To the radical feminists and conservative men, thank you! You have carried this mantle in your silos for far too long. I am a silent moderate. My adjectives are intelligent, feminine, and tough. To describe me another way would be an attack on ‘my truth.’ I jest.
I love my children, I love my husband but I'm pretty realistic about the dysfunction in my wider family.
My immersion in 2nd wave feminism of the 70s/80s saved my life and helped me make sense of the world. I think you may have lived a very privileged and protected life without feeling empathy for working class women and being able to form a grounded understanding of our struggles.
But I'm glad to have communicated with you to get a glimpse into your world view. Hope your life continues being nice too...and I'll just keep aspiring to it.
I was raised working class. My family was very dysfunctional with abuse and alcoholism. Maybe because I had to fight hard to overcome that, that I am willing to stand up for my family and the foundations of family.
This gender ideology impacts all tax brackets, all families whether healthy or dysfunctional. I want to stand up to that.
Hi PRM, I am going to take a stab at this even though I am not the author of this article about coming together to fight RGT. I think that different things work for different people, For some it is religion and for some it is 2nd wave feminism, etc. It does seem like some wave of feminism went arwy with Judith Butler and how we are all just play acting a "gender" or whatever (3rd or 4th?) Maybe we need a 7th wave or something to set it all straight. I certainly admire Kathleen Stock. To me your post feels just a little passive/aggressive. I am glad the immersion that you experienced saved your life :) But, all parents on PITT are bleeding and I think they come from all walks of life and may or may not agree with your interpretation that a wave of feminism speaks to the working class experience of women. Deciding that people who disagree with this view lack empathy when all parents here are bleeding over the RGT cult... Do you have a kid hurt by RGT grooming?
To clarify regarding Judith Butler, from what I've read of her incomprehensible writing, she is not a feminist, but an anti-feminist, and most radfems and gen-crit women I know seem to agree. Gen-crit women, from what I understand, are considered the 4th wave of feminism. Much of what has been called the 3rd wave, from what I understand, is anti-feminist. ("Sex work is work," pro-gender, etc.)
I'm glad to read you admire Kathleen Stock.
Regarding "RGT," I hope that pushing back against "gender identity" will cause all of us to begin to question everything about "gender" (our socialization -- and our socialization of others -- into sex-role stereotypes from birth, onward), as that is at the root of all of this: the patriarchal belief in male superiority and female inferiority, and therefore, men being entitled to own and control females: and now female identities.
In the case of men claiming to be women, they mostly seem to want to consume us as a commodity, for sexual gratification, or claim to be us for other purposes. While the most extreme beliefs and embrace of "gender" are the lost alarming to many right now, they seem to be extensions of more moderate beliefs about "gender" (sex-role socialization), also.
The wmtire idea that we should each occupy a sex-role is inherently problematic, particularly to females. These roles are not only male-dominant/female subordinate, but are limiting and dehumanizing to all of us, as they do not allow us to be whole, diverse people pursuing what we enjoy and are good at, rather than a prescribed role.
I would like to see a different term than "Radical Gender Theory" used to identify the problem, because "moderate" beliefs about "gender"/sex-role socialization are at the root of the problem, and therefore will not "root it out." Only pushing back at, and defying sex roles will do that (without falling into the trap that we actually *are* the opposite sex.) And that won't happen over night. The sex roles have been developed over millenia, so it will probably take as many millenia to unravel and dismantle them.
I don't know of an ideal term, yet, for gender identity ideology, or sex-role identity ideology.
I do enjoy referring to it as "biophobia - an irrational fear of nature, including of one's own biological sex," because this gets more to the root of patriarchy (men regarding nature as "other," as something outside of themselves, something wild, unruly, and requiring men to control it, including women, who they see, under patriarchy, as closer to nature and something else they can and "should" control.
I also enjoy using "biophobia," because it tosses the accusation of having an "irrational fear" (a psychological and emotional problem) back on the biophobes.
I mean, how ironic that people who hold the irrational belief, or claim to, that they are the opposite sex, refer to the *rest of us* as having a "phobia" (psychological problem) for having a firm grasp of biological reality!
I didn't express all this very well here. I'm typing this on my cell phone with two thumbs, which never leads to the greatest communication, so my apologies in advance.
"Regarding "RGT," I hope that pushing back against "gender identity" will cause all of us to begin to question everything about "gender" (our socialization -- and our socialization of others -- into sex-role stereotypes from birth, onward), as that is at the root of all of this: the patriarchal belief in male superiority and female inferiority, and therefore, men being entitled to own and control females: and now female identities."
I've been doing a deep dive into this subject for about 5 years now. Respectfully, your analysis of what's at the root of gender ideology is incorrect, or at least incomplete.
If "the patriarchal belief in male superiority" was truly at the root of this, gender ideologues would have a noted respect for and reverence for men and masculinity. They don't. They despise men and masculinity almost as much as they despise women and femininity. They're less violent towards men (probably because men hit back), but there's no respect there.
The gender ideologues are targeting humanity, not womanhood. Their misogyny is because women are the guardians of life and humanity. We bring forth new life. We give birth. For people who aspire to a post-human world, bringing new humans into the world is nearly unforgivable.
Patriarchy is based on a few men trying to control all the women, so their male competitors leave no descendants.
Gender fanatics don't want ANYONE to leave descendants, themselves included.
Gender Ideology will use patriarchal ideas and language to achieve its own goals, but it's a smokescreen. Don't be fooled.
I think that you are on to something. They will use any language and cult tactics that work. "people who aspire to a post-human world" - Yes, transhumanism
I also suspect that pedophelia is a strong element. If these kids don't go through puberty they turn into adult people with childlike bodies who have been so psychologically abused they are an easy and legal target.
For the ones they don't head off that early there is alot of "slow walking" advice from the groomers - like tell your parents it's not such a big deal and they are bigots. Then you take cross sex hormones and surgeries at 18 (or younger now). But, how is this ever ok? If I went to a surgeon and said I wanted my ear or hand chopped off I would be sent to a shrink who would not immediately affirm my conclusions.
1. Financially predatory corporations. This is big pharma, cosmetic surgery, the sex industry (prostitution and porn), and supporting industries. They have always been predatory. Big pharma brought us the opioid epidemic. The cosmetic surgery industry has been chopping up healthy body parts for upwards of 60 years, and they have always preyed on people with body dysmorphic disorder. Their only motivation is profits.
2. Individual predators: these are your narcissists, psychopaths and pedophiles. You already noted the special interest pedos have in transing children.
3. Gnostics who want to free souls from bodies and deconstruct reality. There are classic metaphysical gnostics and techno-gnostics, more commonly called transhumanists. They're religious fanatics hunting heretics and trying to build their post-human utopia.
The folks behind gender ideology are gnostics. The folks giving them power and money are opportunistic predators who take advantage of any and all openings. The most useful opening at the moment is gender ideology.
I used to think of it as cynical cult tactics used for the ends of number 1 and 2 and I'm sure there is plenty of that. (Marc/Marci Bowers is now head of WPATH I think and they no longer support age requirements for any procedures. Bowers tried to do some career saving PR spin in the WaPo a few months back but I didn't buy it.)
And I'd heard of TransHumanism and was separately aware that this "sexed body is not reality/authentic truth" thing among the kids at school was a Gnostic belief.... but now I am getting my head around the fact that there really is a techno transhumanist gnostic cult that influential and rich adults actually believe in/are part of. People are no different than many hundreds of years ago.
So, maybe the next important step is to have a NXIVM style documentary series on Transhumanism to help the population at large connect the dots? I have good friends who still believe that the "trans" person is real, rare, and an adusted person - and that the teens are screened carefully in case they are just not mentally stable or something.
I completely agree with you. On top of that it appears to have worked for a bunch of "progressive" political forces - keeping them in power. The public has been so snowed with DIE/DEI. I'd like to see the Department of Education closed and Ed sent back to the states - not that the NAIS is any good either.
"Judith Butler, from what I've read of her incomprehensible writing" Yup
I think that the older generation of men claiming to be women (Like Assistant US Secretary Richard/Rachael Levine) are one thing and that most of these boys/young men are something else - more like groomed ROGD girls escaping the idea of being the predator or something.
I also like the term biophobia because this phobia stuff is so ridiculous but I do like RGT better and I think it has a better chance of catching on broadly and ending the nightmare.
Interestingly, a large share of the ROGD girls (most of them?) come from families that were not into stereotypes. I am not particularly "liberal" myself but I gave my ROGD daughter every kind of toy and opportunity. It did not shield her from the cult. It is a puzzle that will be understood one day.
I think that broadly speaking boys and girls are different. If you give them all trucks and dolls they will play with them differently. The boys tend to be more physical and the girls tend to sit and concentrate more at an early age. I think this is inborn as we have different bodies, etc. That said, there are always people who are not typical and we should all be happy with that. While I am on a rant (g) we ought to love all of our "weird" kids. Somehow it isn't of for kids just to be a little "quirky" these days. They have to be labeled.
My 15 year old granddaughter says she is a lesbian. Her first "girlfriend" has been a "transman" demanding that we refer to her as he/him. My granddaughter is a tall overweight girl who looks what we used to call "butch". She is depressed and bullied at school. Both teachers and students are coercing her to identify as "trans". Her parents and I are afraid to take her to a doctor, counselling service or even a lesbian support organisation in case they are "gender affirming". This previously gregarious and high achieving student is failing at school and feels she has no friends. She is an only child thus her friends are so important to her.
However, I was peaked about trans gender ideology 3 years ago, before Trinity was going through her current stressful situation. Due to being cancelled by a mob of wokey dopes who told me I was a white supremacist racist, much to my astonishment as not a one of them knows diddly squat about me, except for the one opinion I expressed publicly they didn't like.
I sure would not call her girlfriend by false pronouns. Maybe you can avoid pronouns all together? Sad that they don't just want to let them be girls who like each other. That is the world we live in. The cult is everywhere. My own daughter is straight & feminine with all manner of interests. No young person is "safe".
I absolutely refused to refer to Trinitys girlfriend as he and made the basis for my anti trans stance very clear. I only met her in person once and was torn by feeling pity for the poor confused girl and outrage at her induction into the trans cult. Fortunately she hadn't taken any wrong sex hormones or had surgery so hopefully will get out of it eventually, unscathed. But there is a thriving gender clinic in the city where she lives so kids are getting transed in irreversible medical treatments.
so terrible - and I do think there are psychological scars to heal even when people escape physical damage. All of us parents feel traumatized for sure.
Her TEACHERS are coercing her she is trans?? Not just affirming her saying that but actually giving her the idea?? You mean your granddaughter does not actually identify as trans (great if that's the case) but her peers (ok, they are teen idiots) and TEACHERS push it?? If that's the case, that's a whole new level of nightmare. I am not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting she needs to switch school since that's obvious. Wishing you luck. G-d help us all, what a nightmare.
Have you visited a high school lately? I am in Australia but our situation is slightly less dire than Canada. My granddaughter lives in an inner suburb in a large city, surrounded by some of the most rampantly woke lefties. The school is run by a staff of non binaries with green and blue hair who were indoctrinated with post modernism when they did their teaching degrees. There is a thriving gender clinic in Newcastle where they deliver up sacrifices for the Genderbred man. We have looked into trying change schools for her but it hasn't been possible and essentially the gender cult infects them all to varying degrees...it is a nightmare
I am sorry, I really didn't mean to imply that you are not doing right by her. Please forgive me if it came across like I was telling you what to do. I really know nothing about schools in Australia.
thats cool! I didn't read your comment as judgemental. Most ppl contributing to PITT are in the USA and I get it that things are different there. The kind of things that are happening in your most "progressive" states, like California, are happening in Aus cities too.
Canada, too. Three of us parents (all moms) are running as Independents in our local (Vancouver, BC) civic election as School Trustees. Need to do everything we all can to push back.
Gee - where are the conservative women in your recognition? Of course, we've been labeled dupes, not real women, etc by the left for so long for other reasons. But I agree, I'll fight this battle with anyone.
It just would be nice for the left to acknowledge that degrading aren't the way to go. (While I don't use feminazi myself, it's at least aimed at behavior and not being. TERF is way worse, IMO.)
You are right, degrading (from either side) is no way to go. I was going to write that I am not conservative, then stumbled and realized I don't even know where I stand on conservative-liberal spectrum anymore.
This can't be legal: Concealing Radicalism, Michigan’s Department of Education encourages teachers to facilitate child sexual transitions without parental consent.
Christopher F. Rufo September 14, 2022"
"Finally, the Department of Education teaches school employees how to facilitate the sexual transition of children under their care, while keeping the process a secret from parents."
Everyone, moderates, liberals, conservatives need to be on board to push this out of the new cultural trend that’s dominating the young and naive. Don’t separate us anymore. We need to come together to battle the new cult religion of T. United we win!!!!
I was listening recently to a fascinating podcast on the history of the West Virginia coal miners more than 100 years ago. The miners were locked in the culture of the company town, perhaps two inches better than being a slave.
The mine operators actually enjoyed mixing the miners up by demographics. Whites, blacks, Mexicans, Immigrants from West Europe, East Europe, Asia... stick them into a giant mess so they can never talk to their neighbor and become organized. And so you can play one group against another.
Until the black miner realized his white miner neighbor was different from the mine operator. And the white miner realized he had far more in common with his black miner neighbor than the white coal operator. And the coal miners realized what they had in common -- being coal miners -- was far more important than being white, black, catholic, orthodox, protestant or any other division.
Made me think about this obsession to talk about "diversity" and to fracture us into more and more sub-groups.
This is coming on a day that I am really missing the voice of Magdalen Burns who died way too young. And me feeling really angry that my daughters are swept up with this ideology because they want to be progressive and inclusive. Navigating the double edge sword of wanting to maintain parental bonds and standing up for what is right. Currently, both cannot be done. That day cannot come soon enough.
Gender is directly derived from sex - so is gender expression. Homosexual transexuals are the perfect example. Sexual inverts express their submissiveness or dominance through their gender expression.
To deny women are innately feminine and men are innately masculine is to deny biology and realty. Moreover men and women are naturally cooperative and not competitive and the only matriarchy and patriarchy that exists is the natural, symbiotic relationship of husband and wife formed to create life sustaining families.
Right back at you as far as proving *my* point goes. Those who don't understand radical feminism don't understand shit about this debate. Gender is directly derived from sexism not sex, especially in its female expression as it is men's idea of what women should behave and look like and there is much more pressure on women to comply with it. There is no natural sex hierarchy, women are not naturally submissive, much less is male violence against women, including the mothers of their children, any kind of natural, but yet this violence is endemic in het relationships. Some aspects of gender expression, as seen in the least culturally corrupted - strongest - women and men, are relatively natural, but most are degrees of unnatural. Get back to me when you've read that book.
Women naturally want to be PENETRATED which is submissiveness, men naturally want to PENETRATE which is dominance. Men naturally do not want to be penetrated and women naturally do not want to penetrate.
Narcissists of both sexes are bisexuals because they use sex to trap their prey and turn them in to their slaves.
Your radical feminist is pure anti-man anti-women anti-human narcissistic anti-science ideology. You might want to study up on science instead and drop the pseudoscience political quackery.
There is plenty to back up your assertion, but the example you chose is terrible. May I try?
Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. It's a subtle dimorphism with a huge area of overlap, but it's pervasive to nearly every area of our bodies, brains, and behaviors. Measure 10,000 men on ANY area and it will create a bell curve. Measure 10,000 women in the same area and it will create a different bell curve. Maybe it will have the peak in a different spot, maybe it will be steeper or flatter. But it's always measurably different.
Aggression falls on significantly different bell curves. Males are more physically aggressive on average than females. Healthy males direct that aggression towards healthy competition with other males, but it's still aggression.
The female bell curve tends more towards conciliatory behaviors. This isn't the same as passive. There's nothing passive about female social behaviors. But it is more conciliatory and less aggressive.
This isn't socialization, it's evolution, and it's found in every human culture on the planet. Aggressive men leave more offspring. The pro-social version of this is protecting and providing for more mates. The anti-social version of this is rape. Either way, aggressive men leave more descendants than passive men do.
Conciliatory women leave more surviving offspring. The ability to build social relationships and coalitions is vital for surviving pregnancy, childbirth, and rearing young children. Passive women lose children to neglect. Conciliatory women get higher quality mayes, and they make sure their kids get what they need.
If you want to learn more about this, I recommend The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of human nature.
Why does this feel like a man explaining to me, a woman, what I want in bed? I can't imagine why. Look, all I can say to someone this deluded about women's sexual wants and needs is you should get out more and meet some actual women. If the women you sleep with are passive in bed my best guess is they're not that into you. As for me being anti-men, my husband of many years would disagree with you there, he being a strong man who enjoys the fact that I am far from passive or submissive in bed. Non coerced, true consent, just by the way, is also an active not submissive process, probably the most active process in any sexual encounter.
I know this is a week late, but thank you. I too am a gender critical feminist (l used to think I was *very* liberal, but now I think I'm ordinary liberal in a lot of spaces, but simply left-leaning moderate in others).
I think this newsletter is such an important space in our time - a lot of unheard voices have a place to tell their stories. I think I've made two comments and the aggressive pushback from men has really made me think twice about commenting, and almost always not comment. I appreciate you wading into the waters.
The problem is that you are tied to your ideology and don’t understand the subjects that have been broached - based upon your responses. Even your suggestion that I am a man reveals your feminist mindset.
I think a call to action should include preparing our kids for what they will face out in the world. When they are young we can explain to them that there are ideas out there that want to promote division within our families, but that nothing - no idea or person - can separate us from the love and loyalty we have within our family. Build up trust so that they will come to us when they encounter this.
That sounds nice but I think we need to take down/expose RGT. We have always been a tight loving family and I would never have known to look out for gender grooming at school 5-6 years ago. Like, "honey, people might tell you that transexualism is an inner truth but we don't believe that". A problem with cults is that they are expert at dividing/gas lighting step by little step. What will it be next? I suspect that there are some "Minor Attracted People" in high places who promote this hard so that we will have adult people with child bodies... For instance, why do we have an Assistant US Health Secretary (Levine) promoting this garbage like his life depended on it? What is up with Sam Brinton? Where are the real journalists?
I agree. Yet I must state that most parents busy raising families never saw this coming! Had I known then what I know now I would have been more able to do that. The behemoth of the big lie, that a person can be born in the wrong body, has so widely captured the hearts and minds of many institutions and adults who are misguiding a whole generation. The propaganda is strong. The call to action at this point is to stand up to the institutions within our own government, including schools, and medical institutions. I especially encourage those without children caught up in this horrific injustice of a medical scandal. We need those voices and individuals more than ever. Join the rally in Anaheim.
This is beautiful and cogent: "The language slights are an attack on the family. It strips the population of the language needed to speak to the intimacy of our relationships."
I, too, have shared a call to action on my blog, found courage to join the growing numbers of gender critical warriors who are standing their ground. We MUST reclaim empirical reality from the sophists and profiteers, and we need each other to do that.
Radical feminists also attacked the family. They paved the way for the current gender madness. I'm not going to join a movement with them, and no, this isn't ideological purity: it's cold, hard, ruthless pragmatism.
what movement are you not willing to join? the one that stands against big pharma and the medical establishment that is causing the largest medical scandal of our time? That movement? For the life of me, I cannot fathom why.
Hi Diana, we probably share a fair amount of thoughts about morality and the outcomes of various ideas and philosophies. However, I will happily support a mother or father who is exactly opposite me on any number of vital issues if that person will stand with me against this horror.
It’s not social transition, it’s cross dressing and lying about yourself.
It’s not a pause on puberty it’s chemical castration.
I pray for the day when I can oppose them on a lesser issue. At the moment we are in the fight together and our families are taking fire. All of our families. Every parent here is my wounded comrade.
I'm talking about radical feminism and holding them accountable for getting this ball rolling in the first place. I don't know how old you are; I was a kid during the late 60s and saw everything at the beginning. Frankly, naming the names & quoting the quotes is triggering to me and just not worth it. But everything in this insanity started there.
"However, I will happily support a mother or father who is exactly opposite me on any number of vital issues if that person will stand with me against this horror."
Cold, hard, ruthless pragmatism is joining into a distasteful alliance to achieve a specific goal, then dissolving the alliance as soon as the goal is achieved.
Yes, many radfems express virulent misandry and general opposition to biological families. And yes, some of their rhetoric opened the door for the gender fanatics to take over. But they were ALSO among the first to recognize the threat of gender ideology, and recognize how their words were being twisted and corrupted. They tried to raise the alarm. I disregarded them at the time. They "cried wolf" so many times that I had stopped even considering the possibility that there might actually be a wolf. Oops.
Most radfems are trauma survivors reacting out of PTSD from abusive families. Their conclusions aren't accurate, but they're understandable.
Gender fanatics aren't just attacking the family. They're attacking all Enlightenment ideals and the very existence of humanity. Their goal is a highly profitable post-human world, unhampered by oppressive concepts like science, logic, or equality under the law.
I will make a focused alliance with ANYONE who will join me in opposing that goal. We can sort out our other differences later.
The US was never on good terms with the Soviet Union. But from 1941 to 1945, we were allies with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Yes, it came at a cost. Stalin was a monster, and that alliance strengthened him. But without that alliance, we would have had to fight both Hitler and Stalin at the same time. We would have lost.
Hold your nose, keep your eyes open, and sever the alliance as soon as it's no longer helpful. That's how we win this kind of fight.
No, radfems were not the first to notice that trans ideology is toxic bs - they may have been the first among the chattering classes to start organizing and writing about it. But they were not the first to notice that it is a false and dangerous ideology. I'm no feminist, but I smelled the bs the first time it was brought to my attention and I am certainly not alone in this. That said, people should work together on common causes and not get caught up in their differences - conservatives, liberals, atheists, religious - we need to work together. What this work looks like, however, the essay didn't actually say.
Just out of curiosity, when was it first brought to your attention? The first radfems starting to raise the alarm did so in the 1970's. Have you really been involved in this for more than 50 years?
No, I wasn't born yet. But the first time I heard about it, in a workplace indoctrination session about 9 years ago, it was obvious to me that this was crap, and threatening crap at that. A number of my co-workers and I were in agreement, and none of us are radfems. So I'm assuming that lots of ordinary people have had the same reaction whenever it was first brought up, hence the radfems couldn't have been the first people to figure it out. I think it is a matter of "some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them," and perhaps among intellectuals radfems were the first? Granted, to be fair, you did say they were "among the first to recognize the threat." But I think it bears pointing out that to those whose heads are not up their asses, gender ideology is pretty clearly, to borrow a phrase from Farrakhan (cause I'm not into your-tribe-my-tribe stuff), "a gutter religion." But indeed, now that I reread your post, perhaps the radfems were the first to recognize it as a threat to women's rights. Others might have just thought "there go rich fools doing foolish things again." But somehow, I bet Phyllis Schlafly would have viewed it as a threat to women as well.
The version you first heard about 9 years ago was a great deal more obvious. The version being marketed 50+ years ago was subtle. It's obviously a religion NOW. It wasn't so obvious then.
The argument 50 years ago was this. .000001% of men are so feminine on a fundamental neurological basis that they should be treated socially as if they were women. They aren't really, but they just fit better with the women. And we're really only talking about being nice to a handful of individuals here. There's was no real social significance. No legal rights were being demanded. It was just a meek request by a few extremely feminine men to pass as women.
This went solidly into the "be nice to harmless weirdos" category for the vast majority of people. It wasn't considered significant or meaningful to almost anyone. The radfems reacted in a level of outrage that was seen as absurd paranoia at the time. The transsexual population was maybe a thousand people in the entire US, and they had no power of any kind. What possible threat could they pose to anyone on a meaningful scale? If Phillis Schlafly heard of it at all, she rolled her eyes and moved onto more important things.
Turns out the radfem argument about this setting a dangerous precedent was correct. Phillis Schlafly's argument that men and women shouldn't be treated as interchangeable was also correct. I don't think any of them could have possibly predicted that their concerns would dovetail in 50 years.
Interesting. I did not know that. But I don't know that the route from "let's be nice to this rare kind of guy" to what we have today with the whole trans ideology fiasco was a natural evolution, a slippery slope that we were bound to actually slip down. Maybe the initial "niceness" to the few paved the way to the present, but it wasn't inevitable. At least I'm not convinced it was inevitable. I think without the massive profit motive, hard-core narcissism/gnosticism/man-can-create-his-own-realityism of the current moment, I don't think we'd have slipped down this slope. Fascinating about the concerns of the radfems and Schlafly dovetailing 50 years on.
"But they were ALSO among the first to recognize the threat of gender ideology,"
People on the same side are always quick to identify tiny heresies. Essentially the radfems & the gender loonies are from the same meme pool.
Of course, I support parents who want to protect girls and women's sports. I'm not against joining forces to take on the gender loonies in the medical profession. But at the beginning, middle, and end of the day, I'm against them. I wrote about radical feminism here:
It's possible that I have gone deeper down the gender theory rabbit hole than you have. They use similar language to radfems but the words have radically different meanings.
We're not talking about "tiny heresies". We're talking about complete opposites. It's like sugar vs Splenda, or true faith vs charlatan con artists. They're completely different. They may look superficially similar to outsiders, but they're NOT on the same side.
I believe that you are conflating second wave feminism with radfem female separatists. The female separatists are exactly as you describe them. The most extreme radfem separatist communities demand that women who birth sons get them out of the community before the boy turns 2. Marion Zimmer Bradley incorporated this rule into the Renunciates in her Darkover series. (She also wrote stories of how much harm this rule caused.)
The radfem female separatists are lesbians or (mostly) celibate women who have been viciously abused by male relatives. Their hearts (and bodies) were broken by fathers, brothers, grandfathers, and uncles. These abusive men harmed them, and often explicitly said that this was the nature of men, that it was right and proper for men to abuse women. This kind of thing can persist for generations, and it does unspeakable harm. Talking to these women about loyalty to blood kin is deeply tone deaf. Their blood kin are owed no loyalty. Their blood kin abused the trust and in so doing renounced any right to respect or consideration.
These groups of deeply damaged women found comfort, solace, and healing by retreating with each other. That's wonderful. Unfortunately, they then concluded that their experiences were universal and should be marketed as a universal solution. Not good.
It's as if a recovering cancer patient said "chemotherapy saved my life, so everyone should get chemotherapy!'
The radfem female separatists have always been a fringe group that wielded no meaningful social power. Certain of their messages were taken and amplified by folks with an entirely different motivation.
Yes, it caused serious harm. But take a look at who amplified their messages...and why. Those weren't radfems. The motivations get pretty twisted. There was lots of money and social control to be achieved by dismantling the family structure.
"Talking to these women about loyalty to blood kin is deeply tone deaf."
Tone deaf in what way? Most women get married, have kids, and care more about their sons than they do about strange women they have no relationship with. Women who hate their male blood kin are damaged. I'm sorry for them but they have no relevance to my point. The ethnic groups that reject feminism and put blood ties above all else will be the ones that survive.
Okay, let me try this again, with a specific scenario. Little Suzie grew up watching her father regularly beat her mother bloody. After these beatings, Suzie's mom apologized to dad, for making him angry. When Suzie begged her mother to leave, mom said "I have to stay loyal to my husband and you have to stay loyal to your father. He's your blood kin." And when Suzie's father raped her, mom slapped Suzie and accused her of trying to break up the family. Suzie was 12. Suzie's father told her this was normal and his right as the man of the house. So did her mother.
Suzie got out into the world and met some radfems. Like her, they had all been hurt by men and betrayed by women when they asked for help. Like Suzie, they were all told this was normal and universal. They retreat to a community of themselves, vowing to stand by each other as women.
When you talk about "loyalty to blood kin" they hear echoes of the men and women who hurt them. When you say "loyalty to male blood kin" they don't hear "defend your son". They hear "go appease your rapist, as your mother did before you."
THAT is why it is tone deaf. You echo and deepen the trauma. I under that's not your intent, but that's how it will be received.
Cultural groups that prioritize healthy, positive relationships of mutual respect between men and women generally thrive, because that is the basis for healthy families.
Cultural groups that encourage men to hurt and abuse women tend to experience escalating violence and chaos because that destabilizes the family. This is ALSO true for any other philosophy that destabilizes or denigrates families, including female separatists. It can look okay for one generation, but it falls apart rapidly after that.
Yes, women who hate their male blood kin are damaged...but the ones who did the damage are usually male blood kin!
Recognize this reality, and adjust your messaging accordingly.
About that "adjust your messaging." That's pretty rude, so I feel OK by saying in turn: "Adjust your reading comprehension." You didn't even begin to grasp what I was saying. So here goes.
You are trying to convince me that blood ties can be toxic. Think I don't know that?
You keep insisting that I'm preaching TO people. I'm not. I'm diagnosing the reality of the human race: blood ties supersede those of an abstract, created relationship. Not one thing you said disproves that.
Bluntly and to the point: do you think that feminism can succeed in creating a pan-female identity for women, or do think that most women will always put blood ties over ties to non-related women? Please do not reply with more horror stories about abused women. Those are deflections from my point. Just answer the question.
reading your piece reinforced my commitment to feminism. You are so confused! Capitalism didn't invent 2nd wave feminism! My male "blood kin" sexually abused my sisters and I and and violently terrorised their wives. The kind of female fealty to family and children you theorise aptly delivers up women to be naive fools perpetuating the power of patriarchy.
Writing this response realising your world view is so solidly welded to your perceived safety as a conservative woman that never our twains will meet....but in interests of keeping my mind open I appreciate the link.
I'm sorry for your terrible experiences, but they don't invalidate my point. If anything, they strengthen it: 2nd Wave Feminism was a haven for abused women, who generalized their own toxic family history to that of the human race. I wish you peace and healing, but I live in the real world and I want real world solutions. But thanks for revealing yet again the true colors of 2nd Wave Feminism with your words "naive fools" for those of us who care more about our male relatives than women in Afghanistan.
Go and create a matriarchy. I don't see what's stopping you.
No need to make a pretence of being "sorry" in regard to my life...once again, I remain intrigued by the circumstances that created your particular "real world" view. It sounds nice and idyllic, just a shame human nature makes it as likely as cloud cuckoo land.
Somewhat repulsed by your condescending pity implying my experiences of male violence are a peculiar and specific family anomaly and not commonplace to women and girls since the beginning of time.
The comments about creating a matriarchy were just hostility and not constructive.
Thanks for yet again proving me that feminists are impossible to work with, reason with, and live with. You don't think my comments about matriarchy are constructive? Tough. If you think men are that bad, make your own society. Nothing is stopping you except your own inability to do anything constructive.
Ha! I am the opposite and was just thinking about it yesterday. We are at war for the next generation and I will take any allies at this point - from redfems to far-right. Anyone who believes trans ideology is a dangerous cult, I am willing to work with. Kind of the Grand Alliance during WW II. They sure didn't particularly like one another but had to join forces against the greater evil.
I think joining hands to fight for a shared objective is true pragmatism. I understand your critique here; I am not a radical feminist. But the ones I know are who brought me to this fight, opened my eyes to the threat. So I agree to disagree with many of their positions AND I will happily stand beside them and share their critiques of gender ideology to advance our common cause.
OK, but always make your own boundaries clear. The first time I heard about the political alliance of conservatives & radfems about this subject was a few years ago. I can't remember the details but it def had something to do w/The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, which had invited what we would now call a gender critical lesbian feminist to address them. I knew the score immediately: it's always the conservative side that reaches across the aisle. That's the way you end up conserving nothing.
Just FYI, that invite was perceived entirely differently on the "other side". You saw it as "always the conservative side that reaches across". Many radfems saw it as "oh, they'll deign to listen as long as we go onto their turf on their terms."
It was a fairly uncomfortable stretch all around. Totally worth it.
Thank you for the encouragement and call to action. I also want to include men because without my husband helping me manage my anger and counsel our children though this for 12 months I would have felt completely isolated in my community.
I have tried to speak with other parents in this time and it is incredibly scary and disheartening. Scary because I risk my daughter’s position on her team and disheartening because the other moms don’t feel the need to get engaged. They don’t feel their own daughters wanting help mostly because of social pressure.
I will continue working on this by making more and more calls to people in our community.
One thing that would help is being able to print out True Believer. Our community would be able to see themselves in this story. Is there a way to allow printing of the articles?
I recently shared True Believer on my FB in a discussion with a true believer who didn't like the blog post I'd written about speaking up on this topic. She rejected True Believer as highly un-credible—basically said it had to be made up. I was amazed.
For anyone interested, this is the blog post I wrote/shared:
I just subscribed to you, Leah. I love the way you are writing about the problem. For me the situation is similar. I have been called a bigot by people who have known me for 15 years all because I wanted a say in whether my daughter was housed in a hotel with males. I have watched a other parents (moms only) watch male (gender non binary is their label) players on the girls (now gender diverse) team exclaiming with wonder how that male player can be as good and amazing as he is. “They are so good! Amazing!” And I stand there feeling like the whole world was turned upside down but I’m the only one who sees it. Or feeling like the boy in the emperor has no clothes story. It is deeply unnerving. And I watch as my daughter is afraid to speak up in the name of fairness, even as she adores her team mates. The need to constantly shut off her internal voice has taken a toll on her personally, athletically and inter-personally. She actually finds more understanding and welcome on the boys team. I would “like” nothing more than to blow this up in our community, but I haven’t yet figured out how to do it without hurting her and without hurting myself with the stress of it.
Thank you, Laura! I'm grateful for your support. "Unnerving" is an excellent descriptor for the state of things. It's like a nightmare alternate reality where you think you must be dreaming because no one is making sense. We can only hope and pray sanity will reassert itself as reality comes home to roost. And when and where possible speak up for that end.
A quick note about my Substack, in case you didn't review my archive before subscribing: gender ideology is not the only topic of my writing. The tagline for my blog is "reflections on life and the world and getting along." So it's kind of a cornucopia of topics all connected to how we related to ourselves and each other in the midst of our conflicts. I just want to make that clear since you found it via this focused blog, in case you prefer to subscribe to the like.
Mom to a boy and a girl, here. It’s true that the boys of today are more, as they say, “based” and know the score, more openly critical, and open to discussions around stereotypes and sexism. They don’t think FTMs are male, in any way. Many think the male MTF and nonbinaries sports participants are cheaters. I encourage my son to welcome girls and gender non-conforming girls to Team Questions.
The moms and girls are terrified of each other, and in a seeming battle for “Most Inclusive and Incurious.” I absolutely see now how witch-hunts and slut-shaming was helped along by fellow women. I love women but my goodness, we’re undone here by our pursuit of kindness and social approval. I could blame it on patriarchy but FFS we do it to ourselves.
I also have a son, and his presence in her life is so important. We are so proud of her for standing up for herself as much as she can. Her not joining back with the team has people talking and can only bring awareness.
I would humbly suggest a tiny correction. As a liberal man, I've looked for other liberal men who recognize that we've been gaslit by the extremist ideologues who claim to be progressive but are so not. I've found many other liberal men, appalled by the perversion of the proud traditions of social justice and the fight against the oppression of the poor and marginalized by systems of patriarchy and corporate capitalism run amok. I ask that we try to move beyond the politically fraught labels of all kinds and be guided by the best medical evidence for truly supporting the many young people who have become entangled in this extremist and regressive gender cult.
Indeed—this is the kind of inclusivity that is sorely needed. Of course, any liberal who stands against this nonsense is de facto "rightwing," so maybe the conservative label still fits.😉
I've gone from ashamed, embarrassed and incapable of saying anything to anyone about our daughter three years ago to being vocal with family, friends and anyone who will listen. I'm amazed at how little people know about what is going on! So I have no intention of letting up.
I will continue to pray and stand firm in my convictions. Even though, right now , I have lost my precious , long awaited beautiful daughter to the evil of this world , I will continue to believe and speak the truth. We must stand together in our voices and with our vote at the upcoming elections. God’s blessings to all of you who are walking though this difficult valley.
Bravo! I love the motto, 1000 small actions. The article was very uplifting.
1,000 small actions. That's a great motto. I'm in. Thank you.
-an immoderate feminist
I love my children, I love my husband but I'm pretty realistic about the dysfunction in my wider family.
My immersion in 2nd wave feminism of the 70s/80s saved my life and helped me make sense of the world. I think you may have lived a very privileged and protected life without feeling empathy for working class women and being able to form a grounded understanding of our struggles.
But I'm glad to have communicated with you to get a glimpse into your world view. Hope your life continues being nice too...and I'll just keep aspiring to it.
Thank you for your thoughts. I wrote this one.
I was raised working class. My family was very dysfunctional with abuse and alcoholism. Maybe because I had to fight hard to overcome that, that I am willing to stand up for my family and the foundations of family.
This gender ideology impacts all tax brackets, all families whether healthy or dysfunctional. I want to stand up to that.
Hi PRM, I am going to take a stab at this even though I am not the author of this article about coming together to fight RGT. I think that different things work for different people, For some it is religion and for some it is 2nd wave feminism, etc. It does seem like some wave of feminism went arwy with Judith Butler and how we are all just play acting a "gender" or whatever (3rd or 4th?) Maybe we need a 7th wave or something to set it all straight. I certainly admire Kathleen Stock. To me your post feels just a little passive/aggressive. I am glad the immersion that you experienced saved your life :) But, all parents on PITT are bleeding and I think they come from all walks of life and may or may not agree with your interpretation that a wave of feminism speaks to the working class experience of women. Deciding that people who disagree with this view lack empathy when all parents here are bleeding over the RGT cult... Do you have a kid hurt by RGT grooming?
Hi Loving Mother,
To clarify regarding Judith Butler, from what I've read of her incomprehensible writing, she is not a feminist, but an anti-feminist, and most radfems and gen-crit women I know seem to agree. Gen-crit women, from what I understand, are considered the 4th wave of feminism. Much of what has been called the 3rd wave, from what I understand, is anti-feminist. ("Sex work is work," pro-gender, etc.)
I'm glad to read you admire Kathleen Stock.
Regarding "RGT," I hope that pushing back against "gender identity" will cause all of us to begin to question everything about "gender" (our socialization -- and our socialization of others -- into sex-role stereotypes from birth, onward), as that is at the root of all of this: the patriarchal belief in male superiority and female inferiority, and therefore, men being entitled to own and control females: and now female identities.
In the case of men claiming to be women, they mostly seem to want to consume us as a commodity, for sexual gratification, or claim to be us for other purposes. While the most extreme beliefs and embrace of "gender" are the lost alarming to many right now, they seem to be extensions of more moderate beliefs about "gender" (sex-role socialization), also.
The wmtire idea that we should each occupy a sex-role is inherently problematic, particularly to females. These roles are not only male-dominant/female subordinate, but are limiting and dehumanizing to all of us, as they do not allow us to be whole, diverse people pursuing what we enjoy and are good at, rather than a prescribed role.
I would like to see a different term than "Radical Gender Theory" used to identify the problem, because "moderate" beliefs about "gender"/sex-role socialization are at the root of the problem, and therefore will not "root it out." Only pushing back at, and defying sex roles will do that (without falling into the trap that we actually *are* the opposite sex.) And that won't happen over night. The sex roles have been developed over millenia, so it will probably take as many millenia to unravel and dismantle them.
I don't know of an ideal term, yet, for gender identity ideology, or sex-role identity ideology.
I do enjoy referring to it as "biophobia - an irrational fear of nature, including of one's own biological sex," because this gets more to the root of patriarchy (men regarding nature as "other," as something outside of themselves, something wild, unruly, and requiring men to control it, including women, who they see, under patriarchy, as closer to nature and something else they can and "should" control.
I also enjoy using "biophobia," because it tosses the accusation of having an "irrational fear" (a psychological and emotional problem) back on the biophobes.
I mean, how ironic that people who hold the irrational belief, or claim to, that they are the opposite sex, refer to the *rest of us* as having a "phobia" (psychological problem) for having a firm grasp of biological reality!
I didn't express all this very well here. I'm typing this on my cell phone with two thumbs, which never leads to the greatest communication, so my apologies in advance.
Your thoughts?
I wanted to respond to this:
"Regarding "RGT," I hope that pushing back against "gender identity" will cause all of us to begin to question everything about "gender" (our socialization -- and our socialization of others -- into sex-role stereotypes from birth, onward), as that is at the root of all of this: the patriarchal belief in male superiority and female inferiority, and therefore, men being entitled to own and control females: and now female identities."
I've been doing a deep dive into this subject for about 5 years now. Respectfully, your analysis of what's at the root of gender ideology is incorrect, or at least incomplete.
If "the patriarchal belief in male superiority" was truly at the root of this, gender ideologues would have a noted respect for and reverence for men and masculinity. They don't. They despise men and masculinity almost as much as they despise women and femininity. They're less violent towards men (probably because men hit back), but there's no respect there.
The gender ideologues are targeting humanity, not womanhood. Their misogyny is because women are the guardians of life and humanity. We bring forth new life. We give birth. For people who aspire to a post-human world, bringing new humans into the world is nearly unforgivable.
Patriarchy is based on a few men trying to control all the women, so their male competitors leave no descendants.
Gender fanatics don't want ANYONE to leave descendants, themselves included.
Gender Ideology will use patriarchal ideas and language to achieve its own goals, but it's a smokescreen. Don't be fooled.
I think that you are on to something. They will use any language and cult tactics that work. "people who aspire to a post-human world" - Yes, transhumanism
I also suspect that pedophelia is a strong element. If these kids don't go through puberty they turn into adult people with childlike bodies who have been so psychologically abused they are an easy and legal target.
For the ones they don't head off that early there is alot of "slow walking" advice from the groomers - like tell your parents it's not such a big deal and they are bigots. Then you take cross sex hormones and surgeries at 18 (or younger now). But, how is this ever ok? If I went to a surgeon and said I wanted my ear or hand chopped off I would be sent to a shrink who would not immediately affirm my conclusions.
It's a the convergence of 3 forces
1. Financially predatory corporations. This is big pharma, cosmetic surgery, the sex industry (prostitution and porn), and supporting industries. They have always been predatory. Big pharma brought us the opioid epidemic. The cosmetic surgery industry has been chopping up healthy body parts for upwards of 60 years, and they have always preyed on people with body dysmorphic disorder. Their only motivation is profits.
2. Individual predators: these are your narcissists, psychopaths and pedophiles. You already noted the special interest pedos have in transing children.
3. Gnostics who want to free souls from bodies and deconstruct reality. There are classic metaphysical gnostics and techno-gnostics, more commonly called transhumanists. They're religious fanatics hunting heretics and trying to build their post-human utopia.
The folks behind gender ideology are gnostics. The folks giving them power and money are opportunistic predators who take advantage of any and all openings. The most useful opening at the moment is gender ideology.
I used to think of it as cynical cult tactics used for the ends of number 1 and 2 and I'm sure there is plenty of that. (Marc/Marci Bowers is now head of WPATH I think and they no longer support age requirements for any procedures. Bowers tried to do some career saving PR spin in the WaPo a few months back but I didn't buy it.)
And I'd heard of TransHumanism and was separately aware that this "sexed body is not reality/authentic truth" thing among the kids at school was a Gnostic belief.... but now I am getting my head around the fact that there really is a techno transhumanist gnostic cult that influential and rich adults actually believe in/are part of. People are no different than many hundreds of years ago.
So, maybe the next important step is to have a NXIVM style documentary series on Transhumanism to help the population at large connect the dots? I have good friends who still believe that the "trans" person is real, rare, and an adusted person - and that the teens are screened carefully in case they are just not mentally stable or something.
100%
I completely agree with you. On top of that it appears to have worked for a bunch of "progressive" political forces - keeping them in power. The public has been so snowed with DIE/DEI. I'd like to see the Department of Education closed and Ed sent back to the states - not that the NAIS is any good either.
"called the 3rd wave, from what I understand, is anti-feminist. ("Sex work is work," pro-gender, etc.)"
Ahhhhhhh! Terrible!
"Judith Butler, from what I've read of her incomprehensible writing" Yup
I think that the older generation of men claiming to be women (Like Assistant US Secretary Richard/Rachael Levine) are one thing and that most of these boys/young men are something else - more like groomed ROGD girls escaping the idea of being the predator or something.
I also like the term biophobia because this phobia stuff is so ridiculous but I do like RGT better and I think it has a better chance of catching on broadly and ending the nightmare.
Interestingly, a large share of the ROGD girls (most of them?) come from families that were not into stereotypes. I am not particularly "liberal" myself but I gave my ROGD daughter every kind of toy and opportunity. It did not shield her from the cult. It is a puzzle that will be understood one day.
I think that broadly speaking boys and girls are different. If you give them all trucks and dolls they will play with them differently. The boys tend to be more physical and the girls tend to sit and concentrate more at an early age. I think this is inborn as we have different bodies, etc. That said, there are always people who are not typical and we should all be happy with that. While I am on a rant (g) we ought to love all of our "weird" kids. Somehow it isn't of for kids just to be a little "quirky" these days. They have to be labeled.
My 15 year old granddaughter says she is a lesbian. Her first "girlfriend" has been a "transman" demanding that we refer to her as he/him. My granddaughter is a tall overweight girl who looks what we used to call "butch". She is depressed and bullied at school. Both teachers and students are coercing her to identify as "trans". Her parents and I are afraid to take her to a doctor, counselling service or even a lesbian support organisation in case they are "gender affirming". This previously gregarious and high achieving student is failing at school and feels she has no friends. She is an only child thus her friends are so important to her.
However, I was peaked about trans gender ideology 3 years ago, before Trinity was going through her current stressful situation. Due to being cancelled by a mob of wokey dopes who told me I was a white supremacist racist, much to my astonishment as not a one of them knows diddly squat about me, except for the one opinion I expressed publicly they didn't like.
I sure would not call her girlfriend by false pronouns. Maybe you can avoid pronouns all together? Sad that they don't just want to let them be girls who like each other. That is the world we live in. The cult is everywhere. My own daughter is straight & feminine with all manner of interests. No young person is "safe".
I absolutely refused to refer to Trinitys girlfriend as he and made the basis for my anti trans stance very clear. I only met her in person once and was torn by feeling pity for the poor confused girl and outrage at her induction into the trans cult. Fortunately she hadn't taken any wrong sex hormones or had surgery so hopefully will get out of it eventually, unscathed. But there is a thriving gender clinic in the city where she lives so kids are getting transed in irreversible medical treatments.
so terrible - and I do think there are psychological scars to heal even when people escape physical damage. All of us parents feel traumatized for sure.
Her TEACHERS are coercing her she is trans?? Not just affirming her saying that but actually giving her the idea?? You mean your granddaughter does not actually identify as trans (great if that's the case) but her peers (ok, they are teen idiots) and TEACHERS push it?? If that's the case, that's a whole new level of nightmare. I am not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting she needs to switch school since that's obvious. Wishing you luck. G-d help us all, what a nightmare.
Have you visited a high school lately? I am in Australia but our situation is slightly less dire than Canada. My granddaughter lives in an inner suburb in a large city, surrounded by some of the most rampantly woke lefties. The school is run by a staff of non binaries with green and blue hair who were indoctrinated with post modernism when they did their teaching degrees. There is a thriving gender clinic in Newcastle where they deliver up sacrifices for the Genderbred man. We have looked into trying change schools for her but it hasn't been possible and essentially the gender cult infects them all to varying degrees...it is a nightmare
I am sorry, I really didn't mean to imply that you are not doing right by her. Please forgive me if it came across like I was telling you what to do. I really know nothing about schools in Australia.
thats cool! I didn't read your comment as judgemental. Most ppl contributing to PITT are in the USA and I get it that things are different there. The kind of things that are happening in your most "progressive" states, like California, are happening in Aus cities too.
Canada, too. Three of us parents (all moms) are running as Independents in our local (Vancouver, BC) civic election as School Trustees. Need to do everything we all can to push back.
Gee - where are the conservative women in your recognition? Of course, we've been labeled dupes, not real women, etc by the left for so long for other reasons. But I agree, I'll fight this battle with anyone.
It just would be nice for the left to acknowledge that degrading aren't the way to go. (While I don't use feminazi myself, it's at least aimed at behavior and not being. TERF is way worse, IMO.)
I did mean to leave you out! Heck yes, conservatives ladies!!!
You are right, degrading (from either side) is no way to go. I was going to write that I am not conservative, then stumbled and realized I don't even know where I stand on conservative-liberal spectrum anymore.
This can't be legal: Concealing Radicalism, Michigan’s Department of Education encourages teachers to facilitate child sexual transitions without parental consent.
Christopher F. Rufo September 14, 2022"
"Finally, the Department of Education teaches school employees how to facilitate the sexual transition of children under their care, while keeping the process a secret from parents."
https://www.city-journal.org/michigan-education-department-radical-gender-teacher-training?wallit_nosession=1
Shocking. Also frustrating that I will probably only hear that info here and nowhere else.
Everyone, moderates, liberals, conservatives need to be on board to push this out of the new cultural trend that’s dominating the young and naive. Don’t separate us anymore. We need to come together to battle the new cult religion of T. United we win!!!!
I was listening recently to a fascinating podcast on the history of the West Virginia coal miners more than 100 years ago. The miners were locked in the culture of the company town, perhaps two inches better than being a slave.
The mine operators actually enjoyed mixing the miners up by demographics. Whites, blacks, Mexicans, Immigrants from West Europe, East Europe, Asia... stick them into a giant mess so they can never talk to their neighbor and become organized. And so you can play one group against another.
Until the black miner realized his white miner neighbor was different from the mine operator. And the white miner realized he had far more in common with his black miner neighbor than the white coal operator. And the coal miners realized what they had in common -- being coal miners -- was far more important than being white, black, catholic, orthodox, protestant or any other division.
Made me think about this obsession to talk about "diversity" and to fracture us into more and more sub-groups.
Good thoughts. Concentrating on diversity and recognising “inequalities” is a tactic that creates division. We have to look at what unites us.
This is coming on a day that I am really missing the voice of Magdalen Burns who died way too young. And me feeling really angry that my daughters are swept up with this ideology because they want to be progressive and inclusive. Navigating the double edge sword of wanting to maintain parental bonds and standing up for what is right. Currently, both cannot be done. That day cannot come soon enough.
Radical feminism is a huge part of the problem.
With respect, you are wrong. For an understanding of the much misrepresented politics of radical feminism and its modern manifestation as gender-critical - pro women's sex-based rights - feminism, please read Holly Lawford-Smith's book 'Gender-Critical feminism' (2022). https://global.oup.com/academic/product/gender-critical-feminism-9780198863885?cc=us&lang=en&
LOL! Thanks for proving my point!
Gender is directly derived from sex - so is gender expression. Homosexual transexuals are the perfect example. Sexual inverts express their submissiveness or dominance through their gender expression.
To deny women are innately feminine and men are innately masculine is to deny biology and realty. Moreover men and women are naturally cooperative and not competitive and the only matriarchy and patriarchy that exists is the natural, symbiotic relationship of husband and wife formed to create life sustaining families.
Right back at you as far as proving *my* point goes. Those who don't understand radical feminism don't understand shit about this debate. Gender is directly derived from sexism not sex, especially in its female expression as it is men's idea of what women should behave and look like and there is much more pressure on women to comply with it. There is no natural sex hierarchy, women are not naturally submissive, much less is male violence against women, including the mothers of their children, any kind of natural, but yet this violence is endemic in het relationships. Some aspects of gender expression, as seen in the least culturally corrupted - strongest - women and men, are relatively natural, but most are degrees of unnatural. Get back to me when you've read that book.
Oh really? Prove it.
Women naturally want to be PENETRATED which is submissiveness, men naturally want to PENETRATE which is dominance. Men naturally do not want to be penetrated and women naturally do not want to penetrate.
Narcissists of both sexes are bisexuals because they use sex to trap their prey and turn them in to their slaves.
Your radical feminist is pure anti-man anti-women anti-human narcissistic anti-science ideology. You might want to study up on science instead and drop the pseudoscience political quackery.
There is plenty to back up your assertion, but the example you chose is terrible. May I try?
Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. It's a subtle dimorphism with a huge area of overlap, but it's pervasive to nearly every area of our bodies, brains, and behaviors. Measure 10,000 men on ANY area and it will create a bell curve. Measure 10,000 women in the same area and it will create a different bell curve. Maybe it will have the peak in a different spot, maybe it will be steeper or flatter. But it's always measurably different.
Aggression falls on significantly different bell curves. Males are more physically aggressive on average than females. Healthy males direct that aggression towards healthy competition with other males, but it's still aggression.
The female bell curve tends more towards conciliatory behaviors. This isn't the same as passive. There's nothing passive about female social behaviors. But it is more conciliatory and less aggressive.
This isn't socialization, it's evolution, and it's found in every human culture on the planet. Aggressive men leave more offspring. The pro-social version of this is protecting and providing for more mates. The anti-social version of this is rape. Either way, aggressive men leave more descendants than passive men do.
Conciliatory women leave more surviving offspring. The ability to build social relationships and coalitions is vital for surviving pregnancy, childbirth, and rearing young children. Passive women lose children to neglect. Conciliatory women get higher quality mayes, and they make sure their kids get what they need.
If you want to learn more about this, I recommend The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of human nature.
Why does this feel like a man explaining to me, a woman, what I want in bed? I can't imagine why. Look, all I can say to someone this deluded about women's sexual wants and needs is you should get out more and meet some actual women. If the women you sleep with are passive in bed my best guess is they're not that into you. As for me being anti-men, my husband of many years would disagree with you there, he being a strong man who enjoys the fact that I am far from passive or submissive in bed. Non coerced, true consent, just by the way, is also an active not submissive process, probably the most active process in any sexual encounter.
I know this is a week late, but thank you. I too am a gender critical feminist (l used to think I was *very* liberal, but now I think I'm ordinary liberal in a lot of spaces, but simply left-leaning moderate in others).
I think this newsletter is such an important space in our time - a lot of unheard voices have a place to tell their stories. I think I've made two comments and the aggressive pushback from men has really made me think twice about commenting, and almost always not comment. I appreciate you wading into the waters.
The problem is that you are tied to your ideology and don’t understand the subjects that have been broached - based upon your responses. Even your suggestion that I am a man reveals your feminist mindset.
I think a call to action should include preparing our kids for what they will face out in the world. When they are young we can explain to them that there are ideas out there that want to promote division within our families, but that nothing - no idea or person - can separate us from the love and loyalty we have within our family. Build up trust so that they will come to us when they encounter this.
So true!
That sounds nice but I think we need to take down/expose RGT. We have always been a tight loving family and I would never have known to look out for gender grooming at school 5-6 years ago. Like, "honey, people might tell you that transexualism is an inner truth but we don't believe that". A problem with cults is that they are expert at dividing/gas lighting step by little step. What will it be next? I suspect that there are some "Minor Attracted People" in high places who promote this hard so that we will have adult people with child bodies... For instance, why do we have an Assistant US Health Secretary (Levine) promoting this garbage like his life depended on it? What is up with Sam Brinton? Where are the real journalists?
I agree. Yet I must state that most parents busy raising families never saw this coming! Had I known then what I know now I would have been more able to do that. The behemoth of the big lie, that a person can be born in the wrong body, has so widely captured the hearts and minds of many institutions and adults who are misguiding a whole generation. The propaganda is strong. The call to action at this point is to stand up to the institutions within our own government, including schools, and medical institutions. I especially encourage those without children caught up in this horrific injustice of a medical scandal. We need those voices and individuals more than ever. Join the rally in Anaheim.
This is beautiful and cogent: "The language slights are an attack on the family. It strips the population of the language needed to speak to the intimacy of our relationships."
I, too, have shared a call to action on my blog, found courage to join the growing numbers of gender critical warriors who are standing their ground. We MUST reclaim empirical reality from the sophists and profiteers, and we need each other to do that.
https://leahrose.substack.com/p/our-lying-eyes
Radical feminists also attacked the family. They paved the way for the current gender madness. I'm not going to join a movement with them, and no, this isn't ideological purity: it's cold, hard, ruthless pragmatism.
what movement are you not willing to join? the one that stands against big pharma and the medical establishment that is causing the largest medical scandal of our time? That movement? For the life of me, I cannot fathom why.
Hi Diana, we probably share a fair amount of thoughts about morality and the outcomes of various ideas and philosophies. However, I will happily support a mother or father who is exactly opposite me on any number of vital issues if that person will stand with me against this horror.
It’s not social transition, it’s cross dressing and lying about yourself.
It’s not a pause on puberty it’s chemical castration.
I pray for the day when I can oppose them on a lesser issue. At the moment we are in the fight together and our families are taking fire. All of our families. Every parent here is my wounded comrade.
I'm talking about radical feminism and holding them accountable for getting this ball rolling in the first place. I don't know how old you are; I was a kid during the late 60s and saw everything at the beginning. Frankly, naming the names & quoting the quotes is triggering to me and just not worth it. But everything in this insanity started there.
"However, I will happily support a mother or father who is exactly opposite me on any number of vital issues if that person will stand with me against this horror."
Of course.
Not to get sappy but "every parent here is my wounded comrade" made me tear up a bit.
Cold, hard, ruthless pragmatism is joining into a distasteful alliance to achieve a specific goal, then dissolving the alliance as soon as the goal is achieved.
Yes, many radfems express virulent misandry and general opposition to biological families. And yes, some of their rhetoric opened the door for the gender fanatics to take over. But they were ALSO among the first to recognize the threat of gender ideology, and recognize how their words were being twisted and corrupted. They tried to raise the alarm. I disregarded them at the time. They "cried wolf" so many times that I had stopped even considering the possibility that there might actually be a wolf. Oops.
Most radfems are trauma survivors reacting out of PTSD from abusive families. Their conclusions aren't accurate, but they're understandable.
Gender fanatics aren't just attacking the family. They're attacking all Enlightenment ideals and the very existence of humanity. Their goal is a highly profitable post-human world, unhampered by oppressive concepts like science, logic, or equality under the law.
I will make a focused alliance with ANYONE who will join me in opposing that goal. We can sort out our other differences later.
The US was never on good terms with the Soviet Union. But from 1941 to 1945, we were allies with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Yes, it came at a cost. Stalin was a monster, and that alliance strengthened him. But without that alliance, we would have had to fight both Hitler and Stalin at the same time. We would have lost.
Hold your nose, keep your eyes open, and sever the alliance as soon as it's no longer helpful. That's how we win this kind of fight.
No, radfems were not the first to notice that trans ideology is toxic bs - they may have been the first among the chattering classes to start organizing and writing about it. But they were not the first to notice that it is a false and dangerous ideology. I'm no feminist, but I smelled the bs the first time it was brought to my attention and I am certainly not alone in this. That said, people should work together on common causes and not get caught up in their differences - conservatives, liberals, atheists, religious - we need to work together. What this work looks like, however, the essay didn't actually say.
Just out of curiosity, when was it first brought to your attention? The first radfems starting to raise the alarm did so in the 1970's. Have you really been involved in this for more than 50 years?
No, I wasn't born yet. But the first time I heard about it, in a workplace indoctrination session about 9 years ago, it was obvious to me that this was crap, and threatening crap at that. A number of my co-workers and I were in agreement, and none of us are radfems. So I'm assuming that lots of ordinary people have had the same reaction whenever it was first brought up, hence the radfems couldn't have been the first people to figure it out. I think it is a matter of "some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them," and perhaps among intellectuals radfems were the first? Granted, to be fair, you did say they were "among the first to recognize the threat." But I think it bears pointing out that to those whose heads are not up their asses, gender ideology is pretty clearly, to borrow a phrase from Farrakhan (cause I'm not into your-tribe-my-tribe stuff), "a gutter religion." But indeed, now that I reread your post, perhaps the radfems were the first to recognize it as a threat to women's rights. Others might have just thought "there go rich fools doing foolish things again." But somehow, I bet Phyllis Schlafly would have viewed it as a threat to women as well.
The version you first heard about 9 years ago was a great deal more obvious. The version being marketed 50+ years ago was subtle. It's obviously a religion NOW. It wasn't so obvious then.
The argument 50 years ago was this. .000001% of men are so feminine on a fundamental neurological basis that they should be treated socially as if they were women. They aren't really, but they just fit better with the women. And we're really only talking about being nice to a handful of individuals here. There's was no real social significance. No legal rights were being demanded. It was just a meek request by a few extremely feminine men to pass as women.
This went solidly into the "be nice to harmless weirdos" category for the vast majority of people. It wasn't considered significant or meaningful to almost anyone. The radfems reacted in a level of outrage that was seen as absurd paranoia at the time. The transsexual population was maybe a thousand people in the entire US, and they had no power of any kind. What possible threat could they pose to anyone on a meaningful scale? If Phillis Schlafly heard of it at all, she rolled her eyes and moved onto more important things.
Turns out the radfem argument about this setting a dangerous precedent was correct. Phillis Schlafly's argument that men and women shouldn't be treated as interchangeable was also correct. I don't think any of them could have possibly predicted that their concerns would dovetail in 50 years.
And yet, here we are.
Interesting. I did not know that. But I don't know that the route from "let's be nice to this rare kind of guy" to what we have today with the whole trans ideology fiasco was a natural evolution, a slippery slope that we were bound to actually slip down. Maybe the initial "niceness" to the few paved the way to the present, but it wasn't inevitable. At least I'm not convinced it was inevitable. I think without the massive profit motive, hard-core narcissism/gnosticism/man-can-create-his-own-realityism of the current moment, I don't think we'd have slipped down this slope. Fascinating about the concerns of the radfems and Schlafly dovetailing 50 years on.
"But they were ALSO among the first to recognize the threat of gender ideology,"
People on the same side are always quick to identify tiny heresies. Essentially the radfems & the gender loonies are from the same meme pool.
Of course, I support parents who want to protect girls and women's sports. I'm not against joining forces to take on the gender loonies in the medical profession. But at the beginning, middle, and end of the day, I'm against them. I wrote about radical feminism here:
https://technium.substack.com/p/why-feminism-will-always-fail
It's possible that I have gone deeper down the gender theory rabbit hole than you have. They use similar language to radfems but the words have radically different meanings.
We're not talking about "tiny heresies". We're talking about complete opposites. It's like sugar vs Splenda, or true faith vs charlatan con artists. They're completely different. They may look superficially similar to outsiders, but they're NOT on the same side.
I believe that you are conflating second wave feminism with radfem female separatists. The female separatists are exactly as you describe them. The most extreme radfem separatist communities demand that women who birth sons get them out of the community before the boy turns 2. Marion Zimmer Bradley incorporated this rule into the Renunciates in her Darkover series. (She also wrote stories of how much harm this rule caused.)
The radfem female separatists are lesbians or (mostly) celibate women who have been viciously abused by male relatives. Their hearts (and bodies) were broken by fathers, brothers, grandfathers, and uncles. These abusive men harmed them, and often explicitly said that this was the nature of men, that it was right and proper for men to abuse women. This kind of thing can persist for generations, and it does unspeakable harm. Talking to these women about loyalty to blood kin is deeply tone deaf. Their blood kin are owed no loyalty. Their blood kin abused the trust and in so doing renounced any right to respect or consideration.
These groups of deeply damaged women found comfort, solace, and healing by retreating with each other. That's wonderful. Unfortunately, they then concluded that their experiences were universal and should be marketed as a universal solution. Not good.
It's as if a recovering cancer patient said "chemotherapy saved my life, so everyone should get chemotherapy!'
The radfem female separatists have always been a fringe group that wielded no meaningful social power. Certain of their messages were taken and amplified by folks with an entirely different motivation.
Yes, it caused serious harm. But take a look at who amplified their messages...and why. Those weren't radfems. The motivations get pretty twisted. There was lots of money and social control to be achieved by dismantling the family structure.
"Talking to these women about loyalty to blood kin is deeply tone deaf."
Tone deaf in what way? Most women get married, have kids, and care more about their sons than they do about strange women they have no relationship with. Women who hate their male blood kin are damaged. I'm sorry for them but they have no relevance to my point. The ethnic groups that reject feminism and put blood ties above all else will be the ones that survive.
Okay, let me try this again, with a specific scenario. Little Suzie grew up watching her father regularly beat her mother bloody. After these beatings, Suzie's mom apologized to dad, for making him angry. When Suzie begged her mother to leave, mom said "I have to stay loyal to my husband and you have to stay loyal to your father. He's your blood kin." And when Suzie's father raped her, mom slapped Suzie and accused her of trying to break up the family. Suzie was 12. Suzie's father told her this was normal and his right as the man of the house. So did her mother.
Suzie got out into the world and met some radfems. Like her, they had all been hurt by men and betrayed by women when they asked for help. Like Suzie, they were all told this was normal and universal. They retreat to a community of themselves, vowing to stand by each other as women.
When you talk about "loyalty to blood kin" they hear echoes of the men and women who hurt them. When you say "loyalty to male blood kin" they don't hear "defend your son". They hear "go appease your rapist, as your mother did before you."
THAT is why it is tone deaf. You echo and deepen the trauma. I under that's not your intent, but that's how it will be received.
Cultural groups that prioritize healthy, positive relationships of mutual respect between men and women generally thrive, because that is the basis for healthy families.
Cultural groups that encourage men to hurt and abuse women tend to experience escalating violence and chaos because that destabilizes the family. This is ALSO true for any other philosophy that destabilizes or denigrates families, including female separatists. It can look okay for one generation, but it falls apart rapidly after that.
Yes, women who hate their male blood kin are damaged...but the ones who did the damage are usually male blood kin!
Recognize this reality, and adjust your messaging accordingly.
About that "adjust your messaging." That's pretty rude, so I feel OK by saying in turn: "Adjust your reading comprehension." You didn't even begin to grasp what I was saying. So here goes.
You are trying to convince me that blood ties can be toxic. Think I don't know that?
You keep insisting that I'm preaching TO people. I'm not. I'm diagnosing the reality of the human race: blood ties supersede those of an abstract, created relationship. Not one thing you said disproves that.
Bluntly and to the point: do you think that feminism can succeed in creating a pan-female identity for women, or do think that most women will always put blood ties over ties to non-related women? Please do not reply with more horror stories about abused women. Those are deflections from my point. Just answer the question.
reading your piece reinforced my commitment to feminism. You are so confused! Capitalism didn't invent 2nd wave feminism! My male "blood kin" sexually abused my sisters and I and and violently terrorised their wives. The kind of female fealty to family and children you theorise aptly delivers up women to be naive fools perpetuating the power of patriarchy.
Writing this response realising your world view is so solidly welded to your perceived safety as a conservative woman that never our twains will meet....but in interests of keeping my mind open I appreciate the link.
I'm sorry for your terrible experiences, but they don't invalidate my point. If anything, they strengthen it: 2nd Wave Feminism was a haven for abused women, who generalized their own toxic family history to that of the human race. I wish you peace and healing, but I live in the real world and I want real world solutions. But thanks for revealing yet again the true colors of 2nd Wave Feminism with your words "naive fools" for those of us who care more about our male relatives than women in Afghanistan.
Go and create a matriarchy. I don't see what's stopping you.
No need to make a pretence of being "sorry" in regard to my life...once again, I remain intrigued by the circumstances that created your particular "real world" view. It sounds nice and idyllic, just a shame human nature makes it as likely as cloud cuckoo land.
Somewhat repulsed by your condescending pity implying my experiences of male violence are a peculiar and specific family anomaly and not commonplace to women and girls since the beginning of time.
The comments about creating a matriarchy were just hostility and not constructive.
Thanks for yet again proving me that feminists are impossible to work with, reason with, and live with. You don't think my comments about matriarchy are constructive? Tough. If you think men are that bad, make your own society. Nothing is stopping you except your own inability to do anything constructive.
Ha! I am the opposite and was just thinking about it yesterday. We are at war for the next generation and I will take any allies at this point - from redfems to far-right. Anyone who believes trans ideology is a dangerous cult, I am willing to work with. Kind of the Grand Alliance during WW II. They sure didn't particularly like one another but had to join forces against the greater evil.
I think joining hands to fight for a shared objective is true pragmatism. I understand your critique here; I am not a radical feminist. But the ones I know are who brought me to this fight, opened my eyes to the threat. So I agree to disagree with many of their positions AND I will happily stand beside them and share their critiques of gender ideology to advance our common cause.
OK, but always make your own boundaries clear. The first time I heard about the political alliance of conservatives & radfems about this subject was a few years ago. I can't remember the details but it def had something to do w/The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, which had invited what we would now call a gender critical lesbian feminist to address them. I knew the score immediately: it's always the conservative side that reaches across the aisle. That's the way you end up conserving nothing.
Yes, clear boundaries are vital.
Just FYI, that invite was perceived entirely differently on the "other side". You saw it as "always the conservative side that reaches across". Many radfems saw it as "oh, they'll deign to listen as long as we go onto their turf on their terms."
It was a fairly uncomfortable stretch all around. Totally worth it.
Thank you for the encouragement and call to action. I also want to include men because without my husband helping me manage my anger and counsel our children though this for 12 months I would have felt completely isolated in my community.
I have tried to speak with other parents in this time and it is incredibly scary and disheartening. Scary because I risk my daughter’s position on her team and disheartening because the other moms don’t feel the need to get engaged. They don’t feel their own daughters wanting help mostly because of social pressure.
I will continue working on this by making more and more calls to people in our community.
One thing that would help is being able to print out True Believer. Our community would be able to see themselves in this story. Is there a way to allow printing of the articles?
I recently shared True Believer on my FB in a discussion with a true believer who didn't like the blog post I'd written about speaking up on this topic. She rejected True Believer as highly un-credible—basically said it had to be made up. I was amazed.
For anyone interested, this is the blog post I wrote/shared:
https://leahrose.substack.com/p/our-lying-eyes
I just subscribed to you, Leah. I love the way you are writing about the problem. For me the situation is similar. I have been called a bigot by people who have known me for 15 years all because I wanted a say in whether my daughter was housed in a hotel with males. I have watched a other parents (moms only) watch male (gender non binary is their label) players on the girls (now gender diverse) team exclaiming with wonder how that male player can be as good and amazing as he is. “They are so good! Amazing!” And I stand there feeling like the whole world was turned upside down but I’m the only one who sees it. Or feeling like the boy in the emperor has no clothes story. It is deeply unnerving. And I watch as my daughter is afraid to speak up in the name of fairness, even as she adores her team mates. The need to constantly shut off her internal voice has taken a toll on her personally, athletically and inter-personally. She actually finds more understanding and welcome on the boys team. I would “like” nothing more than to blow this up in our community, but I haven’t yet figured out how to do it without hurting her and without hurting myself with the stress of it.
Thank you, Laura! I'm grateful for your support. "Unnerving" is an excellent descriptor for the state of things. It's like a nightmare alternate reality where you think you must be dreaming because no one is making sense. We can only hope and pray sanity will reassert itself as reality comes home to roost. And when and where possible speak up for that end.
A quick note about my Substack, in case you didn't review my archive before subscribing: gender ideology is not the only topic of my writing. The tagline for my blog is "reflections on life and the world and getting along." So it's kind of a cornucopia of topics all connected to how we related to ourselves and each other in the midst of our conflicts. I just want to make that clear since you found it via this focused blog, in case you prefer to subscribe to the like.
Mom to a boy and a girl, here. It’s true that the boys of today are more, as they say, “based” and know the score, more openly critical, and open to discussions around stereotypes and sexism. They don’t think FTMs are male, in any way. Many think the male MTF and nonbinaries sports participants are cheaters. I encourage my son to welcome girls and gender non-conforming girls to Team Questions.
The moms and girls are terrified of each other, and in a seeming battle for “Most Inclusive and Incurious.” I absolutely see now how witch-hunts and slut-shaming was helped along by fellow women. I love women but my goodness, we’re undone here by our pursuit of kindness and social approval. I could blame it on patriarchy but FFS we do it to ourselves.
You’re not the only one. More power to your girl!
I also have a son, and his presence in her life is so important. We are so proud of her for standing up for herself as much as she can. Her not joining back with the team has people talking and can only bring awareness.
Brava!
I would humbly suggest a tiny correction. As a liberal man, I've looked for other liberal men who recognize that we've been gaslit by the extremist ideologues who claim to be progressive but are so not. I've found many other liberal men, appalled by the perversion of the proud traditions of social justice and the fight against the oppression of the poor and marginalized by systems of patriarchy and corporate capitalism run amok. I ask that we try to move beyond the politically fraught labels of all kinds and be guided by the best medical evidence for truly supporting the many young people who have become entangled in this extremist and regressive gender cult.
Yes!!! Thank you liberal man! I wasn’t trying to leave anyone out…just grabbing the political ends of each side. Thanks be to you!!!
Indeed—this is the kind of inclusivity that is sorely needed. Of course, any liberal who stands against this nonsense is de facto "rightwing," so maybe the conservative label still fits.😉
Yup. I'm still scratching my head at how radical feminists are now being labeled "far right". 🙄
I've gone from ashamed, embarrassed and incapable of saying anything to anyone about our daughter three years ago to being vocal with family, friends and anyone who will listen. I'm amazed at how little people know about what is going on! So I have no intention of letting up.
I will continue to pray and stand firm in my convictions. Even though, right now , I have lost my precious , long awaited beautiful daughter to the evil of this world , I will continue to believe and speak the truth. We must stand together in our voices and with our vote at the upcoming elections. God’s blessings to all of you who are walking though this difficult valley.