Main Edition
US
FR
"If you are a woman, you will always be a target" Mike Marsland/WireImage
Itâs hard to imagine a more agreeable place to work than a charity bookshop. Staffed by civic-minded volunteers, the shelves groan with musty old paperbacks, lovingly donated in the hope theyâll find a new home and also raise money for good causes.
For Maria, the chance to work for one of Oxfamâs global outreach programmes, helping to end violence against women in the workplace, was a dream come true. And for a few years, it was â right up until the moment a fellow co-worker asked on an internal messageboard if Oxfam shops should ban the sale of J.K. Rowlingâs books.
Three years ago, the Harry Potter author found herself accused of transphobia for having supported women who have âconcerns around single-sex spacesâ. During a discussion on Oxfamâs intranet, Maria had come to the defence of Britainâs most popular living author, asking for evidence of Rowlingâs supposed transphobia. It was a decision that prompted a gruelling internal investigation, one in which Maria struggled to clear her name, led to her having a nervous breakdown and leaving both her job and the country.
Oxfam eventually offered a grovelling apology for the âprocedural mistakesâ that caused Maria such upset, but she is still struggling to make sense of it all. Speaking for the first time about the episode, she reveals: âMy life has been torn apart. It drove me to a breakdown, I lost my confidence and, worst of all, I began to doubt myself.â
What Maria endured is part of a wider woke culture in the charitable sector, where female employees are silenced and treated like bigots for believing that sex-based rights matter. Certainly, Maria is so convinced that her career remains in danger â that any woman accused of transphobia will be blacklisted by much of the charitable sector, even when they have been exonerated â that she has agreed to speak to UnHerd under a pseudonym. âThis will hang over me for the rest of my life,â she says. For decades, Oxfam â which was formed in 1942 to send food supplies to starving mothers and children in Nazi-occupied Greece â was one of the UKâs most respected charities, providing international aid to end hardship around the globe. But in recent years, its reputation has been tarnished. In 2018, evidence emerged that senior staff had paid survivors of the 2010 Haiti earthquake for sex, and that the use of prostitutes during the relief effort was covered up by the charity, allegations that Oxfam denies.
It was Mariaâs concern for vulnerable women that first drew her to work for Oxfam: âI have experienced rape and domestic violence in the past, so I wanted to help others in the same situation.â Born in Spain, where she had worked as a pre-school teacher and volunteered at a sexual assault centre, she moved to the UK in 2017.
[su_unherd_related fttitle="More from this author" author="Julie Bindel"]https://staging.unherd.com/2023/05/i-will-never-call-my-rapist-father-a-woman/[/su_unherd_related]
âI loved my job," says Maria, âbeing able to see how Oxfam's work improves the lives of other women and children.â Three years after joining the charity, she was promoted to a co-ordinating role within the women's rights team, whose remit was to ensure that female equality was reflected in Oxfamâs work.
She realised almost immediately how impossible that aim would be, given the growing dominance of a pro-trans mindset within Oxfam. Along with many other charities and institutions, it had capitulated to gender-based ideals, ones that asserts that âtrans women are womenâ and that the categories of male and female are on a spectrum, rather than biological realities. On the advice of Stonewall â the discredited charity whose workplace diversity scheme sought to ârecognise and celebrate the efforts of leading employers to advance LGBT inclusionâ â Oxfam advised its employees to state their pronouns in meetings and on correspondence. âIt was regularly using Stonewall materials to advise staff on LGBTQ+ inclusion in the workplace, with a heavy emphasis on transgender ideology above all else.â
Maria says that she initially toed the party line on the matter, staying silent when trans issues were discussed. âBut then I began to see how womenâs rights were attacked, particularly because it was obvious that single-sex spaces, such as rape crisis centres, were labelled as âanti-transâ.â
[su_unherd_related fttitle="Suggested reading" author="Kathleen Stock"]https://staging.unherd.com/2023/06/the-oxford-kids-are-alright/[/su_unherd_related]
Oxfam staff were invited to join company-wide online groups related to their interests, and Maria joined the LGBTQ+ group. In September 2020, a charity shop manager asked the group: âWhat is your opinion on selling J.K. Rowling books?â The employee, who is a transwoman, worried that the writerâs latest thriller, Troubled Blood, written under her pseudonym Robert Galbraith, might be âhighly transphobicâ. She wondered whether it might be covered by Oxfamâs âunsuitable for saleâ policy.
Several staff engaged with the forum thread, widening the debate to include Rowlingâs suitability as an Oxfam-stocked author, and added their concerns about her supposed transphobia, until Maria asked the question: âCan you explain why she is transphobic or why the book is transphobic?â When her query went unanswered, Maria went on to express concerns about banning books by âone of the most important woman writers in the UKâ, before adding: âActually, we are selling books from paedophiles and rapists. We are selling religious books. Stopping selling something we donât like is called censorship and is the opposite of freedom of speech.â
The manager then left the conversation, and Maria thought that was the end of the matter. âShe had said she was uncomfortable with the conversation and did not want to discuss it any further.â But following the exchange, Maria discovered she had been labelled in private chats as a transphobic bigot by other members of the LGBTQ+ group. Another manager sent her private messages, suggesting that Maria could lose her job after posting her comments. âThey felt threatening to me,â says Maria. âShe said my views were âincredibleâ, and that she would be reporting me. There is absolutely no way I am anti-trans. I am merely pro-womenâs rights.â
[su_unherd_related fttitle="Suggested reading" author="Kathleen Stock"]https://staging.unherd.com/2023/05/why-should-lesbians-sleep-with-men/[/su_unherd_related]
In the next few days, members of the LGBTQ+ group encouraged colleagues to complain about the discussion, stating that âtransphobia is not tolerated hereâ. âThey did not name me, but it was obvious who they were referring to,â says Maria. Next, a petition signed by 70 staff members was sent to all staff via the intranet, calling for Oxfamâs leadership to âtake a standâ and âcommunicate a zero-tolerance approach to transphobiaâ.
Senior management replied to the petition authors, saying: âNo one in our organisation should be subjected to hate speech, discrimination or other forms of harmâ and âIt is of great concern that members of the wider LGBTQIA+ community have felt intimidated by workplace conversations.â Oxfamâs CEO got involved, and gave a âno-debateâ steer, adding: âWe value the experience of our trans and non-binary colleagues, friends and partners and we do not expect their experience to be debated in our workplace.â
Three days later, Maria was invited to a meeting with her line manager and a member of Human Resources and told that she was under investigation because of her âtransphobic commentsâ. Maria says: âThey should have told me what the actual topic of the meeting was, and I could have brought a union representative with me. I apologised for upsetting anyone and tried to outline the rationale for my views and beliefs, but they refused to accept it.â Signed off sick with anxiety and depression, Maria felt alone and scared of losing her job, particularly in the middle of a pandemic. âAll my family and relatives were in Spain and the borders were closed.â
Six weeks later, two days before Christmas, Maria learned that sheâd been found guilty of misconduct and was issued with a final warning. Oxfam told Maria that her comments online âbreached the requirement of the Code of Conduct to treat all persons with respect and dignityâ, and reminded her that âtransgender people are protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010â. The letter did not give a definition of transphobia or say how her posts were transphobic. Refusing to accept that finding, Maria appealed. âAs a woman I have always had to fight for everything,â she says. âI knew that if they beat me then they were trampling on all of us.â
[su_unherd_related fttitle="More from this author" author="Julie Bindel"]https://staging.unherd.com/2022/04/jk-rowling-and-the-lunch-of-secrets/[/su_unherd_related]
Three months later, Maria was informed she had lost her appeal. The letter informing her of this decision also offered, for the first time, a definition of transphobia (not for want of asking): âOxfam refers to Stonewall definitions to support our understanding, which states transphobia is the âfear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are transâ.â Feeling she was left with no choice but to resign, Maria took Oxfam to an employment tribunal. âI became determined that this should not happen to another woman,â she says.
Maria claimed constructive dismissal and belief discrimination. In July last year, during judicial mediation, both parties agreed to settle, with Oxfam issuing a public apology for its handling of the process. âWe believe that each member of our community has a right to their own religious or philosophical beliefs, including the belief that âsex is immutableâ and âsex is importantâ. We acknowledge that in dealing with your case and during the disciplinary process we made mistakes. We acknowledged that it was not appropriate to give you a final written warning, and we would like to offer our sincere apologies for the upset that this has caused you.â
Earlier this year, Oxfam updated its language guide, which is an internal document advising staff how to speak about its work. The document includes the instruction that, rather than using the phrases "biological male" and "biological female", "AMAB and AFAB" (assigned male/female at birth), should be used instead; and when talking about "expectant mothers", use the phrase "people who become pregnant".
[su_unherd_related fttitle="More from this author" author="Julie Bindel"]https://staging.unherd.com/2022/06/i-was-hounded-out-of-school-for-transphobia/[/su_unherd_related]
âI hope every single woman, especially those stronger and richer than me, fight every time this happens within the charity sector," Maria says. "Oxfam is supposed to be protecting women and girls in the most vulnerable situations all over the world, and this ideology will ruin it.â
In response, an Oxfam spokesperson said: âWe are sorry for the procedural mistakes we made in the handling of this case and we have apologised to the individual concerned. We fully support both an individualâs right to hold religious and philosophical beliefs and a personâs right to have their identity respected, regardless of their gender identity and expression, sex, or sexuality. We believe LGBTQIA+ rights are human rights."
Now back in Spain, Maria has just finished an internship at a refugee camp in Greece, with the aim of a career in humanitarian work. âI lost so many friends," she tells me. âI lost my job. My mental health suffered. Enforcing the views of the trans lobby, at all costs, seems more important to Oxfam than meeting their actual charitable aims.â
She says she often thinks of the author who changed the course of her life â and believes the way Rowling has been vilified for simply supporting and defending the rights of women who have suffered domestic abuse and rape is proof that misogyny has no limits. âNo matter how much money or power you have achieved, if you are a woman, you will always be a target,â says Maria. âI fought my case so that all women know they can fight, and win, against this crazed ideology.â
bindelj
Julie Bindel is an investigative journalist, author, and feminist campaigner. Her latest book is Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation. She also writes on Substack.
bindelj
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeYou must be inclusive, unless you breach our guardrails, and then you must be crushed.
I canât get this meme out of my head. It speaks to the superficial support of woke; â I support the current thing.â
You must be inclusive, unless you breach our guardrails, and then you must be crushed.
I canât get this meme out of my head. It speaks to the superficial support of woke; â I support the current thing.â
“What Maria endured is part of a wider woke culture in the charitable sector, where female employees are silenced and treated like bigots for believing that sex-based rights matter.”
You missed a key point here, Julie — they’re being silenced and treated like bigots ALMOST ENTIRELY BY OTHER WOMEN!
It is progressive women who are leading the woke crusade to purge organizations of heretics. The inquisition is stinging up both men and women, conservatives and liberals, but the inquisitors are almost uniformly liberal, quasi-elite, university-educated, women. Women very much like Julie Bindel.
Julie wants to stop the liberal train in 2018 with the liberation of sexual desire (gay rights), while they want to embrace transgender and transhumanism to liberate people from biology itself. This is only a matter of degree, something which Julie consistently fails to recognize.
Sorry to nitpick, but I believe it was in 2014 that Stonewall decided to go mad, and it’s that organisation that have spread the insanity far and wide.
They now no longer believe in homosexuality – gay men and lesbians have been reconceptualised, essentially, as trans people with internalised transphobia.
2014 is probably more accurate, 2015 in the USA (Obergefell).
The larger point though is that liberalism is a “liberating” ideology — it seeks to remove all unchosen constraints. This is the common thread which flows from John Locke overthrowing the divine right of kings to abolitionists overthrowing slavery to J.S. Mill and Susan B. Anthony’s overthrowing of the political patriarchy to Stonewall’s overthrowing of sodomy to modern progressives desire to overthrow biology: removal of unchosen constraints. Mill’s harm principle is explicit about this.
Julie’s desire to stop liberalism at 2014/15 is as absurd as trying to stop it in 1770 or 1857 or 1910 or 1961 — as long as there as a single person’s desire is being thwarted, liberalism must be prepared to free them. It can’t stop; if it stops, it dies.
âliberalism must be prepared to free them. It canât stop; if it stops, it diesâ.
Surely that will lead to paedophilia* on a scale not seen the heady days of Ancient Greece?
(* Sometimes spelled: pedophilia, and referred to in the vernacular as âbotty banditryâ.)
I agree. I’m generally an Occamist. Why are the wealthy and powerful pushing so hard to introduce sexual ideas to children? The simplest answer is because they want sexual access to children. Which, as you mentioned, is historically quite normal. Court eunuchs have existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Frankish kings, Popes, Ottomans, ISIS, and Afghan warlords. Epstein was popular with Western elites for a reason.
I agree. I’m generally an Occamist. Why are the wealthy and powerful pushing so hard to introduce sexual ideas to children? The simplest answer is because they want sexual access to children. Which, as you mentioned, is historically quite normal. Court eunuchs have existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Frankish kings, Popes, Ottomans, ISIS, and Afghan warlords. Epstein was popular with Western elites for a reason.
What if the single person’s desire includes violence to others? Do you want the Sexual Offences Act cancelled? At the very least, how far is it justified to make another person feel unease, or fear?
An interesting question: how far is it justified to make another person feel unease or fear?
I suppose the shortest, straight-line answer might be: no one makes anyone feel anything. We ourselves are responsible for how we feel. As Viktor Frankl put, it speaking of his time in the camps, “…everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms, to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” We cannot control what happens to us (at least not entirely), but we can control how we feel about it, what we think about it.
But equally we must distinguish between ‘feeling threatened’ and actual threat. You may walk into a store and see a man in a red jacket standing looking at toothpastes. Let’s say you feel endangered. The question is not and cannot be: did you feel threatened by him (that’s entirely your issue and your responsibility). The question is: did he actually threaten you? Pull a knife, draw a gun, throw a box full of electric toothbrushes directly at you while shouting terrible things?
Without evidence of threat, there is no threat (none that is real, anyway, or actionable). This is not to deny the feeling, but to make that feeling the responsibility of the person feeling it…and not the responsibility of the proximate cause (the guy looking at toothpaste) …and not the responsibility of the organization which welcome Mr. Red Jacket into the toothcare section of the store.
You (and Viktor Frankl) couldnât be more right.
You (and Viktor Frankl) couldnât be more right.
Indecent exposure in practice has been legalized in many US states & ex-US countries as all a man has to do to get a free pass to expose his stick & berries to women & girls is say magic words and whip them out in a locker room of changing space thatâs notionally for women & girls.
Like Mr. Davis above, I believe trying to legislate based on subjective emotional health is absurd.
No person should actually BE unsafe.
Preventing a FEELING of unsafety is a fool’s errand.
A very important distinction indeed. Nobody but I, myself, can control how I feel, but I have the right to be in a safe environment, and for me that includes single-sex changing rooms and lavatories.
A very important distinction indeed. Nobody but I, myself, can control how I feel, but I have the right to be in a safe environment, and for me that includes single-sex changing rooms and lavatories.
An interesting question: how far is it justified to make another person feel unease or fear?
I suppose the shortest, straight-line answer might be: no one makes anyone feel anything. We ourselves are responsible for how we feel. As Viktor Frankl put, it speaking of his time in the camps, “…everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms, to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” We cannot control what happens to us (at least not entirely), but we can control how we feel about it, what we think about it.
But equally we must distinguish between ‘feeling threatened’ and actual threat. You may walk into a store and see a man in a red jacket standing looking at toothpastes. Let’s say you feel endangered. The question is not and cannot be: did you feel threatened by him (that’s entirely your issue and your responsibility). The question is: did he actually threaten you? Pull a knife, draw a gun, throw a box full of electric toothbrushes directly at you while shouting terrible things?
Without evidence of threat, there is no threat (none that is real, anyway, or actionable). This is not to deny the feeling, but to make that feeling the responsibility of the person feeling it…and not the responsibility of the proximate cause (the guy looking at toothpaste) …and not the responsibility of the organization which welcome Mr. Red Jacket into the toothcare section of the store.
Indecent exposure in practice has been legalized in many US states & ex-US countries as all a man has to do to get a free pass to expose his stick & berries to women & girls is say magic words and whip them out in a locker room of changing space thatâs notionally for women & girls.
Like Mr. Davis above, I believe trying to legislate based on subjective emotional health is absurd.
No person should actually BE unsafe.
Preventing a FEELING of unsafety is a fool’s errand.
“It canât stop; if it stops, it dies.”
So back to slavery then? If you want to rip liberalism out by the roots then do you advocate for divine right of kings? In my view all fundamentalists are equally dangerous — both liberalism run amok and those who would see us return to … to what?
Any ism can be taken too far, surely and what civilized people do is find balance. Abolishing slavery was good, but affirmative action is going too far. Yes?
One can oppose slavery from many philosophical standpoints. Obliging a liberal framework is unnecessary.
I understand the criticism, Ray, and to be honest, I share your concern. I honestly don’t know what the answer is from a philosophical basis, since I agree that much of liberalism has been good.
Where I disagree is the idea that our problem is that “liberalism has been taken too far”. I’m with Patrick Deneen and Rysard Legutko: liberalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. It springs from a pre-existing (monotheistic) philosophical framework which liberalism’s very success undermines. We’re just living through the endpoint of that process.
The best I can say to you is that today, right now, no one is actually proposing the re-institution of slavery or the removal of women’s voting rights. However, people are suffering for refusing to conform to the latest orthodoxies of liberalism. That’s happening now. People’s careers are being destroyed… now. Children bodies are being maimed… now. Women are taking second place in sporting events to men… now. So I’m choosing to worry about the problems we face today (which are caused by liberalism) instead of those we might face in the future (which could be caused by a lack of liberalism).
It is not liberalism, it is the destruction of the liberty of the individual to live in a society formed from the Anglo Saxon Common Law and the morality The Bible. Rousseau, Hegel and Post modernists supports the destruction of AS Common Law and The Bible to replace it with the collective state. Listen to Prof S Hicks
Postmodernism Explained by Professor Stephen Hicks – YouTube
Stephen Hicks on Postmodernism Part 1 – YouTube
Transgendersim is the latest evolution of Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism which is the desire for power through the destruction of the West.
I agree. What we are seeing today, is the very opposite of classical liberalism. It flies into the face of everything liberals value: debate, science, rational thought, facts, logic, tolerance of differences, etc. Those who have hijacked the liberal label with generous help from the media, abhor debate, especially when it challenges their ideology, they counter science, facts, and logic with feelings and subjectivity, and are as unaccepting of differences as the Puritans.
Same old Marxist belief that power can’t be won through elections and the biggest obstacle to extending authoritarian control is the family with it’s unconditional ties that are beyond analysis.
Most of the woke people I talk to, when you can get them to talk seem to be mostly convinced that being woke is just being ‘nice’.
Hence the most overworked adjective about any wokey proposal is that it is well-intentioned.
So often offered up that you could pave a road with them.
I agree. What we are seeing today, is the very opposite of classical liberalism. It flies into the face of everything liberals value: debate, science, rational thought, facts, logic, tolerance of differences, etc. Those who have hijacked the liberal label with generous help from the media, abhor debate, especially when it challenges their ideology, they counter science, facts, and logic with feelings and subjectivity, and are as unaccepting of differences as the Puritans.
Same old Marxist belief that power can’t be won through elections and the biggest obstacle to extending authoritarian control is the family with it’s unconditional ties that are beyond analysis.
Most of the woke people I talk to, when you can get them to talk seem to be mostly convinced that being woke is just being ‘nice’.
Hence the most overworked adjective about any wokey proposal is that it is well-intentioned.
So often offered up that you could pave a road with them.
I always enjoy reading your comments, Brian, and find myself agreeing with you more often than not. However, I cannot concur with this statement–at least not entirely: “Iâm with Patrick Deneen and Rysard Legutko: liberalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. It springs from a pre-existing (monotheistic) philosophical framework which liberalismâs very success undermines.”
True liberalism is marked by free debate, tolerance of differences, focus on facts and science rather than beliefs and feelings, and learning from mistakes made in the past. Those who call themselves liberal today despise these traditional definitions, and are more interested in practising intolerance, shutting down discussion, engaging in witch hunts, and highlighting the importance of feelings. If that’s the “new” liberalism, which I don’t believe, it has lost its way and ignores its own history. However, I don’t believe that the people who claim to be liberals truly are liberal. They are political leftists who have hijacked the term, and because they are receiving favourable treatment by the media, their screeching is amplified and reaches a far wider audience. In other words, just because the label proclaims the contents to be one thing doesn’t make it so. As a classical liberal, I have become weary of labels, because all too often what’s inside doesn’t match what’s advertised on the packaging.
Brian, I take your points.
But are the issues you describe really othodoxies of liberalism, or of an ideology which seeks to supplant liberalism? Sometimes called “the successor ideology”, or neo-progressivism, or “wokism” or most neutrally and descriptively “Critical Social Justice ideology” – the goal is to replace liberalism as the dominant ideology of the advanced democracies (albeit without necessarily ditching the name).
It is not liberalism, it is the destruction of the liberty of the individual to live in a society formed from the Anglo Saxon Common Law and the morality The Bible. Rousseau, Hegel and Post modernists supports the destruction of AS Common Law and The Bible to replace it with the collective state. Listen to Prof S Hicks
Postmodernism Explained by Professor Stephen Hicks – YouTube
Stephen Hicks on Postmodernism Part 1 – YouTube
Transgendersim is the latest evolution of Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism which is the desire for power through the destruction of the West.
I always enjoy reading your comments, Brian, and find myself agreeing with you more often than not. However, I cannot concur with this statement–at least not entirely: “Iâm with Patrick Deneen and Rysard Legutko: liberalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. It springs from a pre-existing (monotheistic) philosophical framework which liberalismâs very success undermines.”
True liberalism is marked by free debate, tolerance of differences, focus on facts and science rather than beliefs and feelings, and learning from mistakes made in the past. Those who call themselves liberal today despise these traditional definitions, and are more interested in practising intolerance, shutting down discussion, engaging in witch hunts, and highlighting the importance of feelings. If that’s the “new” liberalism, which I don’t believe, it has lost its way and ignores its own history. However, I don’t believe that the people who claim to be liberals truly are liberal. They are political leftists who have hijacked the term, and because they are receiving favourable treatment by the media, their screeching is amplified and reaches a far wider audience. In other words, just because the label proclaims the contents to be one thing doesn’t make it so. As a classical liberal, I have become weary of labels, because all too often what’s inside doesn’t match what’s advertised on the packaging.
Brian, I take your points.
But are the issues you describe really othodoxies of liberalism, or of an ideology which seeks to supplant liberalism? Sometimes called “the successor ideology”, or neo-progressivism, or “wokism” or most neutrally and descriptively “Critical Social Justice ideology” – the goal is to replace liberalism as the dominant ideology of the advanced democracies (albeit without necessarily ditching the name).
I don’t see Critical Social Justice ideology (or “wokism” if you prefer) as a natural outcome of liberalism, any more than I see the Soviet Union and the CCP as natural outcomes of liberalism.
The seminal texts of neo-Marxism, cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory and their relatives generally explicitly seek to displace liberalism, not expand it.
We can all see that this neo-progressivism shares some themes and causes with traditional progressivism and traditional liberalism, and but the framework within which those themes develop, and the means employed, are substantially different.
As an example (among many), liberals have defended free speech for centuries, in the sense of needing to tolerate the expression of unpopular ideas (unpopular with elites or with the masses). CSJ ideologues are absolutely against that – in their view, speech which expresses disagreement with their morally superior agenda is automatically hate speech, and should be banned or punished for causing harm to the most vulnerable. This latter is not the logical development of liberal ideas, but a violent counterpoint and opponent of liberalism.
Many people today are in a grey area between liberal philosophy and CSJ ideology. CSJ often poses itself as just politeness and caring – which appeals to liberals. So many people have partially adopted the CSJ ideology, while still thinking of themselves as liberals. But identifying with the liberal label is not the same as practicing philosophical liberalism.
One can oppose slavery from many philosophical standpoints. Obliging a liberal framework is unnecessary.
I understand the criticism, Ray, and to be honest, I share your concern. I honestly don’t know what the answer is from a philosophical basis, since I agree that much of liberalism has been good.
Where I disagree is the idea that our problem is that “liberalism has been taken too far”. I’m with Patrick Deneen and Rysard Legutko: liberalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. It springs from a pre-existing (monotheistic) philosophical framework which liberalism’s very success undermines. We’re just living through the endpoint of that process.
The best I can say to you is that today, right now, no one is actually proposing the re-institution of slavery or the removal of women’s voting rights. However, people are suffering for refusing to conform to the latest orthodoxies of liberalism. That’s happening now. People’s careers are being destroyed… now. Children bodies are being maimed… now. Women are taking second place in sporting events to men… now. So I’m choosing to worry about the problems we face today (which are caused by liberalism) instead of those we might face in the future (which could be caused by a lack of liberalism).
I don’t see Critical Social Justice ideology (or “wokism” if you prefer) as a natural outcome of liberalism, any more than I see the Soviet Union and the CCP as natural outcomes of liberalism.
The seminal texts of neo-Marxism, cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory and their relatives generally explicitly seek to displace liberalism, not expand it.
We can all see that this neo-progressivism shares some themes and causes with traditional progressivism and traditional liberalism, and but the framework within which those themes develop, and the means employed, are substantially different.
As an example (among many), liberals have defended free speech for centuries, in the sense of needing to tolerate the expression of unpopular ideas (unpopular with elites or with the masses). CSJ ideologues are absolutely against that – in their view, speech which expresses disagreement with their morally superior agenda is automatically hate speech, and should be banned or punished for causing harm to the most vulnerable. This latter is not the logical development of liberal ideas, but a violent counterpoint and opponent of liberalism.
Many people today are in a grey area between liberal philosophy and CSJ ideology. CSJ often poses itself as just politeness and caring – which appeals to liberals. So many people have partially adopted the CSJ ideology, while still thinking of themselves as liberals. But identifying with the liberal label is not the same as practicing philosophical liberalism.
It’s not as simple as this – there are conflicting rights which need to be balanced e.g. the obscenity of male rapists in female prisons.
I am not quite convinced, sorry.
The desire to make gay and lesbians equal in law was just the question of overcoming social prejudices.
So it was still on path from Enlightenment.
Transgender dogma is just nonsense denying scientific reality.
“Reality” and “human nature” are the ultimate unchosen constraints, man. If liberalism exists to remove unchosen constraints, then these must overcome. And the postmodernists gave it the tools to overcome reality.
Mary Harrington has said the Enlightenment was transhumanist project that we just didn’t recognize for a couple hundred years.
“Reality” and “human nature” are the ultimate unchosen constraints, man. If liberalism exists to remove unchosen constraints, then these must overcome. And the postmodernists gave it the tools to overcome reality.
Mary Harrington has said the Enlightenment was transhumanist project that we just didn’t recognize for a couple hundred years.
âliberalism must be prepared to free them. It canât stop; if it stops, it diesâ.
Surely that will lead to paedophilia* on a scale not seen the heady days of Ancient Greece?
(* Sometimes spelled: pedophilia, and referred to in the vernacular as âbotty banditryâ.)
What if the single person’s desire includes violence to others? Do you want the Sexual Offences Act cancelled? At the very least, how far is it justified to make another person feel unease, or fear?
“It canât stop; if it stops, it dies.”
So back to slavery then? If you want to rip liberalism out by the roots then do you advocate for divine right of kings? In my view all fundamentalists are equally dangerous — both liberalism run amok and those who would see us return to … to what?
Any ism can be taken too far, surely and what civilized people do is find balance. Abolishing slavery was good, but affirmative action is going too far. Yes?
It’s not as simple as this – there are conflicting rights which need to be balanced e.g. the obscenity of male rapists in female prisons.
I am not quite convinced, sorry.
The desire to make gay and lesbians equal in law was just the question of overcoming social prejudices.
So it was still on path from Enlightenment.
Transgender dogma is just nonsense denying scientific reality.
You aint gay….you are trans. No such thing as gay according to these people, most of whom are just nuts.
That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney? First he is gay, then he is a trans woman, now he is a lesbian. That last bit came out about a week ago.
There is just a loud, obnoxious, selfish group of mentally ill people trying to take over society.
Didnât someone at Mermaidâs mention something about `transing the the gay awayâ?
Isnât that the ultimate form of conversion therapy?
“That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney?”
The gentleman is far from nuts. He’s taking advantage of an easy way to make a whole lot of money and as an exhibitionist performer he’s happy that his current act is successful. LIke most businessmen he’ll sell anything that sells.
I do not think you are wrong.
The guy is a disgusting fruitcake but he is smart about the way that he is financializing his infamy.
He’s being been enabled. He couldn’t do it without support.
At least he’s not being enabled by InterBev now…
At least he’s not being enabled by InterBev now…
He’s being been enabled. He couldn’t do it without support.
Why call him a gentleman, he’s just a man. We rarely refer to women as ladies. Just sayin’…………..
I use “ladies” all the time. Would probably use it more if it were not for the fact that so many women can get pissy about that word.
That’s funny, because I would use “ladies” less if the woke scum didn’t get so pissy about it.
That’s funny, because I would use “ladies” less if the woke scum didn’t get so pissy about it.
Total nonsense Clare. We commonly refer to women as ladies
I use “ladies” all the time. Would probably use it more if it were not for the fact that so many women can get pissy about that word.
Total nonsense Clare. We commonly refer to women as ladies
I do not think you are wrong.
The guy is a disgusting fruitcake but he is smart about the way that he is financializing his infamy.
Why call him a gentleman, he’s just a man. We rarely refer to women as ladies. Just sayin’…………..
Even Eddie Izzard is now complaining that lesbians aren’t interested in dating him. Goodness, who would have thought?
Eddie used to be my favorite stand-up comic. It’s been sad to watch him become who knows what.
Of course, he only wants to sleep with cis women still, not other trans women like him. That’s the issue, he would find others like him repulsive, but expects to be excepted by cis lesbians. He’s not so keen to experience a lady p***s!!
The hypocrisy of this crowd is truly out of this world!
The hypocrisy of this crowd is truly out of this world!
Eddie used to be my favorite stand-up comic. It’s been sad to watch him become who knows what.
Of course, he only wants to sleep with cis women still, not other trans women like him. That’s the issue, he would find others like him repulsive, but expects to be excepted by cis lesbians. He’s not so keen to experience a lady p***s!!
Exactly. I refuse to accept that madness and I donât care what the woke mob say.
Touche, Daniel. Touche.
“That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney? First he is gay, then he is a trans woman, now he is a lesbian. That last bit came out about a week ago.”
Good Lord! My head spins reading this. I think it’s beneficial to my own sanity that I don’t follow the excesses of these fools. I fully concur with your assessment that they are loud, obnoxious, narcissistic, and almost certainly mentally ill.
Mentally ill, and instead of being treated their madness is indulged
Mentally ill, and instead of being treated their madness is indulged
Most of the ones who make it to the media are just making money when you drill down into it. Like all the Hippies who became gimlet eyed fund managers I think a lot of them will just laugh it all off in a few years time.
Didnât someone at Mermaidâs mention something about `transing the the gay awayâ?
Isnât that the ultimate form of conversion therapy?
“That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney?”
The gentleman is far from nuts. He’s taking advantage of an easy way to make a whole lot of money and as an exhibitionist performer he’s happy that his current act is successful. LIke most businessmen he’ll sell anything that sells.
Even Eddie Izzard is now complaining that lesbians aren’t interested in dating him. Goodness, who would have thought?
Exactly. I refuse to accept that madness and I donât care what the woke mob say.
Touche, Daniel. Touche.
“That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney? First he is gay, then he is a trans woman, now he is a lesbian. That last bit came out about a week ago.”
Good Lord! My head spins reading this. I think it’s beneficial to my own sanity that I don’t follow the excesses of these fools. I fully concur with your assessment that they are loud, obnoxious, narcissistic, and almost certainly mentally ill.
Most of the ones who make it to the media are just making money when you drill down into it. Like all the Hippies who became gimlet eyed fund managers I think a lot of them will just laugh it all off in a few years time.
“They now no longer believe in homosexuality â gay men and lesbians have been reconceptualised, essentially, as trans people with internalised transphobia.” <– Prove it.
Well, like NATO, what would have been the continued point of them post gay marriage/ the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.
These lucrative bureaucracies always have to find something new to feed off…
Utter nonsense re NATO.
For you Russian war on Ukraine has not happened?
Utter nonsense re NATO.
For you Russian war on Ukraine has not happened?
2014 is probably more accurate, 2015 in the USA (Obergefell).
The larger point though is that liberalism is a “liberating” ideology — it seeks to remove all unchosen constraints. This is the common thread which flows from John Locke overthrowing the divine right of kings to abolitionists overthrowing slavery to J.S. Mill and Susan B. Anthony’s overthrowing of the political patriarchy to Stonewall’s overthrowing of sodomy to modern progressives desire to overthrow biology: removal of unchosen constraints. Mill’s harm principle is explicit about this.
Julie’s desire to stop liberalism at 2014/15 is as absurd as trying to stop it in 1770 or 1857 or 1910 or 1961 — as long as there as a single person’s desire is being thwarted, liberalism must be prepared to free them. It can’t stop; if it stops, it dies.
You aint gay….you are trans. No such thing as gay according to these people, most of whom are just nuts.
That nut case, Dylan Mulvaney? First he is gay, then he is a trans woman, now he is a lesbian. That last bit came out about a week ago.
There is just a loud, obnoxious, selfish group of mentally ill people trying to take over society.
“They now no longer believe in homosexuality â gay men and lesbians have been reconceptualised, essentially, as trans people with internalised transphobia.” <– Prove it.
Well, like NATO, what would have been the continued point of them post gay marriage/ the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.
These lucrative bureaucracies always have to find something new to feed off…
Yes, women oppress women. Mary Daly described this in her model of the “sado-ritual syndrome”. Women are co-opted to enforce patriarchal rules. Other examples include women who conduct FGM on girls, and footbinders in China were women. Women comply because they are afraid.
I dispute your contention. African practitioners of FGM are certainly not afraid. They believe what they do is not only profitable for themselves but essential to the girlsâ moral and physical health. Among Somalis many men (especially those with more exposure to western mores) would actually like their wives not to be in agony during sex but much of female Somali society considers it essential for the family honour.
And yet all societies and ways of organising human interactions are as valuable and morally defensible as all the others and none are superior or inferior to anyother!
Wrong. So, wrong!
I hope this is irony. I think it is, but the absence of inflection and tone of voice sometimes make it very difficult to understand intent.
Wrong. So, wrong!
I hope this is irony. I think it is, but the absence of inflection and tone of voice sometimes make it very difficult to understand intent.
Well, but we still import Somalian savages into West?
Vibrant and diverse communities….
They are not afraid for themselves, but perhaps afraid of the social changes and potential disruptions that altering the status quo could bring. Perhaps I am interpreting too much into Cathy’s message, but that’s how I chose to read it. They act the way they do, because they believe it’s the right path, and any changes would bring about societal collapse and moral corruption. Do I agree with this? Absolutely not, and it is no excuse for inflicting harm, pain, and worse on other women. The basic premise that women are both victims and perpetrators stands though, and by extension that women help oppress other women.
And yet all societies and ways of organising human interactions are as valuable and morally defensible as all the others and none are superior or inferior to anyother!
Well, but we still import Somalian savages into West?
Vibrant and diverse communities….
They are not afraid for themselves, but perhaps afraid of the social changes and potential disruptions that altering the status quo could bring. Perhaps I am interpreting too much into Cathy’s message, but that’s how I chose to read it. They act the way they do, because they believe it’s the right path, and any changes would bring about societal collapse and moral corruption. Do I agree with this? Absolutely not, and it is no excuse for inflicting harm, pain, and worse on other women. The basic premise that women are both victims and perpetrators stands though, and by extension that women help oppress other women.
Funny, I thought women had agency. That if women do something or follow an ideology it was because they had decided to do so, and were responsible for their actions. Are you telling me that they are blindly following whatever they are presented with and cannot be held responsible?
“Funny, I thought women had agency.”
NO! Women are honorary negroes, they are incapable of agency. Everything the do they do because whitey made them do it. Everything they think they think because whitey made them think it.
“Funny, I thought women had agency.”
NO! Women are honorary negroes, they are incapable of agency. Everything the do they do because whitey made them do it. Everything they think they think because whitey made them think it.
Mean girls donât torture other school girls because theyâre being told to by men. In fact, boys and men confront one another openly, they donât start whisper campaigns and attack each other online, and are often horrified by this ugly behavior girls and women indulge in.
Absolutely. Both sexes are aggressive (and empathetic, of course). They just have different ways of playing it out.
Interestingly, in the story narrated in the article I envisaged all Maria’s persecutors as female.
Same here, including HR.
50 to 1 says HR is female. Any takers?
50 to 1 says HR is female. Any takers?
Likewise. I, too, am willing to bet that they are all female. Women can be very passive aggressive and backstabbing. I have not really seen this behaviour in men. Male aggression is usually head on and very direct, but the backstabbing nastiness is usually perpetrated by women. As a woman who much prefers the direct style of interaction, I am just as horrified as the men are when I see women do this to each other.
Same here, including HR.
Likewise. I, too, am willing to bet that they are all female. Women can be very passive aggressive and backstabbing. I have not really seen this behaviour in men. Male aggression is usually head on and very direct, but the backstabbing nastiness is usually perpetrated by women. As a woman who much prefers the direct style of interaction, I am just as horrified as the men are when I see women do this to each other.
Interestingly, in the story narrated in the article I envisaged all Maria’s persecutors as female.
Women practice internalized woman hating under the patriarchal structure. It could be said women start whisper campaigns, while men engage in world war, including holocaust to deal with conflict. Oxfam is disgraceful.
“it could be said” that women are complicit in the competitive rat race that men have had to run for eons. It could be said that not every part of being male is an advantage (war anyone?). It could be said that as long as we place people in giant broad-brushed categories of good or evil, that we are not seeing as clearly as we should–or could if we had the heart and will for it.
No women advocated or supported the Holocaust? #leniriefenstahl. But perhaps every violent or complicit action by a woman comes with a built-in, convenient excuse.
“Women practice internalized woman hating under the patriarchal structure.” Yes, that makes perfikt cents to me thanks to my $300K edukasions that my parints payed for. Lolz.
“it could be said” that women are complicit in the competitive rat race that men have had to run for eons. It could be said that not every part of being male is an advantage (war anyone?). It could be said that as long as we place people in giant broad-brushed categories of good or evil, that we are not seeing as clearly as we should–or could if we had the heart and will for it.
No women advocated or supported the Holocaust? #leniriefenstahl. But perhaps every violent or complicit action by a woman comes with a built-in, convenient excuse.
“Women practice internalized woman hating under the patriarchal structure.” Yes, that makes perfikt cents to me thanks to my $300K edukasions that my parints payed for. Lolz.
Absolutely. Both sexes are aggressive (and empathetic, of course). They just have different ways of playing it out.
Women practice internalized woman hating under the patriarchal structure. It could be said women start whisper campaigns, while men engage in world war, including holocaust to deal with conflict. Oxfam is disgraceful.
Isn’t the whole trans thing a different kettle of fish to the examples you give though? In what way is the trans movement ‘enforcing patriarchal rules’? I’m struggling to see any equivalence with FGM or footbinding.
Likewise, isn’t reputation destruction widely recognised as the feminine corollary of overt agression (the common maculine strategy) by psychologists, and by simple everyday anecdotal evidence?
And what, exactly, do you claim that the cancel-mobs are afraid of, from ‘the patriarchy’ when piling on to people such as J K Rowling? Are you really suggesting that all negative female behaviour can be traced back to The Patriarchy – that women have neither agency, nor flaws, of their own?
The âtransâ movement is enforcing patriarchal rules by prioritising âgenderâ norms over biological reality. A woman cannot be a strong, fit, intelligent lesbian; she has to pretend to be a man to be those things. If the suffragettes had been told that they could have the vote if they pretended to be men, and had agreed, the rest of us wouldnât have it now.
They are even taking it farther than that! Being a woman is a commodity, and femaleness can be bought with drugs and surgery. Our unique experiences as women are devalued and objectified. These men don’t just delude themselves and society into believing they are women, but they now claim they are the better women! It’s about erasing women and our unique spaces.
They are even taking it farther than that! Being a woman is a commodity, and femaleness can be bought with drugs and surgery. Our unique experiences as women are devalued and objectified. These men don’t just delude themselves and society into believing they are women, but they now claim they are the better women! It’s about erasing women and our unique spaces.
Yep.
The dismal thing to me about the trans activist movement is their judging what they call ‘gender’ (and the rest of us call biological sex) through the most comically outdated, narrow-minded cultural stereotypes of how a woman should look and behave. From Eddie Izzard to Dylan Mulvaney, all it takes is lippie and a frock.
“Lippie and a frock” funny!
“Lippie and a frock” funny!
The âtransâ movement is enforcing patriarchal rules by prioritising âgenderâ norms over biological reality. A woman cannot be a strong, fit, intelligent lesbian; she has to pretend to be a man to be those things. If the suffragettes had been told that they could have the vote if they pretended to be men, and had agreed, the rest of us wouldnât have it now.
Yep.
The dismal thing to me about the trans activist movement is their judging what they call ‘gender’ (and the rest of us call biological sex) through the most comically outdated, narrow-minded cultural stereotypes of how a woman should look and behave. From Eddie Izzard to Dylan Mulvaney, all it takes is lippie and a frock.
“Women are co-opted to enforce patriarchal rules.”
There’s truth in that, but not quite the way you mean it. Culture is passed on by women. Thus, whatever the culture is, it’s the one that women create and inculcate in their children. In genuinely patriarchal societies, women teach their sons to be aggressive in the search for resources and females because in such societies scarcity is the rule and only a few succeed. Women want their sons to succeed, don’t they?
Not always afraid. Sometimes just convinced by traditions that brook no questioning.
Couldn’t the clinging to traditions, no matter how outdated and wrong, also be a form of fear? Fear of change, fear of societal collapse, of moral corruption, etc. Fear doesn’t always mean being afraid for one’s life. I am not defending women who condone and commit such acts at all, but I think Cathy has some good points, and my key takeaway is that we women are both victims and perpetrators, and no, it’s not because men make us commit atrocities. We are perfectly capable of doing that without male input.
Couldn’t the clinging to traditions, no matter how outdated and wrong, also be a form of fear? Fear of change, fear of societal collapse, of moral corruption, etc. Fear doesn’t always mean being afraid for one’s life. I am not defending women who condone and commit such acts at all, but I think Cathy has some good points, and my key takeaway is that we women are both victims and perpetrators, and no, it’s not because men make us commit atrocities. We are perfectly capable of doing that without male input.
South Park series 13 had an episode that alluded to this. When Butters becomes a pimp, he relies heavily on his ‘Bottom b***h’ (sic) – basically a pimp’s Troop Sergeant, it seems. Readers may find this amusing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTtNXVtph18
So…women are not responsible for themselves or their actions? That they are perpetual victims of a misogynistic patriarchy that compels them always to act or not act as the case may be according to the Grand Patriarchal Strategy?
When you suggest that Women Comply because they are afraid, are you afraid? Are you writing this comment as an act of compliance?
Or are you suggesting that women are compelled to comply only when they act in a morally or ethically ‘bad’ manner…that otherwise they’re naturally angelic?
Rather I would suggest that in every moral & ethical sense, women are just like men. Sometimes they act in hateful, violent fashion, and sometimes those hateful, violent acts are directed against other women, and sometimes against men. Women oppress other women for the same reason men oppress other men: because they enjoy it…because they think it benefits them…because they think they’re right and the other wrong…because they believe themselves righteous.
Women and men alike pushed millions into the death chambers during the Holocaust. The sex of the dead didn’t matter in the least; nor the sex of the evil.
“SoâŠwomen are not responsible for themselves or their actions? That they are perpetual victims of a misogynistic patriarchy that compels them always to act or not act as the case may be according to the Grand Patriarchal Strategy?”
Correct. I don’t want to speak for Cathy, but it’s clear that she’s saying that women are weak, scared and lack agency because of the patriarchy and stuff.
“SoâŠwomen are not responsible for themselves or their actions? That they are perpetual victims of a misogynistic patriarchy that compels them always to act or not act as the case may be according to the Grand Patriarchal Strategy?”
Correct. I don’t want to speak for Cathy, but it’s clear that she’s saying that women are weak, scared and lack agency because of the patriarchy and stuff.
You see it all over the Islamic world, too, and unfortunately, such incidents have become more common in Europe and the Western world as well. Women are both victims and perpetrators. Honour killings are not just condoned, but frequently instigated by mothers and female relatives who incite and inflict violence against their own flesh and blood, and tell their husbands and sons they must kill their daughters/sisters. Examples include the killings of Rukhsana Naz (1999) and Shafilea Ahmed (2003). In both cases, mothers were the driving force, and conspired to kill their daughters, because they disapproved of the young women’s lifestyles.
Yes, unfortunately, women do oppress, betray, harm, and even kill other women. The concept of a universal sisterhood and female loyalty is myth.
I dispute your contention. African practitioners of FGM are certainly not afraid. They believe what they do is not only profitable for themselves but essential to the girlsâ moral and physical health. Among Somalis many men (especially those with more exposure to western mores) would actually like their wives not to be in agony during sex but much of female Somali society considers it essential for the family honour.
Funny, I thought women had agency. That if women do something or follow an ideology it was because they had decided to do so, and were responsible for their actions. Are you telling me that they are blindly following whatever they are presented with and cannot be held responsible?
Mean girls donât torture other school girls because theyâre being told to by men. In fact, boys and men confront one another openly, they donât start whisper campaigns and attack each other online, and are often horrified by this ugly behavior girls and women indulge in.
Isn’t the whole trans thing a different kettle of fish to the examples you give though? In what way is the trans movement ‘enforcing patriarchal rules’? I’m struggling to see any equivalence with FGM or footbinding.
Likewise, isn’t reputation destruction widely recognised as the feminine corollary of overt agression (the common maculine strategy) by psychologists, and by simple everyday anecdotal evidence?
And what, exactly, do you claim that the cancel-mobs are afraid of, from ‘the patriarchy’ when piling on to people such as J K Rowling? Are you really suggesting that all negative female behaviour can be traced back to The Patriarchy – that women have neither agency, nor flaws, of their own?
“Women are co-opted to enforce patriarchal rules.”
There’s truth in that, but not quite the way you mean it. Culture is passed on by women. Thus, whatever the culture is, it’s the one that women create and inculcate in their children. In genuinely patriarchal societies, women teach their sons to be aggressive in the search for resources and females because in such societies scarcity is the rule and only a few succeed. Women want their sons to succeed, don’t they?
Not always afraid. Sometimes just convinced by traditions that brook no questioning.
South Park series 13 had an episode that alluded to this. When Butters becomes a pimp, he relies heavily on his ‘Bottom b***h’ (sic) – basically a pimp’s Troop Sergeant, it seems. Readers may find this amusing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTtNXVtph18
So…women are not responsible for themselves or their actions? That they are perpetual victims of a misogynistic patriarchy that compels them always to act or not act as the case may be according to the Grand Patriarchal Strategy?
When you suggest that Women Comply because they are afraid, are you afraid? Are you writing this comment as an act of compliance?
Or are you suggesting that women are compelled to comply only when they act in a morally or ethically ‘bad’ manner…that otherwise they’re naturally angelic?
Rather I would suggest that in every moral & ethical sense, women are just like men. Sometimes they act in hateful, violent fashion, and sometimes those hateful, violent acts are directed against other women, and sometimes against men. Women oppress other women for the same reason men oppress other men: because they enjoy it…because they think it benefits them…because they think they’re right and the other wrong…because they believe themselves righteous.
Women and men alike pushed millions into the death chambers during the Holocaust. The sex of the dead didn’t matter in the least; nor the sex of the evil.
You see it all over the Islamic world, too, and unfortunately, such incidents have become more common in Europe and the Western world as well. Women are both victims and perpetrators. Honour killings are not just condoned, but frequently instigated by mothers and female relatives who incite and inflict violence against their own flesh and blood, and tell their husbands and sons they must kill their daughters/sisters. Examples include the killings of Rukhsana Naz (1999) and Shafilea Ahmed (2003). In both cases, mothers were the driving force, and conspired to kill their daughters, because they disapproved of the young women’s lifestyles.
Yes, unfortunately, women do oppress, betray, harm, and even kill other women. The concept of a universal sisterhood and female loyalty is myth.
So what? Male dominance could not exist without its Handmaids. Women have always partnered with men to silence and destroy the “bad” women who step out of line.
Yes, women are leading the charge against other women, but they are doing so for the benefit of their own social status and for males who identify as women, not for other women.
One fact does not cancel out the other.
I do have enormous sympathy for Julie and Maria, but also wonder whether nice liberals (well, even the nice liberals) have created the problem. Not much will change until Julie and JK admit they have been mugged and come out as conservatives.
Yes, but don’t hold your breath.
Yes, but don’t hold your breath.
Oh poppycock. The whole witch hunt of JKR is based on the author’s clear and strong support of women’s sex based rights and safety, with legions of women surrounding and supporting each other in light of the same.
“Julie â theyâre being silenced and treated like bigots ALMOST ENTIRELY BY OTHER WOMEN!” <– They are bigots, that is how they should expect to be treated. Their misandry is no better for being so badly misplaced.
“Julie wants to stop the liberal train in 2018 with the liberation of sexual desire (gay rights), while they want to embrace transgender and transhumanism to liberate people from biology itself.” <– No one can be made or decide to be either homosexual or transgender, both are characteristics had from birth. The transphobes in this are the only ones denying biology — you are apparently pretending or are deluded into thinking the brain is not as biological as is the sex of person. The weak sister feminists who insist the human brain has no sexual dimorphism that should be noted (because they are certain it will justify misogyny when it is conceded to exist) nevertheless fail to explain the dearth of transgender people whose brains scans at whatever age and whether or not they have had any exogenous hormones, either exactly or more closely match the patterns seen in the cisgender people of the gender the transgender people say they are. I wonder what might bring that about, if not biology?
And transumanism has all of nothing to do with it. Where did you get the idea it does?
Not that I suspect you’ll bother to learn what disproves you, but . . .
https://taliaperkinssspace.quora.com/People-are-born-transgender-they-are-not-mentally-ill-it-is-no-paraphilia-it-is-a-physical-birth-defect-no-more-a-men
I think you should put the coke down
I think you should have a factual counterargument. Seems you do not.
These are all facts which refute you. You won’t be able to make a factual counterargument.
https://taliaperkinssspace.quora.com/People-are-born-transgender-they-are-not-mentally-ill-it-is-no-paraphilia-it-is-a-physical-variance-from-the-usual-at
I think you should have a factual counterargument. Seems you do not.
These are all facts which refute you. You won’t be able to make a factual counterargument.
https://taliaperkinssspace.quora.com/People-are-born-transgender-they-are-not-mentally-ill-it-is-no-paraphilia-it-is-a-physical-variance-from-the-usual-at
Good on you Talia for having the guts to show up and put a contrary view in a pretty hostile setting. The references on brain difference are interesting, and mirror what a trans man mentioned at a meeting I once attended on trans awareness. I don’t think we should ever dismiss a person’s lived experience, whether that be trans, gay, lesbian or whatever. That said, human psychology is complex, and I think it is always concerning when people seek to diagnose everyone using a single lens. Trans people’s mental health typically improves through undergoing transition – great. Some vulnerable young people were not properly supported and made an impulsive choice to transition that they later deeply regretted – not great. Similarly, the needs of trans men and women should be valued by society, but so should the needs of vulnerable women who have been abused by men to have spaces where they can feel safe (This is an argument that J. K. Rowling has made, and it is not the same as ‘all trans people are frauds’). One should not trump the other, rather, mature, courageous conversations are needed to find pathways forward.
No one cares if someone is transgender unless it starts impinging on other people rights.
It is that simple.
Believe in what you want.
But do not try to compel me to believe in transgender nonsense and stop me from expressing my opinion about it.
And definitely do not compel women to allow mentally ill people into their spaces.
And stop trying to invade women sports because you failed as male.
Just get some medical help, if at all possible.
The whole male versus female brain nonsense has been debunked! Stop pushing outdated fake science that was used to deny women access to universities and the right to vote. Total drivel from a delusional ideologue!
I think you should put the coke down
Good on you Talia for having the guts to show up and put a contrary view in a pretty hostile setting. The references on brain difference are interesting, and mirror what a trans man mentioned at a meeting I once attended on trans awareness. I don’t think we should ever dismiss a person’s lived experience, whether that be trans, gay, lesbian or whatever. That said, human psychology is complex, and I think it is always concerning when people seek to diagnose everyone using a single lens. Trans people’s mental health typically improves through undergoing transition – great. Some vulnerable young people were not properly supported and made an impulsive choice to transition that they later deeply regretted – not great. Similarly, the needs of trans men and women should be valued by society, but so should the needs of vulnerable women who have been abused by men to have spaces where they can feel safe (This is an argument that J. K. Rowling has made, and it is not the same as ‘all trans people are frauds’). One should not trump the other, rather, mature, courageous conversations are needed to find pathways forward.
No one cares if someone is transgender unless it starts impinging on other people rights.
It is that simple.
Believe in what you want.
But do not try to compel me to believe in transgender nonsense and stop me from expressing my opinion about it.
And definitely do not compel women to allow mentally ill people into their spaces.
And stop trying to invade women sports because you failed as male.
Just get some medical help, if at all possible.
The whole male versus female brain nonsense has been debunked! Stop pushing outdated fake science that was used to deny women access to universities and the right to vote. Total drivel from a delusional ideologue!
Another part of this is the use of internal chat systems. I am convinced part of the reason social justice nonsense exploded in the workplace is because the use of online systems took off in workplaces. If the trans activist couldnât create a mob this wouldnât have happened.
I can’t see any evidence to support your ‘it’s all women’ rant. It’s crystal clear that it’s both men and women who’ve hopped onto this particular bandwagon (and a lot of them are actually men who want to be women). My own experience suggests that the ideology is driven both by people in their twenties (no surprise there, we all think we know everything at that age) and by older people in position of authority who are utterly terrified of losing those positions.
Yep. Complete ducks like Jon Snow, Dan Snow, Gary Lineker and so forth, quadrupally exposed by being white AND male AND middle-aged AND vaguely straight.
And in the Snows’ case, quintupally, by being haut bourgeois nepo-babies too.
Good points. since the mid 1960s the middle class have lived sheltered comfortable lives and are emotionally immature. When women worked in factories from the age of fourteen years of age and boys undertook dangerous work such as in sailing ships and down mines, they became adults very quickly. At the age of twenty five years Leonard Cheshire was a Group Captain, holder of VC and DSOs.
We no longer have a ruling class who led people into danger in their teens and have the backbone to say to people ” You speaking utter drivel “. In the days of sail, in a naval fight, a thirteen year old Midshipman would lead a boarding party.
Yep. Complete ducks like Jon Snow, Dan Snow, Gary Lineker and so forth, quadrupally exposed by being white AND male AND middle-aged AND vaguely straight.
And in the Snows’ case, quintupally, by being haut bourgeois nepo-babies too.
Good points. since the mid 1960s the middle class have lived sheltered comfortable lives and are emotionally immature. When women worked in factories from the age of fourteen years of age and boys undertook dangerous work such as in sailing ships and down mines, they became adults very quickly. At the age of twenty five years Leonard Cheshire was a Group Captain, holder of VC and DSOs.
We no longer have a ruling class who led people into danger in their teens and have the backbone to say to people ” You speaking utter drivel “. In the days of sail, in a naval fight, a thirteen year old Midshipman would lead a boarding party.
The person who complained and set the whole process in motion was a “transwoman” ie a man. Do you have any evidence that the people involved in the abusive complaints process against Maria were disproportionately female, or are you just misogynistically blaming women for the harm that men are doing to them?
STOP BLAMING WOMEN FOR THE HARM THAT MEN DO TO THEM.
Point taken, but the ones who jumped on the bandwagon were probably mostly women. I can say this with some degree of authority, because I have personally seen such smear campaigns develop. Jumping on the bandwagon is just as contemptible as instigating such behaviour.
Point taken, but the ones who jumped on the bandwagon were probably mostly women. I can say this with some degree of authority, because I have personally seen such smear campaigns develop. Jumping on the bandwagon is just as contemptible as instigating such behaviour.
How true.
Did these feminist who now complain about transgender rights being more important then women right defend religious people who did not want to confirm to “gay Christians” and other LGBT soup dogmas?
In a wider context, why it is OK for Muslim curry House to refuse drinking alcohol on premises but bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake are persecuted?
An excellent point, Andrew. You will probably be feathered and tarred for exposing the hypocrisy of the so-called progressives. That’s how they usually act when somebody holds up a mirror, and shows them how abominably they behave.
An excellent point, Andrew. You will probably be feathered and tarred for exposing the hypocrisy of the so-called progressives. That’s how they usually act when somebody holds up a mirror, and shows them how abominably they behave.
Trollish. It’s not women who are to blame for the drag culture’s normalizing womanface; It’s not J.S. Mill who’s to blame for a perversion of liberalism. The transcismen’s attacks on and erasure of women is the same old misogyny that underlay the witch hunts again rearing its ugly head . As usual, women are blamed for men’s perfidy as Brian V. ascribes to. Like during McCarthyism era, women are scared thus go along with the charade so they won’t be burned in effigy as they see happening to their more outspoken sisters. This eruption of hatred against women seems cyclical. Rather than leftist, this deep stream of hatred of women is a covert-right upsurge of male supremacy under the guise of left or liberal sponsorship and the timid, cowardly or shallow sheep fall in line with the aggressive dominators. It’s definitely men who are pushing the ideology, while many, both male and female, go along out of fear or stupidity.
Why are women afraid? I am not! I am a woman, and I am incensed, angry, indeed furious, beyond belief, but most definitely not afraid. What is there to be afraid of? Then again, I have never been called cowardly or timid in my entire life–not even as a girl. We are 50%+ of society, and should perhaps take a page out of the old Greek play Lysistrata to show that we are a serious force to be reckoned with.
I am not convinced that it’s fear, but the argument that such people are stupid and shallow has merit.
Why are women afraid? I am not! I am a woman, and I am incensed, angry, indeed furious, beyond belief, but most definitely not afraid. What is there to be afraid of? Then again, I have never been called cowardly or timid in my entire life–not even as a girl. We are 50%+ of society, and should perhaps take a page out of the old Greek play Lysistrata to show that we are a serious force to be reckoned with.
I am not convinced that it’s fear, but the argument that such people are stupid and shallow has merit.
Sorry to nitpick, but I believe it was in 2014 that Stonewall decided to go mad, and it’s that organisation that have spread the insanity far and wide.
They now no longer believe in homosexuality – gay men and lesbians have been reconceptualised, essentially, as trans people with internalised transphobia.
Yes, women oppress women. Mary Daly described this in her model of the “sado-ritual syndrome”. Women are co-opted to enforce patriarchal rules. Other examples include women who conduct FGM on girls, and footbinders in China were women. Women comply because they are afraid.
So what? Male dominance could not exist without its Handmaids. Women have always partnered with men to silence and destroy the “bad” women who step out of line.
Yes, women are leading the charge against other women, but they are doing so for the benefit of their own social status and for males who identify as women, not for other women.
One fact does not cancel out the other.
I do have enormous sympathy for Julie and Maria, but also wonder whether nice liberals (well, even the nice liberals) have created the problem. Not much will change until Julie and JK admit they have been mugged and come out as conservatives.
Oh poppycock. The whole witch hunt of JKR is based on the author’s clear and strong support of women’s sex based rights and safety, with legions of women surrounding and supporting each other in light of the same.
“Julie â theyâre being silenced and treated like bigots ALMOST ENTIRELY BY OTHER WOMEN!” <– They are bigots, that is how they should expect to be treated. Their misandry is no better for being so badly misplaced.
“Julie wants to stop the liberal train in 2018 with the liberation of sexual desire (gay rights), while they want to embrace transgender and transhumanism to liberate people from biology itself.” <– No one can be made or decide to be either homosexual or transgender, both are characteristics had from birth. The transphobes in this are the only ones denying biology — you are apparently pretending or are deluded into thinking the brain is not as biological as is the sex of person. The weak sister feminists who insist the human brain has no sexual dimorphism that should be noted (because they are certain it will justify misogyny when it is conceded to exist) nevertheless fail to explain the dearth of transgender people whose brains scans at whatever age and whether or not they have had any exogenous hormones, either exactly or more closely match the patterns seen in the cisgender people of the gender the transgender people say they are. I wonder what might bring that about, if not biology?
And transumanism has all of nothing to do with it. Where did you get the idea it does?
Not that I suspect you’ll bother to learn what disproves you, but . . .
https://taliaperkinssspace.quora.com/People-are-born-transgender-they-are-not-mentally-ill-it-is-no-paraphilia-it-is-a-physical-birth-defect-no-more-a-men
Another part of this is the use of internal chat systems. I am convinced part of the reason social justice nonsense exploded in the workplace is because the use of online systems took off in workplaces. If the trans activist couldnât create a mob this wouldnât have happened.
I can’t see any evidence to support your ‘it’s all women’ rant. It’s crystal clear that it’s both men and women who’ve hopped onto this particular bandwagon (and a lot of them are actually men who want to be women). My own experience suggests that the ideology is driven both by people in their twenties (no surprise there, we all think we know everything at that age) and by older people in position of authority who are utterly terrified of losing those positions.
The person who complained and set the whole process in motion was a “transwoman” ie a man. Do you have any evidence that the people involved in the abusive complaints process against Maria were disproportionately female, or are you just misogynistically blaming women for the harm that men are doing to them?
STOP BLAMING WOMEN FOR THE HARM THAT MEN DO TO THEM.
How true.
Did these feminist who now complain about transgender rights being more important then women right defend religious people who did not want to confirm to “gay Christians” and other LGBT soup dogmas?
In a wider context, why it is OK for Muslim curry House to refuse drinking alcohol on premises but bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake are persecuted?
Trollish. It’s not women who are to blame for the drag culture’s normalizing womanface; It’s not J.S. Mill who’s to blame for a perversion of liberalism. The transcismen’s attacks on and erasure of women is the same old misogyny that underlay the witch hunts again rearing its ugly head . As usual, women are blamed for men’s perfidy as Brian V. ascribes to. Like during McCarthyism era, women are scared thus go along with the charade so they won’t be burned in effigy as they see happening to their more outspoken sisters. This eruption of hatred against women seems cyclical. Rather than leftist, this deep stream of hatred of women is a covert-right upsurge of male supremacy under the guise of left or liberal sponsorship and the timid, cowardly or shallow sheep fall in line with the aggressive dominators. It’s definitely men who are pushing the ideology, while many, both male and female, go along out of fear or stupidity.
“What Maria endured is part of a wider woke culture in the charitable sector, where female employees are silenced and treated like bigots for believing that sex-based rights matter.”
You missed a key point here, Julie — they’re being silenced and treated like bigots ALMOST ENTIRELY BY OTHER WOMEN!
It is progressive women who are leading the woke crusade to purge organizations of heretics. The inquisition is stinging up both men and women, conservatives and liberals, but the inquisitors are almost uniformly liberal, quasi-elite, university-educated, women. Women very much like Julie Bindel.
Julie wants to stop the liberal train in 2018 with the liberation of sexual desire (gay rights), while they want to embrace transgender and transhumanism to liberate people from biology itself. This is only a matter of degree, something which Julie consistently fails to recognize.
I wish that I could say that I was surprised by this, but so many corporations and organisations increasingly emulate the behaviour of the old Warsaw Pact countries, where anyone who didn’t unequivocally support the chosen ideological position was therefore an enemy of the people. How did we get to this sinister state? I suppose the old clichĂ© about “for evil to succeed, all it needs is for good men to do nothing” applies here. In our desire to become a kinder, more inclusive society, we’ve been sleepwalking into an Orwellian state where daring to say that 2+2=4 is now a thought crime.
We were too polite, not wanting to cause a scene. Now we have men threatening women if they try to prevent them from going into womenâs spaces, and police who back them.
‘In the empire of lies, truth is treason.’
Libertarian Senator Ron Paul.
Well said.
You are right about Warsaw Pact mentality.
Most progressives are neo-Marxists hell bend on destruction of Western society.
Whether, as part of the journey, people rights are trampled on and mutilation of children happens it is not their concern.
As Communists and their fellow travellers in the West said:
You can not make omlet without breaking eggs.
We were too polite, not wanting to cause a scene. Now we have men threatening women if they try to prevent them from going into womenâs spaces, and police who back them.
‘In the empire of lies, truth is treason.’
Libertarian Senator Ron Paul.
Well said.
You are right about Warsaw Pact mentality.
Most progressives are neo-Marxists hell bend on destruction of Western society.
Whether, as part of the journey, people rights are trampled on and mutilation of children happens it is not their concern.
As Communists and their fellow travellers in the West said:
You can not make omlet without breaking eggs.
I wish that I could say that I was surprised by this, but so many corporations and organisations increasingly emulate the behaviour of the old Warsaw Pact countries, where anyone who didn’t unequivocally support the chosen ideological position was therefore an enemy of the people. How did we get to this sinister state? I suppose the old clichĂ© about “for evil to succeed, all it needs is for good men to do nothing” applies here. In our desire to become a kinder, more inclusive society, we’ve been sleepwalking into an Orwellian state where daring to say that 2+2=4 is now a thought crime.
“Earlier this year, Oxfam updated its language guide, which is an internal document advising staff how to speak about its work. The document includes the instruction that, rather than using the phrases âbiological maleâ and âbiological femaleâ, âAMAB and AFABâ (assigned male/female at birth), should be used instead; and when talking about âexpectant mothersâ, use the phrase âpeople who become pregnantâ.
I hope Natalie Solent doesn’t mind me borrowing her words in response to this weasel-faced drivel.
“This is the fruit of a movement that propagates itself by intimidation. Intimidation gets compliance, but ever fewer believe that the wretches who must proclaim it actually believe it.”
“People who become pregnant”, boy is that annoying.
I sympathise. That is no way to refer to your mother.
I sympathise. That is no way to refer to your mother.
“People who become pregnant”, boy is that annoying.
“Earlier this year, Oxfam updated its language guide, which is an internal document advising staff how to speak about its work. The document includes the instruction that, rather than using the phrases âbiological maleâ and âbiological femaleâ, âAMAB and AFABâ (assigned male/female at birth), should be used instead; and when talking about âexpectant mothersâ, use the phrase âpeople who become pregnantâ.
I hope Natalie Solent doesn’t mind me borrowing her words in response to this weasel-faced drivel.
“This is the fruit of a movement that propagates itself by intimidation. Intimidation gets compliance, but ever fewer believe that the wretches who must proclaim it actually believe it.”
…and, when working in disaster zones, ‘sex is commercial’.
…and, when working in disaster zones, ‘sex is commercial’.
When my local Oxfam bookshop posted on their online book club that they wanted to know what people were reading and their views I reported that I was reading Material Girls by Kathleen Stock and it was really good read.
I was shocked and humiliated when I received a public reply that transphobic people were not welcome in the shop.
I personally complained to the manager as I was shocked it was coming from him. He apologised and said it was a volunteer.. this was some while back when the book was first published but already they had the attack dogs ready.
It is very alarming too that their 94 page document on advisory language includes or rather excludes âwomenâ and âmotherâ. To third world countries, to over half of their inhabitants, the most deserving in any book, an attempt of erasure. The confusion must be rife.
People are avoiding Oxfam because of it. I wish they would have the guts to challenge them in person.
The last time I did this in another Oxfam shop the server just looked at me in astonishment because I donât think most of the volunteers have any idea.
The latest Oxfam sneer is to release a nasty video for Pride showing a red eyed old ugly woman with a TERF badge, apparently a caricature of JK Rowling. Complain!!! Avoiding is not enough. I want to save Oxfam too.
When my local Oxfam bookshop posted on their online book club that they wanted to know what people were reading and their views I reported that I was reading Material Girls by Kathleen Stock and it was really good read.
I was shocked and humiliated when I received a public reply that transphobic people were not welcome in the shop.
I personally complained to the manager as I was shocked it was coming from him. He apologised and said it was a volunteer.. this was some while back when the book was first published but already they had the attack dogs ready.
It is very alarming too that their 94 page document on advisory language includes or rather excludes âwomenâ and âmotherâ. To third world countries, to over half of their inhabitants, the most deserving in any book, an attempt of erasure. The confusion must be rife.
People are avoiding Oxfam because of it. I wish they would have the guts to challenge them in person.
The last time I did this in another Oxfam shop the server just looked at me in astonishment because I donât think most of the volunteers have any idea.
The latest Oxfam sneer is to release a nasty video for Pride showing a red eyed old ugly woman with a TERF badge, apparently a caricature of JK Rowling. Complain!!! Avoiding is not enough. I want to save Oxfam too.
Try completing the sentence, ‘I find the phrase “expectant mother” offensive because …’
It’s baffled me.
Try completing the sentence, ‘I find the phrase “expectant mother” offensive because …’
It’s baffled me.