage.
I'm guessing you mean more consistently slow, make fewer mistakes because the lack of speed affords fewer opportunities to make mistakes, and maintains peak performance, which is much lower than men's peak performance.
Women can do most physical jobs just fine. I know, I've worked with them - in farming, landscaping, construction and house painting. You are thinking of relatively rare jobs.
The women that lived in my moms poor and working class community in Ohio were unemployed all the same. There is also no data to justify your opinion on women being more consistent - that’s nothing but an opinion that isn’t backed by observable and replicated fact. It’s theoretical pontificating in an attempt to replace reality with your wishes. If women were really do much more “consistent” - to the point a company was 100 times less likely to make a catastrophic mistake - men wouldn’t be the ones actually working 90% of physically demanding manual labor jobs (per Brookings Institute). I’m sorry, but I am tired of this woke mentality that disregards incredibly negative actual outcomes with baseless theories back by zero actual data.
"ALONG WITH LARGER hearts and lungs, men also have a greater number of red blood cells (linked to the production of testosterone), which can give them an advantage in terms of oxygen delivery throughout the body—particularly for endurance sports such as running or cycling. Yet women appear to be metabolically better suited for endurance.
Research indicates that women are better able to manage glucose—a simple sugar used by the body for energy—and store it in muscle, where it can be quickly used when taking part in endurance events. Women also have more adiponectin (a hormone that regulates fat metabolism) and a higher concentration of fatty acids and intramuscular triglycerides. These factors can all enhance glucose use and fat-burning capacities during endurance exercise, and may delay the phenomenon of “hitting the wall”—the point at which an athlete feels they cannot go any further.
Anatomically, women tend to have a greater proportion of “slow-twitch” muscle fibers: These are less powerful but more fatigue resistant. Conversely, men on average have more “fast-twitch” fibers that produce quick, powerful bursts of strength but fatigue quickly."
As someone in STEM I'd like to point out that the first article you linked to focuses heavily on papers where there are six or more authors. As anyone in STEM could tell you, papers with six or more authors involve research where the ideas and workload are highly unlikely to be distributed evenly. My (correct) knee-jerk reaction when someone says they're published but then I see they're one of half a dozen authors on their paper is, "oh, it's one of THOSE papers". There's really no telling from a paper with lots of authors whether any given author did anything noteworthy or if they were dead weight. Sounds like the perfect environment to foster diversity without risking too much.
First study - is about STEM teams, not physically demanding manual labor jobs
Second study - white collar professional teams, no manual labor jobs
Third quote - 4,000 men have faster times than the fastest female marathon runner on Earth. There is no distance sport that women outperform men, or even on par with men. Every time the U.S. women’s national World Cup team plays the national U16 boys team (14 and 15 year old boys) the women have gotten crushed. There is no speed sport women outperform men, or even perform on par. There is no strength sport that women perform on
I wish you well in life but I have am not interested in continuing to disprove your theories with plainly evident reality and replicated actual outcomes. You have made clear you find reality irritating to your world view, so you ignore realities n favor of debunked theories.
Come on now, you can do better than tossing red herrings and running away.
Well folks, there you have it. I'd like to believe that NCmom was JUST ABOUT to agree that women and men do better working together, just like in her successful marriage.
But which feminism? Perhaps the feminism as defined by you is consistent with these goals, but that's not how all feminists think, and even if they did, the fact that one INTENDS a particular outcome doesn't mean the actions they take actually lead to that desired outcome. I'm sorry to hear this is happening to you, but to proclaim that feminism couldn't possibly be the problem is simply an assertion.
“Natural roles”? Domestic servant, prostitute, forced child bearer, no wages for labor — these are badges of slavery; there’s nothing “natural” about depriving humans of autonomy. Maybe you believe women aren’t fully human? Patriarchy destroys women, not feminism.
What the heck are you talking about? Feminist promote the idea women should strive to be nothing more than a sex doll for crappy guys who like to sleep around. By every metric we measure, women are far more miserable today than past generations. I’m 40 and all my friends who bought the baloney are miserable has beens with no sense of community and zero fulfillment in life. They are “free” to be self-centered and miserable.
I’m a happily married mom if 2 who chooses to put my family first, as does my husband, and my life is great. I don’t know a single woman whoose husband controls her in my personal life. My father never controlled my mother. My husband doesn’t tell me what to do. For the record - I love having sex with him - it’s fun to have a committed partner where sex is enjoyable and playful and fun. The actual data shows married conservative women have fantastic sex lives.
And no wages? Well, like most women I get to control the rather large checkbook and “social justice warriors” would call me “privileged.”
Feminists always wanted women to have choices about their lives. It's not about being a "sex doll for crappy guys." That sounds like what misogynistic men wanted. Good for you having a happy family life.
No they don’t. Feminists demonize anyone who is feminine. They have destroyed the lives of countless poor people by demanding women get paid the same at physical jobs which are the best jobs those women could get and lost because women aren’t men. Feminists claim killing our own flesh and blood and reducing ourselves to blow up folks is “liberating.” They demean pregnancy and fear monger about the dangers of child birth with zero mentions of the absolute joy children being to most women. They dehumanize young humans and scold those who chose the more traditional path shown to bring fulfillment in life and success to children.
Please link to these stats. I don't find this to be true at all, so I want to see the study that shows that. I, personally, am very happy with my equality.
100% accurate. A book called “the case against the sexual revolution” gets in depth on the statistics and it’s heartbreaking. Thank you for posting the other link too.
You read the book I posted? You looked into the research? Call me crazy but I don’t think it’s possible you obtained and read the book last night.
Your comment above wrecks of blind bias and attempting to assert your prior conclusions as fact, without evidence, not actually seeking the answer grounded in objective truth and replicated observed actual outcomes. I once thought like you but I chose a traditional life - not because of pressure from anyone, but because I’m crazy about my husband and have been since I met him 20 years ago when I was 20. I was a whitewater River guide in college, I went on outward bound in high school, I’ve lived more than a year of my life in a tent, and I’m as surprised as everyone I know I lead such a normal traditional life today with country clubs, a second home, private school, warm yoga, year-round tennis, kids sports, and the whole stereotypical thing (neither my husband or I came from money and we’ve never seen a penny of inheritance). At the same time I watched numerous friends descend into misery and hopelessness, too often with a side of drug or alcohol addiction, who were genuinely happy sane young women in high school and college. The commonality is they were all gullible. It’s not a surprise they bought the feminist / “progressive” crap that being childless, or at least single, and uncommitted to anything but career would bring happiness when all it’s actually brought is anger, loneliness, hurt, and total irrelevance. It lead me to actually research what the truth is. I was shocked and I am deeply grateful peer pressure has never had much impact on me because it could have been me that destroyed and wasted this precious life we get.
Falling birth rates in the west is not a “good” thing. Who do you think is going to wipe your butt when you are 80? You think a global economic collapse is “positive?” Do you know anything about what’s happening in China? Funny how it’s living entitled humans who seem to want fewer other humans yet they keep themselves alive and well as long as they can. Who do you think not having children is a “good” for??? What evidence? There isn’t any evidence it’s great for the planet or for society or for the vast majority of women to forgo family and motherhood with a father in the home. Malthusian cliffs are long debunked. Feminists have played a huge role in pushing fathers out of the home which has had devastating societal consequences for poor people. It’s as cruel and as misguided and as mean spirited as spreading poverty in the name of the “climate” even though the data shows nothing is worse for the climate and ecological health than poverty.
Anyone who cares about the planet would support policies that produce prosperity. Anyone who is concerned about emissions would support natural gas, liquid hydrogen, and nuclear. Anyone who loves humanity would support pro-human ideologies that don’t allow human suffering in the streets. Anyone who supports woman would support motherhood. Women literally exist to give birth to the next generation. That’s our biological role. You really think there are no mental health consequences to mass rejecting biology?? There are absolutely outliers but feminists pretend all women are outliers.
Anyone who supports actual women would unquestionably support women in becoming great mothers and men in becoming great fathers for that matter. Not require it, but certainly support our most basic natural instincts. Rather than giving a shit about the fact most women don’t actually want to be a caricature of men, and the vast majority of men aren’t anything like the monsters feminists claim they are, feminists continue to double down on their failed and cruel ideology that seeks to erase womanhood and replace it with the craziest and most caricatured version of manhood that exist. It isn’t making women happy - it’s making a huge percentage of them miserable.
I see you are getting a lot of attention in this thread. Women had a constitution right to abortion. That was taken away. We got the ERA ratified and they refuse to publish it.
Women aren’t obligated to provide any of those things for you or any man. I don’t think this has been said but you have some nerve making this about you. A woman lost her job and that should be the focus. Your hurt sexist feelings are irrelevant.
Women ARE equal to men - identical? No, but equal? Yes. It is not natural for a woman to be confined to her home. Women deserve financial independence through employment. It is the prerequisite to autonomy.
Any feminist who says that things are worse now for women than before is plainly wrong - about as wrong as you, who seem to be saying women are for housework.
Yes, it's gone full circle for the radical feminists. These creators and relentless pushers of victim consciousness are now being unceremoniously dumped and drowned in their own creation. And they still can't see it.
Yeah, the radical feminists have been fighting this queer theory pedo BS from the start, and still are. You're scapegoating the wrong folks. Learn something real about radical feminists, not just talking points from right-wing men. They are your allies on this particular issue.
Oh..I learned a lot from radical feminists. All of it bullshit. It wasn't right-wing men that convinced me when I was very young that a baby is just inconvenient clump of cells. 'Meaningless. Just cut it out. Flush it. It's nothing.' Now we can SEE life flourishing on ultrasounds at just a few of weeks. Radical Feminism is evil.
I think I can work with that! If the only topic we absolutely need to avoid in order to be trench mates in the gender war is abortion, then I can agree to not make Under His Eye jokes if you can lay off the baby-killing references.
I've gotten the impression that conflating "wokeness" with feminism is causing you and NCMom to have an oddly warped view of womens rights movements over the late 20thC history.
There have been multiple waves of feminism and many perspectives. I have recently become leery of describing myself as a "feminist" as there are many contemporary issues being put forward in that name which I'm in strident disagreement with. "Feminism", or the womens rights movement is not, and has never been a cohesive ideology. And precisely because it has the potential to be highly disruptive of familiar sociological systems it is constantly under attack and infiltration from actors who fear its outcomes. The version of feminism I see you and NCMom so critical of, I understand where it came from, but its not the version I've adhered to and supported.
I have read The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, as recommended by NCMom, I agree with almost all its premises and analysis. Being 63 and having lived through a lot of that era I can reflect there were many things I adopted that I wish I was more mature and educated to have been better able to think through... and I even have regrets.
But it is not the fault of the women who tried to form a movement demanding more rights, freedom and equality; a wider range of choices for all women rather than the more narrow and limited choices they were restricted to by the mid 20thC...it is not the fault of threse women that the movement was in many ways co-opted and corrupted by external forces that had malignant intentions.
At this point the feminsit movement is not dead, has never been since the Suffragettes kicked it off, it is regrouping and destined to arise more powerful than ever,
And it may surprise some scoffing conservative commentators here, but I totally support the uplifting of respect and recognition for the important role of motherhood and its benefits for a flourishing society. I have never believed that the "family", whether traditional or different, should be dismantled. I loved being a mother. I was a single mother at 21, gave a child up to adoption at 23 and had an abortion at 26. I didn't get legally married until I was 52 years old and adore my husband to bits, who supports me financially in a trad style marriage. So I've experienced a lot of different lifestyles and what I celebrate most is that I had the choices and freedoms to do so.
Abortion rights are essemtial to women’s freedom and dignity. We are not walking incubators. Pregnancy effects every organ in the body, and can threaten our health and even lives. Early abortion is far safer then giving birth. The decision whether to bear a child belongs to the womsn.
I didn't say God. That's your religious baggage putting words in my mouth. Take some advanced anatomy and physiology classes and get back to me though. If you've already done so and still remain on your petty, human, 'know it all' high horse.. then there is little hope you'll be getting down off it in this lifetime.
Oh, so when you said 'maker' you meant 'anatomy & physiology'. Of course. I teach the classes you're talking about. The fact that women can get pregnant has nothing to do with whether they should be forced to give birth. In fact it is a natural phenomenon throughout our species' history for new mothers who cannot feasibly care for their neonates to kill them - this maximizes reproductive success in a species that invests such an unusually large amount of resources into their offspring, by allowing mothers to preserve what resources they have for the future, when they may be in a more tenable position for successful child-rearing. Avoiding the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth via abortion only further enhances the success of this strategy, which has already been selected for through evolution.
The recent Circuit Court decisions impacting sex vs. gender are mostly promising, but your position isn't as protected as Maya Forstater's in the UK as I'm sure you know. Anything at all from that case applicable to yours do you think?
I don’t support either corporate Party and never have. Both parties have betrayed women in their own ways. I have been a Green Party member for many years though the national Party too betrayed theur traditional support for feminism; hence GASBR was formed. I never supported the erasure of sex and female existence and opposed this extremist ideology from the beginning. I also support free speech and the rights of workers, both male and female. I don’t demonize anyone including people I strongly disagree with. If my employer had harassed and threatened to fire a co-worker for her or his anti-abortion views, I would have gone to bat for them. I don’t think employers should have that kind of power to control the political views of their employees.
Junk science. There are so-called scientists that deny evolution, global warming, and that sex is binary. Pregnant women do feel pain, however, and sacrifice their health, sometimes their lives to carry a pregnancy and give birth. Since women are fully human and not incubators or birthing machines, our bodies should not be used against our will. Freely chosen motherhood is a wonderful thing. Forced pregnancy and childbirth is female slavery.
There are many top scientists, including a recent Physics Nobel laureate, who have come to the conclusion that CO2 emissions are not a threat, and are even beneficial. A good start is the CO2 coalition website.
I wish you the very best Ann in your fight for justice and for being able to reclaim the name of 'woman' as applying to 'adult human female.' I am shocked at all the misogynistic comments and 'whataboutery' in the other comments here.
I am disappointed by the lack of dialog in the comment section. We cannot afford to become ideologues.
You do not have to agree with everything the author says or believes, but the intolerance for different ideas has to stop.
The only way we get out of this mess is by learning how to respectfully disagree with those who think differently without ousting or “cancelling” them from the group.
I understand the historical origin of the term "radical feminist", but I believe that today it is a counterproductive meme. "Radical" conveys the notion of being far outside the mainstream, but basic women's rights are as mainstream as it gets. What "radical feminists" want, need, and deserve is in no way actually "radical", in the common understanding of the meaning of that word.
I am a feminist. This is not me. I do know some who this fits. It's not the majority who claim to be feminist, that is for sure. We need to work together, folks. We all dislike what's going on. Let's come together but please stop equating all feminists with the one type, who we all oppose (and I have since the 70s). We can't stop them unless we are able to say: "I don't agree about this (history of feminism, right to abortion, etc.) but let's work together on this (hey, two sexes is reality!) This is a very depressing, divisive thread for people who all agree on the fundamentals of male/female. This shows why we are losing. Let's win on this and fight the other battles - if there are any - later.
Thank you for standing up Ann. It takes courage to fight such irrational madness masquerading as "reality." As a retired 71 year old clinical social worker who spent 40 years in the field I've come to realize that I'd never make it through a university "education" in today's academic environment - because I prize my ability to think critically for myself. Your lawsuit is a very important act of resistance. I've spent a lifetime supporting the human rights of "all" people - and yet today I am considered a "bigot" and a "transphobe" by many because I believe "sex" exists and women should not have to share safe spaces like rape shelters, domestic violence shelters or locker rooms with human beings who have a penis. Who would ever have guessed that such a seemingly uncontroversial position might eventually become "prohibited thought?" It's pretty simple from my perspective. When the "rights" and "feelings" of human beings with a penis - somehow over-ride the "rights" and "feelings" of human beings with a vagina - (no debate allowed or necessary) - that is called "misogyny" - plain and simple - and no matter what language you use to dress it up. And I will stand with my sisters against misogyny until my last breath.
The right to abortion is, of course, necessary for women to control our own reproductive capacity and absolutely required for women's liberation. It is unconscionable that the DRC would leave women out. Why can't they use the phrase "women and other people who can get pregnant?"
Did they REALLY claim sex is a spectrum and not binary??? That is pure pseudoscience. Sex and the ability to reproduce comes down to eggs and sperm, no other gamete, nothing in between, so there is no "spectrum." Genitals can be on a spectrum, personality can be on a spectrum but sorry DRC, sex is dimorphic or "binary" in the current parlance.
Good luck with the suit Ann, thank you for standing up for all female people!
Because the male trans activists cannot tolerate being an afterthought, they must be centered in everything or they gaslight the sheet out of their supporters until they get what they want.
Ann, I am a proud TERF, a radical feminist of the Old School, like Germaine Greer. I am ashamed of the so called ‘feminists” of today that are all for the erasure of Woman, deny the immutability of binary sex, and believe prostitution is legitimate “work” for women and girls. These women suffer from internalised misogyny.
I just retired after serving 34 years as federal government attorney. At the last monthly meeting I attended, after someone mentioned something related to DEI, I asked if we could still say “woman” or was that now a bad word? Dead silence, except for one woman who burst out laughing. No one answered the question.
So many Woke attorneys in my old office. They are kind, lovely people but they have bought hard into gender ideology. Their indoctrination started in college when Feminist Studies transformed into Gender Studies. It’s been downhill since then as those students are now managers.
Thank you for suing your former employer. At every intersection of Woman and a minority, Woman loses. Your lawsuit focuses attention on that imbalance: abortion affects the bodies of ONLY women/girls. Firing you for stating the obvious is discrimination based on sex.
I think that anti-feminist Janice Fiamengo is correct: feminists paved the way for the transgender nonsense. Furthermore, feminists don’t want equality; they want privilege.
The funny thing is that radical feminists seem to be staunchly anti capitalistic, just like gender, critical and queer theorists. So rad fems against trans activists is like Leninists against Trotskyites, fighting for who gets the highest privileges.
Hmmm, well let's see, the originators of the modern concept of gender were...men, Kinsey and Money;
The pioneering surgeons and their early trans patients were all men....
The first, primary, most numerous, most vocal, most violent, most famous, richest, most politically powerful trans activists have been...men, many of them not liberal;
The International Trans org WPATH is mostly men.
Yeah, women have been the pavement for the men "paving the way". They're the sheep and the shock troops.
Good for you, Ann, for suing. However, the fight against radical "trans" right activists and their billionaire autogynephile funders can only be victorious if everyone who refuses to accept the "trans" lie gets on board to oppose the erasure of women. And that includes men, straight women, Christian women, and those who oppose abortion, too. They need to be part of your team and shouldn't be dumped on by treating them as the enemy in this fight. Otherwise, you're limiting your team to socialist, radical feminist, lesbians who are obviously a miniscule part of the population. It's obvious to me and should be obvious to you, too.
Ann was not treating abortion opponents as an "enemy in this fight." Her views on abortion were simply what precipitated the discussion that got her fired, and she has exposed the divide and flawed logic among so-called "progressives." I don't think she is taking the position that the struggle against trans ideology should be limited to feminists or the left. She is saying that feminists and the left need to join with others in combating the trans agenda. The fact that she is explaining her own perspective does not mean that she thinks that the struggle should be limited to those who share it.
I'm sure you remember that old TV game show back in the 60's called "You Don't Say." The slogan of that show was, "It's not what you say that counts. It's what you don't say."
I don't have ChatGPT on my computer. I'm sure it would have no problem coming up with the next two words (the most likely words) in Ann's sentence which follows:
"And the attempt to do something similar in the 21st century only gives aid and comfort to ...."
ChatGPT, which is programmed to select the most likely word or words that follows, would have no problem completing the sentence with the words "the enemy." As in the phrase providing"aid and comfort to the enemy." Of course, providing "aid and comfort to the enemy" is the definition of treason, which a lawyer like Ann would obviously know.
And who is this"enemy" that Ann refers to? Well, let's look at what she wrote to complete her sentence. "... many on the religious Right who intend to further erode the rights we have won over centuries of struggle."
In other words, Ann has equated the "religious Right" with the enemy. And she didn't even have to come right out and say this directly. She could merely hint at it, which she did. But her subliminal message still gets through loud and clear. And it seems very alienating, very off putting to me even though I'm an atheist who supports abortion rights.
Yes, the religious Right is where most of the opposition to abortion rights comes from, and yes, Ann is clearly on the other side on that issue. But that does not mean that the religious Right is the "enemy" on the trans issue. It is entirely possible to disagree with some organizations and social forces on one issue but agree with them on what needs to be done on another issue, even if the motivations for doing so may be different.
Ann was not bringing up the abortion divide in order to sow division. It just happened to spark the conflict over the trans issue that led to her being fired. In order to tell her story, she provided that background.
I think we all recognize that much of the opposition to Gender Madness comes from people of faith, and that's to the good. Encouraging people from other perspectives, including socialists and feminists, to join in, is something that should be welcomed -- which I'm sure you do. I just don't think that Ann should be faulted here for honestly explaining that perspective and telling her story as to how that led to her termination. Nowhere in the article does she state or imply that opponents of reproductive rights are the "enemy" with respect to the trans issue.
You don’t get it. Ann and her ilk created and actively nourish the environment for false realities pertaining to gender to take root and flourish. They did it by not facing up to the real bullies of yore or owning their own part in the oppressive realities that women actually did face in decades past, but by creating and shoving down everyone else’s throats a false reality of their own liking. Now that she’s become a part of that particular harvest, one would think that she’d get a clue.
If she's going to put her writing out there where everyone can see it (including all types of people on substack), she should be careful about using emotionally charged words and phrases. When you need to work with all types of people, you need to go out of your way so you don't sow division and strife. You don't burn bridges. You don't trash the people whose support you need. And Ann did just that.
It is chilling how quickly this ideology has has spread, how efficient it has been in making people believe that even saying the word “women” is hateful.
I was a bit unclear about who made the response below:
“I was called a “hate monger” and a “TERF”—a misogynist slur. “She argues that trans people are not who we say we are. This is a dangerous, deceitful lie, and results in serious violence and stigma towards trans people…Trans men and non-binary people also need abortions…”
This was on the organization’s internal messaging system. Was it a superior staff member who said this, or a colleague? Either way it’s wrong, but it would be worse from someone above because it would send the message to the organization at large that women are expected to disassociate from their biology (and their reality).
What do you mean women are "the sex that dare not say it's name"? Surely you are aware that men are subject to exactly the same sex erasure for exactly the same reasons? The only difference is that we are not used to constantly playing the victim and special pleading, so you don't hear much about it. I was reading a very prominent health site yesterday (Healthline), and discovered that I am no longer a man but a "person with a penis." This in increasingly the house style in a lot of US medical publications. Fathers disappeared from much legislation and literature around child birth a long time ago. I am generally on board with the desire to retain sex designations, but the attempt to pretend that women are special victims here, or victims of men, is divisive and wrong.
Women are being raped in prisons by men who claim to be women. Men in prison are not being raped by women who claim to be men. This dichotomy happens because of biology: men are physically stronger and inherently more aggressive than women. I suspect that you agree with that.
Well all this back and forth from the hormet’s nest I stirred up has confirmed my view that misogynists (and homophobes) indeed come in two flavors - the sex denialist group who I wrote about and who got me fired; and the folks that would keep women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen - their subordination to men ordained by God and nature and a key to their “happiness” (whether they like or not).
Rather than radical feminists being responsible for the sex denialists - we challenged them from the very beginning (have you ever heard of Janice Raymond??) - the “keep them barefoot and pregnant” group really have much in common with the extremist gender ideologues. Both groups blame feminists for everything (“transphobic bigot” “manhater,” “murderer of trans people,” “murderer of children”) and see women as less than fully human, if we are seeb at all.
In Iran, the theocratic government embodies both these forms of misogyny - women though highly educated are denied opportunities in the workplace, and must cover their heads, and while lesbians and gay men get the death penalty there, the government encourages and will pay for medical transition. Half the women’s soccor team in Iran is male.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this merger eventually happens here too.
There is no such thing as "misogyny". Generalized animosity toward women has never been demonstrated in any credible scientific publication- indeed, the "women are wonderful" effect is found cross-culturally, reflecting a generic evolutionary tendency toward *philogyny* on the part of men (male protectiveness), and women (reflecting their enormously heightened in-group bias). The fact that you would even put stock in such notions- or make the laughable, ahistorical assertion about women being "barefoot and pregnant"- shows how far removed feminism generally is from reality. Historically, women always enjoyed a privileged position in law and custom as a protected and provided for group- see Martin Van Creveld's "The Privileged Sex" on this. Abortifacients and birth controls methods have existed from antiquity; they are not recent allowances. The idea that women have been viewed as less than fully human is similarly asinine- male deaths are far less salient emotionally and culturally than female deaths (women and children first off the sinking ship, anyone?). The ideologically derived concept of "violence against women" is likewise indicative of this; it implicitly assigns greater moral weight to female than male suffering. And no, it is absolutely not the case that some forms of violence disproportionately affect women; women perpetrate sexual assault at similar if not higher rates than men against the opposite sex, and when multiple confounds such as reporting rates and discrepancies between actual and anticipated injury rates are controlled for, it will be found that female to male partner violence has at least an order of magnitude greater incidence than the reverse. See Steve Moxon's excellent analysis here: https://stevemoxon.co.uk/how-and-why-partner-violence-is-normal-female-behaviour-but-aberrational-male-behaviour/
The idea of "sex-based rights" is utterly imbecilic. What "rights" are women entitled to that men are not? Either feminism is about equality, in which case the "rights" accorded women are identical to those of men, or you want special privileges. It is clear from history that feminism has always sought the latter, just as you do now. And if reproductive rights are the focus here, please note that the Supreme Court ruled that male statutory rape victims, even underage ones, must pay child support to their assailants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
Feminism, in its entirety, is a steaming pile of supremacist, unscientific, deceitful garbage. That you may not subjectively align yourself with the trans movement (I don't give a damn about it one way or another, except insofar as it does great violence to the scientific enterprise) does not absolve you or your co-ideologues of responsibility for pushing two baseless ideas, namely, that a) women are equal to men in every important respect and b) that sex roles are "socially constructed". These ideas are both risible to anyone who understands evolutionary psychology or just how the brain works; they are also the basis for the trans movement's claims. Now they've come back to haunt you. Feminism is finally collapsing under the weight of its accumulated contradictions and absurdities, and it is glorious indeed to behold.
Addendum: Hilariously, rates of sexual assault are significantly higher among female than male inmates, in some samples by as much as a factor of four! See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438589/. It goes pretty much without saying that these occur at the hands of other biological females.
Let's also not forget that the CDC found that lesbian women are more likely to experience partner violence than their straight counterparts. This is actually consistent given that the chief neuro-hormonal mechanism underpinning women's far greater rates of perpetration- namely, heightened levels of oxytocin, the hormone important in pair-bonding- would be expected to be transferred to a same sex partner in a lesbian context. As Austin Powers might say, stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
The calling me a TERF snd hater came from a coworker but the condemnation of me the next workday included and was supported by management. Then i was fired two days later. My employer even denied my unemployment for “misconduct” related to my alleged mistreatment of my trans identified co-workers. However, there was nothing but the email exchange about abortion rights. My employer didn’t even bother showing up. I won my unemployment hearing.
Congrats! One victory and counting. Here's to more to come!
Feminism is not to blame for this ideology erasing sex. We fought for the elimination of sexism, NOT sex. Women can and have done every job and profession that men have done when given an opportunity. We are still female. Male supremacy or patriarchy is a social phenemenon, rather then an inevitable result of the biologucal differences between the sexes.
My parents both grew up in abject poverty. While my mom leans left politically, the group she most despises are feminists. Her own mother was a night time union organizer. My mom’s watched feminists with this bull 💩 attitude that women and men can do the same jobs cost countless poor women good paying factory jobs. Why? Feminists demanded equal pay, but women can’t physically haul around 60ibs all day long. Poor women women lost their jobs in mass in the name of pretending men and women aren’t different. We are!! How many young women have to be sacrificed to this anti-science nonsense before that plain truth is acknowledged?
Have you ever watched women and men work physical jobs together? I have. It's interesting.
The men are faster and stronger, the women are more consistent, make fewer mistakes, and maintain peak performance for longer.
For every company that went out of business due to the physical performance of the female workers, there's 100 companies that went out of business because the men did some stupid reckless shit that never would've happened had they had a few women on hand to knock some sense into them but didn't because they'd frozen women out of advancement in the profession.
And just to be clear, all-female management teams do stupid shit too because of the testosterone shortage.
The sexes do better working together.
I'm guessing you mean more consistently slow, make fewer mistakes because the lack of speed affords fewer opportunities to make mistakes, and maintains peak performance, which is much lower than men's peak performance.
No I mean more consistent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency
You can't be more consistent in a job you're physically unable to do.
Women can do most physical jobs just fine. I know, I've worked with them - in farming, landscaping, construction and house painting. You are thinking of relatively rare jobs.
The women that lived in my moms poor and working class community in Ohio were unemployed all the same. There is also no data to justify your opinion on women being more consistent - that’s nothing but an opinion that isn’t backed by observable and replicated fact. It’s theoretical pontificating in an attempt to replace reality with your wishes. If women were really do much more “consistent” - to the point a company was 100 times less likely to make a catastrophic mistake - men wouldn’t be the ones actually working 90% of physically demanding manual labor jobs (per Brookings Institute). I’m sorry, but I am tired of this woke mentality that disregards incredibly negative actual outcomes with baseless theories back by zero actual data.
The catastrophic mistakes are usually made by management, not the grunts. But your management team will be all-male if deserving women can't advance.
"Study of 6.6 million papers finds gender-balanced teams produce more innovative, impactful work"
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/08/gender-balanced-teams-produce-more-innovative-impactful-scientific-research/
"Teams with an equal number of women and men perform better in terms of sales and profits, than do male-dominated teams"
https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/impact-gender-diversity-performance-business-teams-evidence-field-experiment
Endurance:
"ALONG WITH LARGER hearts and lungs, men also have a greater number of red blood cells (linked to the production of testosterone), which can give them an advantage in terms of oxygen delivery throughout the body—particularly for endurance sports such as running or cycling. Yet women appear to be metabolically better suited for endurance.
Research indicates that women are better able to manage glucose—a simple sugar used by the body for energy—and store it in muscle, where it can be quickly used when taking part in endurance events. Women also have more adiponectin (a hormone that regulates fat metabolism) and a higher concentration of fatty acids and intramuscular triglycerides. These factors can all enhance glucose use and fat-burning capacities during endurance exercise, and may delay the phenomenon of “hitting the wall”—the point at which an athlete feels they cannot go any further.
Anatomically, women tend to have a greater proportion of “slow-twitch” muscle fibers: These are less powerful but more fatigue resistant. Conversely, men on average have more “fast-twitch” fibers that produce quick, powerful bursts of strength but fatigue quickly."
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/female-male-athletes-differences/
As someone in STEM I'd like to point out that the first article you linked to focuses heavily on papers where there are six or more authors. As anyone in STEM could tell you, papers with six or more authors involve research where the ideas and workload are highly unlikely to be distributed evenly. My (correct) knee-jerk reaction when someone says they're published but then I see they're one of half a dozen authors on their paper is, "oh, it's one of THOSE papers". There's really no telling from a paper with lots of authors whether any given author did anything noteworthy or if they were dead weight. Sounds like the perfect environment to foster diversity without risking too much.
First study - is about STEM teams, not physically demanding manual labor jobs
Second study - white collar professional teams, no manual labor jobs
Third quote - 4,000 men have faster times than the fastest female marathon runner on Earth. There is no distance sport that women outperform men, or even on par with men. Every time the U.S. women’s national World Cup team plays the national U16 boys team (14 and 15 year old boys) the women have gotten crushed. There is no speed sport women outperform men, or even perform on par. There is no strength sport that women perform on
I wish you well in life but I have am not interested in continuing to disprove your theories with plainly evident reality and replicated actual outcomes. You have made clear you find reality irritating to your world view, so you ignore realities n favor of debunked theories.
Come on now, you can do better than tossing red herrings and running away.
Well folks, there you have it. I'd like to believe that NCmom was JUST ABOUT to agree that women and men do better working together, just like in her successful marriage.
You are a hero to all men and women who value freedom of belief and freedom of speech. You have my unqualified support and admiration.
But which feminism? Perhaps the feminism as defined by you is consistent with these goals, but that's not how all feminists think, and even if they did, the fact that one INTENDS a particular outcome doesn't mean the actions they take actually lead to that desired outcome. I'm sorry to hear this is happening to you, but to proclaim that feminism couldn't possibly be the problem is simply an assertion.
“Natural roles”? Domestic servant, prostitute, forced child bearer, no wages for labor — these are badges of slavery; there’s nothing “natural” about depriving humans of autonomy. Maybe you believe women aren’t fully human? Patriarchy destroys women, not feminism.
What the heck are you talking about? Feminist promote the idea women should strive to be nothing more than a sex doll for crappy guys who like to sleep around. By every metric we measure, women are far more miserable today than past generations. I’m 40 and all my friends who bought the baloney are miserable has beens with no sense of community and zero fulfillment in life. They are “free” to be self-centered and miserable.
I’m a happily married mom if 2 who chooses to put my family first, as does my husband, and my life is great. I don’t know a single woman whoose husband controls her in my personal life. My father never controlled my mother. My husband doesn’t tell me what to do. For the record - I love having sex with him - it’s fun to have a committed partner where sex is enjoyable and playful and fun. The actual data shows married conservative women have fantastic sex lives.
And no wages? Well, like most women I get to control the rather large checkbook and “social justice warriors” would call me “privileged.”
Feminists always wanted women to have choices about their lives. It's not about being a "sex doll for crappy guys." That sounds like what misogynistic men wanted. Good for you having a happy family life.
No they don’t. Feminists demonize anyone who is feminine. They have destroyed the lives of countless poor people by demanding women get paid the same at physical jobs which are the best jobs those women could get and lost because women aren’t men. Feminists claim killing our own flesh and blood and reducing ourselves to blow up folks is “liberating.” They demean pregnancy and fear monger about the dangers of child birth with zero mentions of the absolute joy children being to most women. They dehumanize young humans and scold those who chose the more traditional path shown to bring fulfillment in life and success to children.
Wow. I say something nice to you and all you have to say is hateful lies about women. I feel sorry for you.
Feel free to provide supporting evidence for all that bashing.
Feminism is about equal respect, period. If you can't show respect....
Your Mom has feminists to thank for her choices.
Please link to these stats. I don't find this to be true at all, so I want to see the study that shows that. I, personally, am very happy with my equality.
Thanks! I will dig in.
100% accurate. A book called “the case against the sexual revolution” gets in depth on the statistics and it’s heartbreaking. Thank you for posting the other link too.
See above - not really.
You read the book I posted? You looked into the research? Call me crazy but I don’t think it’s possible you obtained and read the book last night.
Your comment above wrecks of blind bias and attempting to assert your prior conclusions as fact, without evidence, not actually seeking the answer grounded in objective truth and replicated observed actual outcomes. I once thought like you but I chose a traditional life - not because of pressure from anyone, but because I’m crazy about my husband and have been since I met him 20 years ago when I was 20. I was a whitewater River guide in college, I went on outward bound in high school, I’ve lived more than a year of my life in a tent, and I’m as surprised as everyone I know I lead such a normal traditional life today with country clubs, a second home, private school, warm yoga, year-round tennis, kids sports, and the whole stereotypical thing (neither my husband or I came from money and we’ve never seen a penny of inheritance). At the same time I watched numerous friends descend into misery and hopelessness, too often with a side of drug or alcohol addiction, who were genuinely happy sane young women in high school and college. The commonality is they were all gullible. It’s not a surprise they bought the feminist / “progressive” crap that being childless, or at least single, and uncommitted to anything but career would bring happiness when all it’s actually brought is anger, loneliness, hurt, and total irrelevance. It lead me to actually research what the truth is. I was shocked and I am deeply grateful peer pressure has never had much impact on me because it could have been me that destroyed and wasted this precious life we get.
Falling birth rates in the west is not a “good” thing. Who do you think is going to wipe your butt when you are 80? You think a global economic collapse is “positive?” Do you know anything about what’s happening in China? Funny how it’s living entitled humans who seem to want fewer other humans yet they keep themselves alive and well as long as they can. Who do you think not having children is a “good” for??? What evidence? There isn’t any evidence it’s great for the planet or for society or for the vast majority of women to forgo family and motherhood with a father in the home. Malthusian cliffs are long debunked. Feminists have played a huge role in pushing fathers out of the home which has had devastating societal consequences for poor people. It’s as cruel and as misguided and as mean spirited as spreading poverty in the name of the “climate” even though the data shows nothing is worse for the climate and ecological health than poverty.
Anyone who cares about the planet would support policies that produce prosperity. Anyone who is concerned about emissions would support natural gas, liquid hydrogen, and nuclear. Anyone who loves humanity would support pro-human ideologies that don’t allow human suffering in the streets. Anyone who supports woman would support motherhood. Women literally exist to give birth to the next generation. That’s our biological role. You really think there are no mental health consequences to mass rejecting biology?? There are absolutely outliers but feminists pretend all women are outliers.
Anyone who supports actual women would unquestionably support women in becoming great mothers and men in becoming great fathers for that matter. Not require it, but certainly support our most basic natural instincts. Rather than giving a shit about the fact most women don’t actually want to be a caricature of men, and the vast majority of men aren’t anything like the monsters feminists claim they are, feminists continue to double down on their failed and cruel ideology that seeks to erase womanhood and replace it with the craziest and most caricatured version of manhood that exist. It isn’t making women happy - it’s making a huge percentage of them miserable.
Are you seriously trying to say that the Sexual Revolution was driven by feminists? Amazing.
Rule #1 of Misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.
What planet are you on? Women in the US are losing constitutional rights and freedom. We never got full equality under the law.
Omg. Make it stop.
I see you are getting a lot of attention in this thread. Women had a constitution right to abortion. That was taken away. We got the ERA ratified and they refuse to publish it.
Women aren’t obligated to provide any of those things for you or any man. I don’t think this has been said but you have some nerve making this about you. A woman lost her job and that should be the focus. Your hurt sexist feelings are irrelevant.
Women ARE equal to men - identical? No, but equal? Yes. It is not natural for a woman to be confined to her home. Women deserve financial independence through employment. It is the prerequisite to autonomy.
Any feminist who says that things are worse now for women than before is plainly wrong - about as wrong as you, who seem to be saying women are for housework.
Still choosing rage, Adam. Feminism just teaches them they don't have to deal with misogynists like you is all.
News flash: 10 MILLION dead babies disagree.
Yes, it's gone full circle for the radical feminists. These creators and relentless pushers of victim consciousness are now being unceremoniously dumped and drowned in their own creation. And they still can't see it.
Yeah, the radical feminists have been fighting this queer theory pedo BS from the start, and still are. You're scapegoating the wrong folks. Learn something real about radical feminists, not just talking points from right-wing men. They are your allies on this particular issue.
https://4w.pub/lesbians-vs-pedophiles/
https://janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pro-lesbian-or-trans-exclusionary-old-animosities-boil-public-view-n958456
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF
Oh..I learned a lot from radical feminists. All of it bullshit. It wasn't right-wing men that convinced me when I was very young that a baby is just inconvenient clump of cells. 'Meaningless. Just cut it out. Flush it. It's nothing.' Now we can SEE life flourishing on ultrasounds at just a few of weeks. Radical Feminism is evil.
I think I can work with that! If the only topic we absolutely need to avoid in order to be trench mates in the gender war is abortion, then I can agree to not make Under His Eye jokes if you can lay off the baby-killing references.
Just for a little while! :-)
I've gotten the impression that conflating "wokeness" with feminism is causing you and NCMom to have an oddly warped view of womens rights movements over the late 20thC history.
There have been multiple waves of feminism and many perspectives. I have recently become leery of describing myself as a "feminist" as there are many contemporary issues being put forward in that name which I'm in strident disagreement with. "Feminism", or the womens rights movement is not, and has never been a cohesive ideology. And precisely because it has the potential to be highly disruptive of familiar sociological systems it is constantly under attack and infiltration from actors who fear its outcomes. The version of feminism I see you and NCMom so critical of, I understand where it came from, but its not the version I've adhered to and supported.
I have read The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, as recommended by NCMom, I agree with almost all its premises and analysis. Being 63 and having lived through a lot of that era I can reflect there were many things I adopted that I wish I was more mature and educated to have been better able to think through... and I even have regrets.
But it is not the fault of the women who tried to form a movement demanding more rights, freedom and equality; a wider range of choices for all women rather than the more narrow and limited choices they were restricted to by the mid 20thC...it is not the fault of threse women that the movement was in many ways co-opted and corrupted by external forces that had malignant intentions.
At this point the feminsit movement is not dead, has never been since the Suffragettes kicked it off, it is regrouping and destined to arise more powerful than ever,
And it may surprise some scoffing conservative commentators here, but I totally support the uplifting of respect and recognition for the important role of motherhood and its benefits for a flourishing society. I have never believed that the "family", whether traditional or different, should be dismantled. I loved being a mother. I was a single mother at 21, gave a child up to adoption at 23 and had an abortion at 26. I didn't get legally married until I was 52 years old and adore my husband to bits, who supports me financially in a trad style marriage. So I've experienced a lot of different lifestyles and what I celebrate most is that I had the choices and freedoms to do so.
Look out folks, Adam didn't choose gratitude over rage today it seems.
Abortion rights are essemtial to women’s freedom and dignity. We are not walking incubators. Pregnancy effects every organ in the body, and can threaten our health and even lives. Early abortion is far safer then giving birth. The decision whether to bear a child belongs to the womsn.
You need to take that bs argument up with your maker. I’m sure you will get the opportunity one day.
God isn't real.
I didn't say God. That's your religious baggage putting words in my mouth. Take some advanced anatomy and physiology classes and get back to me though. If you've already done so and still remain on your petty, human, 'know it all' high horse.. then there is little hope you'll be getting down off it in this lifetime.
The gaslight smells strong here. What’s a “maker”?
Oh, so when you said 'maker' you meant 'anatomy & physiology'. Of course. I teach the classes you're talking about. The fact that women can get pregnant has nothing to do with whether they should be forced to give birth. In fact it is a natural phenomenon throughout our species' history for new mothers who cannot feasibly care for their neonates to kill them - this maximizes reproductive success in a species that invests such an unusually large amount of resources into their offspring, by allowing mothers to preserve what resources they have for the future, when they may be in a more tenable position for successful child-rearing. Avoiding the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth via abortion only further enhances the success of this strategy, which has already been selected for through evolution.
That's a lot of word salad deflection for an anatomy and physiology teacher, lmaoo
This isn't class, and there's nothing to deflect.
The recent Circuit Court decisions impacting sex vs. gender are mostly promising, but your position isn't as protected as Maya Forstater's in the UK as I'm sure you know. Anything at all from that case applicable to yours do you think?
I don’t support either corporate Party and never have. Both parties have betrayed women in their own ways. I have been a Green Party member for many years though the national Party too betrayed theur traditional support for feminism; hence GASBR was formed. I never supported the erasure of sex and female existence and opposed this extremist ideology from the beginning. I also support free speech and the rights of workers, both male and female. I don’t demonize anyone including people I strongly disagree with. If my employer had harassed and threatened to fire a co-worker for her or his anti-abortion views, I would have gone to bat for them. I don’t think employers should have that kind of power to control the political views of their employees.
Junk science. There are so-called scientists that deny evolution, global warming, and that sex is binary. Pregnant women do feel pain, however, and sacrifice their health, sometimes their lives to carry a pregnancy and give birth. Since women are fully human and not incubators or birthing machines, our bodies should not be used against our will. Freely chosen motherhood is a wonderful thing. Forced pregnancy and childbirth is female slavery.
Gee. Sounds like somebody was born in the wrong body.
There are many top scientists, including a recent Physics Nobel laureate, who have come to the conclusion that CO2 emissions are not a threat, and are even beneficial. A good start is the CO2 coalition website.
I wish you the very best Ann in your fight for justice and for being able to reclaim the name of 'woman' as applying to 'adult human female.' I am shocked at all the misogynistic comments and 'whataboutery' in the other comments here.
I am disappointed by the lack of dialog in the comment section. We cannot afford to become ideologues.
You do not have to agree with everything the author says or believes, but the intolerance for different ideas has to stop.
The only way we get out of this mess is by learning how to respectfully disagree with those who think differently without ousting or “cancelling” them from the group.
Thank you for your levelheadedness, Marie.
Thank you for taking this stand, Ann.
Yours in the sisterhood of leftist radical feminist supporters of abortion rights who know what a woman is,
Kara
I understand the historical origin of the term "radical feminist", but I believe that today it is a counterproductive meme. "Radical" conveys the notion of being far outside the mainstream, but basic women's rights are as mainstream as it gets. What "radical feminists" want, need, and deserve is in no way actually "radical", in the common understanding of the meaning of that word.
Radical means getting to the root of things. I wish more people saw feminism as common sense!
That is indeed the root definition, but I think more people will associate "radical" with this definition from Merriam-Webster:
3a: very different from the usual or traditional: EXTREME
b: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical
They did not get to the root of anything. They just created one false reality to do battle with another.
You can thank feminists for your platform to spread lies and misogyny
You can blame feminism for feeling angry, victimized and triggered when someone presents you with a different point of view. It's a cult, babe.
I am a feminist. This is not me. I do know some who this fits. It's not the majority who claim to be feminist, that is for sure. We need to work together, folks. We all dislike what's going on. Let's come together but please stop equating all feminists with the one type, who we all oppose (and I have since the 70s). We can't stop them unless we are able to say: "I don't agree about this (history of feminism, right to abortion, etc.) but let's work together on this (hey, two sexes is reality!) This is a very depressing, divisive thread for people who all agree on the fundamentals of male/female. This shows why we are losing. Let's win on this and fight the other battles - if there are any - later.
There's anger on this thread, and it ain't mostly comin' from feminists. Babe.
It never was productive, according to former radical feminist Janice Fiamengo
Thank you for standing up Ann. It takes courage to fight such irrational madness masquerading as "reality." As a retired 71 year old clinical social worker who spent 40 years in the field I've come to realize that I'd never make it through a university "education" in today's academic environment - because I prize my ability to think critically for myself. Your lawsuit is a very important act of resistance. I've spent a lifetime supporting the human rights of "all" people - and yet today I am considered a "bigot" and a "transphobe" by many because I believe "sex" exists and women should not have to share safe spaces like rape shelters, domestic violence shelters or locker rooms with human beings who have a penis. Who would ever have guessed that such a seemingly uncontroversial position might eventually become "prohibited thought?" It's pretty simple from my perspective. When the "rights" and "feelings" of human beings with a penis - somehow over-ride the "rights" and "feelings" of human beings with a vagina - (no debate allowed or necessary) - that is called "misogyny" - plain and simple - and no matter what language you use to dress it up. And I will stand with my sisters against misogyny until my last breath.
The right to abortion is, of course, necessary for women to control our own reproductive capacity and absolutely required for women's liberation. It is unconscionable that the DRC would leave women out. Why can't they use the phrase "women and other people who can get pregnant?"
Did they REALLY claim sex is a spectrum and not binary??? That is pure pseudoscience. Sex and the ability to reproduce comes down to eggs and sperm, no other gamete, nothing in between, so there is no "spectrum." Genitals can be on a spectrum, personality can be on a spectrum but sorry DRC, sex is dimorphic or "binary" in the current parlance.
Good luck with the suit Ann, thank you for standing up for all female people!
Or women, however they identify!
Because the male trans activists cannot tolerate being an afterthought, they must be centered in everything or they gaslight the sheet out of their supporters until they get what they want.
Ann, I am a proud TERF, a radical feminist of the Old School, like Germaine Greer. I am ashamed of the so called ‘feminists” of today that are all for the erasure of Woman, deny the immutability of binary sex, and believe prostitution is legitimate “work” for women and girls. These women suffer from internalised misogyny.
I just retired after serving 34 years as federal government attorney. At the last monthly meeting I attended, after someone mentioned something related to DEI, I asked if we could still say “woman” or was that now a bad word? Dead silence, except for one woman who burst out laughing. No one answered the question.
So many Woke attorneys in my old office. They are kind, lovely people but they have bought hard into gender ideology. Their indoctrination started in college when Feminist Studies transformed into Gender Studies. It’s been downhill since then as those students are now managers.
Thank you for suing your former employer. At every intersection of Woman and a minority, Woman loses. Your lawsuit focuses attention on that imbalance: abortion affects the bodies of ONLY women/girls. Firing you for stating the obvious is discrimination based on sex.
I think that anti-feminist Janice Fiamengo is correct: feminists paved the way for the transgender nonsense. Furthermore, feminists don’t want equality; they want privilege.
The funny thing is that radical feminists seem to be staunchly anti capitalistic, just like gender, critical and queer theorists. So rad fems against trans activists is like Leninists against Trotskyites, fighting for who gets the highest privileges.
Hmmm, well let's see, the originators of the modern concept of gender were...men, Kinsey and Money;
The pioneering surgeons and their early trans patients were all men....
The first, primary, most numerous, most vocal, most violent, most famous, richest, most politically powerful trans activists have been...men, many of them not liberal;
The International Trans org WPATH is mostly men.
Yeah, women have been the pavement for the men "paving the way". They're the sheep and the shock troops.
Feminists were early progenitors of the belief that sex roles were socially constructed. But, yes, men were involved, too.
You can add Marx and Engels with their simplistic oppressor and oppressed theory.
I fully support Ann and her brave and honourable. defence of women’s rights
Good for you, Ann, for suing. However, the fight against radical "trans" right activists and their billionaire autogynephile funders can only be victorious if everyone who refuses to accept the "trans" lie gets on board to oppose the erasure of women. And that includes men, straight women, Christian women, and those who oppose abortion, too. They need to be part of your team and shouldn't be dumped on by treating them as the enemy in this fight. Otherwise, you're limiting your team to socialist, radical feminist, lesbians who are obviously a miniscule part of the population. It's obvious to me and should be obvious to you, too.
Ann was not treating abortion opponents as an "enemy in this fight." Her views on abortion were simply what precipitated the discussion that got her fired, and she has exposed the divide and flawed logic among so-called "progressives." I don't think she is taking the position that the struggle against trans ideology should be limited to feminists or the left. She is saying that feminists and the left need to join with others in combating the trans agenda. The fact that she is explaining her own perspective does not mean that she thinks that the struggle should be limited to those who share it.
I'm sure you remember that old TV game show back in the 60's called "You Don't Say." The slogan of that show was, "It's not what you say that counts. It's what you don't say."
I don't have ChatGPT on my computer. I'm sure it would have no problem coming up with the next two words (the most likely words) in Ann's sentence which follows:
"And the attempt to do something similar in the 21st century only gives aid and comfort to ...."
ChatGPT, which is programmed to select the most likely word or words that follows, would have no problem completing the sentence with the words "the enemy." As in the phrase providing"aid and comfort to the enemy." Of course, providing "aid and comfort to the enemy" is the definition of treason, which a lawyer like Ann would obviously know.
And who is this"enemy" that Ann refers to? Well, let's look at what she wrote to complete her sentence. "... many on the religious Right who intend to further erode the rights we have won over centuries of struggle."
In other words, Ann has equated the "religious Right" with the enemy. And she didn't even have to come right out and say this directly. She could merely hint at it, which she did. But her subliminal message still gets through loud and clear. And it seems very alienating, very off putting to me even though I'm an atheist who supports abortion rights.
Yes, the religious Right is where most of the opposition to abortion rights comes from, and yes, Ann is clearly on the other side on that issue. But that does not mean that the religious Right is the "enemy" on the trans issue. It is entirely possible to disagree with some organizations and social forces on one issue but agree with them on what needs to be done on another issue, even if the motivations for doing so may be different.
Ann was not bringing up the abortion divide in order to sow division. It just happened to spark the conflict over the trans issue that led to her being fired. In order to tell her story, she provided that background.
I think we all recognize that much of the opposition to Gender Madness comes from people of faith, and that's to the good. Encouraging people from other perspectives, including socialists and feminists, to join in, is something that should be welcomed -- which I'm sure you do. I just don't think that Ann should be faulted here for honestly explaining that perspective and telling her story as to how that led to her termination. Nowhere in the article does she state or imply that opponents of reproductive rights are the "enemy" with respect to the trans issue.
You don’t get it. Ann and her ilk created and actively nourish the environment for false realities pertaining to gender to take root and flourish. They did it by not facing up to the real bullies of yore or owning their own part in the oppressive realities that women actually did face in decades past, but by creating and shoving down everyone else’s throats a false reality of their own liking. Now that she’s become a part of that particular harvest, one would think that she’d get a clue.
Aww, you're making me want to sing Kumbaya, just stahhp it with the lovefest. What's next, carving "Feminists + Pro-Lifers 4Eva" in a tree together???
Might want to put the chardonnay away for the evening..
If she's going to put her writing out there where everyone can see it (including all types of people on substack), she should be careful about using emotionally charged words and phrases. When you need to work with all types of people, you need to go out of your way so you don't sow division and strife. You don't burn bridges. You don't trash the people whose support you need. And Ann did just that.
Yeah well, that’s kind of the radical feminist MO. And it worked for several decades, until the game caught up to them.
It is chilling how quickly this ideology has has spread, how efficient it has been in making people believe that even saying the word “women” is hateful.
I was a bit unclear about who made the response below:
“I was called a “hate monger” and a “TERF”—a misogynist slur. “She argues that trans people are not who we say we are. This is a dangerous, deceitful lie, and results in serious violence and stigma towards trans people…Trans men and non-binary people also need abortions…”
This was on the organization’s internal messaging system. Was it a superior staff member who said this, or a colleague? Either way it’s wrong, but it would be worse from someone above because it would send the message to the organization at large that women are expected to disassociate from their biology (and their reality).
What do you mean women are "the sex that dare not say it's name"? Surely you are aware that men are subject to exactly the same sex erasure for exactly the same reasons? The only difference is that we are not used to constantly playing the victim and special pleading, so you don't hear much about it. I was reading a very prominent health site yesterday (Healthline), and discovered that I am no longer a man but a "person with a penis." This in increasingly the house style in a lot of US medical publications. Fathers disappeared from much legislation and literature around child birth a long time ago. I am generally on board with the desire to retain sex designations, but the attempt to pretend that women are special victims here, or victims of men, is divisive and wrong.
Women are being raped in prisons by men who claim to be women. Men in prison are not being raped by women who claim to be men. This dichotomy happens because of biology: men are physically stronger and inherently more aggressive than women. I suspect that you agree with that.
So, yes, women are indeed "special victims here".
Oy you two, make nice! You can have the victim contest later!
Well all this back and forth from the hormet’s nest I stirred up has confirmed my view that misogynists (and homophobes) indeed come in two flavors - the sex denialist group who I wrote about and who got me fired; and the folks that would keep women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen - their subordination to men ordained by God and nature and a key to their “happiness” (whether they like or not).
Rather than radical feminists being responsible for the sex denialists - we challenged them from the very beginning (have you ever heard of Janice Raymond??) - the “keep them barefoot and pregnant” group really have much in common with the extremist gender ideologues. Both groups blame feminists for everything (“transphobic bigot” “manhater,” “murderer of trans people,” “murderer of children”) and see women as less than fully human, if we are seeb at all.
In Iran, the theocratic government embodies both these forms of misogyny - women though highly educated are denied opportunities in the workplace, and must cover their heads, and while lesbians and gay men get the death penalty there, the government encourages and will pay for medical transition. Half the women’s soccor team in Iran is male.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this merger eventually happens here too.
Yep.
Traditionalists: “What the heck are you doing? Only girls wear pink!”
Feminists: “Leave him alone, anyone can wear pink!“
Trans activists: “No they’re right! I AM a girl!”
Feminists and Traditionalists: 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻
There is no such thing as "misogyny". Generalized animosity toward women has never been demonstrated in any credible scientific publication- indeed, the "women are wonderful" effect is found cross-culturally, reflecting a generic evolutionary tendency toward *philogyny* on the part of men (male protectiveness), and women (reflecting their enormously heightened in-group bias). The fact that you would even put stock in such notions- or make the laughable, ahistorical assertion about women being "barefoot and pregnant"- shows how far removed feminism generally is from reality. Historically, women always enjoyed a privileged position in law and custom as a protected and provided for group- see Martin Van Creveld's "The Privileged Sex" on this. Abortifacients and birth controls methods have existed from antiquity; they are not recent allowances. The idea that women have been viewed as less than fully human is similarly asinine- male deaths are far less salient emotionally and culturally than female deaths (women and children first off the sinking ship, anyone?). The ideologically derived concept of "violence against women" is likewise indicative of this; it implicitly assigns greater moral weight to female than male suffering. And no, it is absolutely not the case that some forms of violence disproportionately affect women; women perpetrate sexual assault at similar if not higher rates than men against the opposite sex, and when multiple confounds such as reporting rates and discrepancies between actual and anticipated injury rates are controlled for, it will be found that female to male partner violence has at least an order of magnitude greater incidence than the reverse. See Steve Moxon's excellent analysis here: https://stevemoxon.co.uk/how-and-why-partner-violence-is-normal-female-behaviour-but-aberrational-male-behaviour/
The idea of "sex-based rights" is utterly imbecilic. What "rights" are women entitled to that men are not? Either feminism is about equality, in which case the "rights" accorded women are identical to those of men, or you want special privileges. It is clear from history that feminism has always sought the latter, just as you do now. And if reproductive rights are the focus here, please note that the Supreme Court ruled that male statutory rape victims, even underage ones, must pay child support to their assailants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
Feminism, in its entirety, is a steaming pile of supremacist, unscientific, deceitful garbage. That you may not subjectively align yourself with the trans movement (I don't give a damn about it one way or another, except insofar as it does great violence to the scientific enterprise) does not absolve you or your co-ideologues of responsibility for pushing two baseless ideas, namely, that a) women are equal to men in every important respect and b) that sex roles are "socially constructed". These ideas are both risible to anyone who understands evolutionary psychology or just how the brain works; they are also the basis for the trans movement's claims. Now they've come back to haunt you. Feminism is finally collapsing under the weight of its accumulated contradictions and absurdities, and it is glorious indeed to behold.
Addendum: Hilariously, rates of sexual assault are significantly higher among female than male inmates, in some samples by as much as a factor of four! See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438589/. It goes pretty much without saying that these occur at the hands of other biological females.
Let's also not forget that the CDC found that lesbian women are more likely to experience partner violence than their straight counterparts. This is actually consistent given that the chief neuro-hormonal mechanism underpinning women's far greater rates of perpetration- namely, heightened levels of oxytocin, the hormone important in pair-bonding- would be expected to be transferred to a same sex partner in a lesbian context. As Austin Powers might say, stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Further addendum: Since you invoke Iran, here's a good article that shows how absurd your characterization of the country is: https://avoiceformen.com/featured/the-myth-of-patriarchal-oppression-in-iran/