This is an adapted version of an essay originally published in the Washington Examiner. After several years of fighting behind the scenes, largely ignored by politicians and media outlets that have steadfastly shut their eyes to the fact that there is a leftist feminist critique of “gender identity,” American TERFs finally have entered the public debate about whether there is such a thing as “gender identity,” and whether it deserves the same legal protections as those granted to biological sex.
Jul 10, 2023·edited Jul 10, 2023Liked by Kara Dansky
I am so happy this was posted. Much of the propaganda I see from proponents of "gender ideology" is hate speech similar to racist or religious hate speech. They have posters calling for violence against radical feminist for the "crime" of being against self-hate, child grooming and molestation, etc. But, we are called hateful bigots??? I wanted to add that I am a FORMER democrat turned independent. I simply cannot stomach or support a political party that is throwing women under the bus. That does not mean I have love for the Republican Party. I am simply saying I am politically homeless and will be screwed no matter which party is in power.
Good for you. I don't understand why you have to bend all backwards to reassure yourself you are not a republican for prioritizing women's rights. And why you reject that a Republican can not be a feminist. Most people do not agree with every single last position that a political party holds. That would be normal. I personally don't love either party, I think it is called compromise.
If you don't love either party then don't get bent out of shape that I'm not a republican. And if you don't agree with everything a party stands for then there's no logical reason for you to reject the democrat party. At least adopt a consistent position.
I am so sorry if I gave the wrong tone. I am not bent out of shape about anything. I freely admit I pick and choose from the two parties, and admit to neither in closed company. I just know being a republican doesn't always mean you can't be feminist.
SUZ, You are correct. My mother-in-law was a Barry Goldwater Republican, and a feminist. A lot of the boundaries around these sorts of categories are way more fluid than people think.
The only thing I dispute in the acronym is “radical.” There is nothing radical about recognizing the fact of biological sex. There is something radical about obscuring it.
I prefer the term gender critical, myself, but there are those who feel that too is a definition based on a rejection of the other.
We leftist feminists have been objecting to gender ideology for *years.* We’re very loud on social media. But the media consistent ignores us and paints opposition to gender ideology as strictly a conservative position.
Hear hear! The lesbian feminists were the 'canary in the coal mine' re this issue of men pretending to be women as these heterosexual men (autogynephiles/transvestic fetishists) w/ an erotic fixation have been harassing lesbians for decades. Janice Raymond, a lesbian feminist professor at the U of Mass, wrote her book, The Transsexual Empire, in 1979 calling out the dangers of 'trans' and lesbians and feminists have been doing so for decades and been vilified, attacked, and de-platformed for it.
Sex cannot be changed. Sex is encoded in every cell of our bodies. Mimicking our culture's sex stereotypes of how women (adult females) should look like and behave and how men (adult males) should look and behave is not really "cultural appropriation" since our culture's notions of "feminine" (how females should be) and "masculine" (how males should be) is part of our culture. Furthermore, no woman actually conforms to the various aspects of "femininity" nor does any man actually conform to the various aspects of "masculinity". It is not how some males, claiming to be "transgender", want to appear (clothing, makeup, accessories like jewelry) that is the problem for women and children. It is their demanding access to the few women-only spaces in our society where women (adult human females) are able to enjoy privacy, dignity and safety by not having men in those spaces or activities like women's sports. I do not care how any man dresses. I do care that girls and women not be forced to attend to their own intimate care, including being undressed, in the presence of men, no matter how those men dress or how they "identify".
Men must never be able to enter the sex-class of female/woman and the invented and incoherent 'gender identity' must never gain legal recognition as it is in direct conflict w/ women's and LGB's sex-based rights. If 'gender identity' is legalized women's/girls' rights and opportunities are supplanted and their single-sex spaces invaded by men pretending to be women thus eliminating women's right to safeguarding, privacy, and dignity in those spaces. Men pretending to be women, primarily heterosexual male cross-dresser sexual fetishists w/ paraphilias (autogynephiles/transvestic fetishists), are already invading women's spaces and attempting to colonize womanhood itself and this must be stopped as some of these domineering men are quite dangerous.
Yes, they are but the other con is that few people ever mention that the majority of these cross-dresser sexual fetishist males w/ paraphilias who are the primary drivers of the 'trans' movement are heterosexual men. Helen Joyce, the author of the book, 'Trans,' has talked about this but it is often not mentioned. These men forced-teamed the T onto the LGB to gain greater acceptance for the T but they are not and do not represent LGBs. So-called trans 'gender identity' ideology is misogynist and homophobic to its core.
👍 But "transwomen" -- compound word like "crayfish" which ain't. 🙂
Wiktionary: "However, ['transwoman'] is often associated with views (notably gender-critical feminism) that hold that transgender women are not women,[1][3][4] and thus require a separate word from 'woman' to describe them. For this reason many transgender people find 'transwoman' offensive."
Yes! I wrote about how I feel in all of this. As a female, I have real reservations about being around people with a penis in an intimate space. I refuse to pretend biology isn't real because it can get you hurt. And, no, you aren't likely to be able to fight off a grown man no matter what he identifies as.
Very insightful article. It is important to understand terms being used in public discourse. I agree with the leftist feminists on gender even though I am not a radical, leftist feminist. We need to find ways to work together.
I stand with you, Kara. Not left, no longer a dem, politically independent and if I need a label it’s probably socially conservative. Christian. A woman that admires feminism. Thank you for all you are doing to fight this fight. Biological reality must prevail.
The best governmental system ever invented to secure individual rights is the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, it is this system that has enabled the greatest level of individual liberties ever experienced by the most number of people ever. The concern with the Left is their constant efforts to undermine the U.S. Constitution. Gender identity is just another manifestation of Leftist mentality. If you wish to secure Women's rights, embrace the Conservative values of preserving the U.S. Constitution as written, with clear and distinct roles of the three branches and with a decrease in the centralization of power.
Faux left and faux leftist, if you please. As Kara points out, there are plenty of people on the American (real) left who don’t like gender ideology. We are disturbed at organizations we once supported (like the ACLU) now becoming political tools and undermining civil liberties and the Constitution.
Plenty of good patriotic Americans consider themselves liberals without (as many on the right seem to believe) hating America and undermining the Constitution.
Plenty of good patriotic Americans consider themselves conservatives without (as many on the left seem to believe) having hate or bigotry in their heart toward those who are different.
*We all have to understand* that there are many good people who differ politically from us without those political difference meaning that they are enemies, monsters, or Bad Guys.
This is what simplistic news sources (on both political sides) and polarizing social media algorithms (on both political sides) have brought us to. It’s damaging to our nation.
My dad, a lifelong moderate liberal “nice guy” just posted a meme about the importance of voting out “neo-Nazis” -- that’s what he believes now from the content he consumes. Meanwhile conservative family members post about how “Marxists” are ruining things -- that’s what they believe now from the content they consume.
It’s all equally wacky: most people are normal and moderate (liberal moderates, conservative moderates) and are good. Most liberals and conservatives probably agree on about 90-95% of political values. It’s ok and possible to disagree on the rest without being a monster. A few extremists on each side are not representative of that side.
We ALL need to stop the political hyperbole in order to get our country back. It’s unhealthy.
"Plenty of good patriotic Americans consider themselves liberals without (as many on the right seem to believe) hating America and undermining the Constitution,"
"Plenty of good patriotic Americans consider themselves conservatives without (as many on the left seem to believe) having hate or bigotry in their heart toward those who are different."
I was responding to the above remark. When either side merely vilifies the other side and offers no evidence for its assertions that is a tactic used by cultists and zealots to keep its adherents within the group.
The left invented identity politics, to the detriment of our individuality. This terf war is a consequence. Congratulations Kara. You are becoming a conservative.
The point as she expressed it so well is precisely that she is _not_ “becoming a conservative” -- because there are liberal/progressive arguments against gender ideology as well. The current faux left chooses to ignore those and thinks it can cast us out of the tribe by labeling us far-right or bigots.
And also: you can be a conservative and be against gender ideology (and not be a bigot!) and that’s all fine too -- no one should tell you “congratulations you’re becoming a radical feminist.”
A person should be able to remain a liberal/progressive and reject this regressive gender ideology -- a “good” liberal/ progressive by the way; not a “bigot”; not “transphobic”; not ostracized by the unthinking herd who embrace gender ideology without considering the costs to women/girls (not to mention the thousands of people, both kids and adults, who are harmed by non-evidence-based “affirmation”).
For example, I’m in favor of any adult living their best life however they choose as long as they don’t harm others. But I also see, after digging into this topic, that it’s literally medically impossible to be “in the wrong body” and most people who are distressed at their body’s sexed characteristics need mental health services and assistance accepting reality, not “affirmation” and expensive and medically damaging and unnecessary “treatments.”
The fact that _both_ conservatives and liberals/progressives can be against this ideology makes it even more compelling, if you ask me.
Kara and I and other radical feminists very much enjoy being women, but we know that there are many ways in which women are abused in our culture. Neither Kara (whom I know in the real world) nor I "hate" or "bash" men. "Feminist" has no one meaning. There are very important differences between the many women who consider themselves to be feminists, not the least of which is whether women should have bodily autonomy and complete control over our choices relating to reproduction.
Not to belabor the point, but Kara defends lesbians because lesbians are women and she is a feminist. She is not herself a lesbian. (She rarely refers to her private life, but she doesn’t hide it either.)
Although I'm glad the radical feminists are pushing against the trans movement, as a classical liberal/progressive conservative I'm not prepared to join them in any protests. Their voices should be heard along with conservative/traditional voices in turning the tide on this diabolical movement that endangers women, children and traditional families along with the trans persons who've been misled by doctors and psychologists.
If you think that the trans movement should be opposed, why are you not willing to join in "protests"? What is it about being a "classical liberal/progressive conservative" that makes you content to sit on the sidelines? Pushing against transgender ideology and activism can and is taking many forms, not just street demonstrations or picketing. Take a look at the many different things that Women's Liberation Front is doing: https://womensliberationfront.org
You have totally misunderstood me. I won't join a group of radical feminists in a protest but I do protest in my own way. To my senior community centre, for example, when they celebrated LGBTQ Pride Day. They are a Jewish organization and such lifestyles are against Jewish law. Believe me, it didn't endear me to the administration, which is filled with non-religious woke types. I don't need the women's movement to speak my mind and I don't sit "on the sidelines".
In a pluralistic, democratic society such as ours, we should not be casting people as "enemies or friends". Things get accomplished when people form coalitions on particular issues or policies without having to agree on other issues or policies. Most things can get bipartisan support because they really are not partisan issues. I am not trying to make friends when I work with Republicans and Independents in Oregon to get certain legislation passed or block other legislation. But neither are they my enemies, just because we disagree on many issues. I am pragmatic. Many good things can be accomplished by collaborating and cooperating with people on things we agree on. (Actually, I do feel that some of the Republicans and Independents that I work with are now my friends. There is absolutely no reason why friends have to agree on everything politically or otherwise.
The problem with forming coalitions with folks who don't share your views on most things, but do on one issue is that it reduces your credibility on the other issues. When you have a clear set of values, you think twice about who you associate with.
People need to stop judging people's credibility based on who they associate with and who they form coalitions with on specific issues. Right now, if we "think twice" and do not join with conservatives on stopping harm to women and children by the transgender movement, then women and children will continue to be harmed. Many irreparably. My credibility and that of anyone should be assessed by facts like human sex cannot be changed and that men/males cannot be women/females, nor is any child "born in the wrong body". I fully understand your point, but unfortunately that is stopping many women and men from advocating for what they know is right! My values are very clear, but I am also pragmatic. I know that many women are afraid to be thought to be conservative if they express agreement with attempts in red states to pass laws prohibiting males from participating in girls' and women's sports or prohibiting the use of puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries on minors in the name of "gender affirmation". Meanwhile, in blue states, thousands of girls and boys under 18 are being provided with hormones by Planned Parenthood and other medical providers which cause irreversible, harmful effects, despite the fact that a majority of Democrats oppose such medical interventions for minors. We need Democratic candidates and office holders willing to buck the current party line and have the courage to stand up and speak out against the harm being done to children. Having values does not get anything done to implement those values. I care about getting things done to stop people from being harmed.
First, I'm Canadian and I do have conversations with my Member of Parliament (not my Congress person) even though he is not with the party I voted for - which is Conservative. I'm well aware of the medical and psychological damage to trans persons, but it's the medical and psychological associations that need to be pressured, not the politicians. And they won't be influenced by a bunch of radical feminists with signs. If I was an American my main concern would be ensuring a fair voting process and then I'd vote for Trump because he already stated that if elected, he'd make it a criminal act for anyone to give or approve gender transitioning drugs and/or procedures to persons under 18. Trump's other policies are also something I approve of, even though some of them pit the US against Canada in certain trade issues. Under Trudeau Canada has become a socialist joke with basic freedoms being denied and the woke mob reigning supreme. Finally, as an individualist (not a collectivist, as you seem to be) I would tackle any immediate concerns with the trans movement by removing my kids from public school and either homeschooling or sending them to private. If more individual families did the same thing, you'd see the left's stranglehold on public schools - which promotes gender transitioning and other principles of critical race and gender theory - end.
Exactly. If you read my response to Holly Hart, you'll see that I protest in my own way. I don't want to be associated with radical feminists because they don't represent my views.
Most protests are self-indulgent, attention-seeking orgies of anger and the least effective form of activism. In fact, they are often counterproductive. Why should anyone be bullied into joining a mob and putting out more hate into the world? Maybe this person wants to engage in something hopeful or constructive. A mob is a mob regardless of what they claim to represent. Also, cancelation is a real phenomenon. Going public with one's beliefs carries great risk, and therefore it's a private, personal decision that everyone deserves to be able to make on their own, free from bullying, coercion and harassment.
Do you remember a TV series called Transcendence? In one episode the lead character - a trans guy - visits a feminist retreat and is not exactly made to feel welcome! My chief concern is the gender identity issue because those who espouse the ideology are not looking for equal rights - they want to proselytize and recruit. Why else would they target schools, libraries and other venues that children attend? I also don't support open demonstrations of LGB lifestyles in faith-based places where such lifestyles go against their religion. There is such a thing as religious freedom, too. Live and let live. We don't have to assert our own rights by tromping on others' rights.
I must have missed that tv series but you point to an issue re whether a woman who has 'transed' herself will be accepted into a given group. I guess it would depend on the group or enough people in the group as to acceptance or no acceptance. I would have an issue w/ a woman pretending to be a man or who has hormonally or surgically mutilated herself unless she was a de-transitioner. I have more empathy for de-transitioners but the others who have tried to opt-out of being a woman I find more difficult. So-called gender non-conformity in a woman is fine but it is off-putting when that woman tries to become an ersatz man. As to your other remarks. First, I don't consider being gay or lesbian a lifestyle--the Amish have a lifestyle-- but most LGs live like everyone else. Secondly, I don't like public displays of affection be they hetero or homo unless it's mild like holding hands. Thirdly, I don't think it is appropriate to confuse kids w/ the gender nonsense. Just leave kids alone and if a kid is obviously so-called gender non-conforming be supportive as a teacher but do not invalidate him/her by saying they were 'born wrong' or the absudity of being 'born in the wrong body.' No person is born in the wrong body--what utter lunacy.
Those voices have been heard. You may not be aware of the joint protests by conservative, liberal, feminists, lesbians, lesbian feminists at the American Assoc. of Pediatrics convention in San Diego not long ago. Of course, MSM does not cover these events, that would make it harder to maintain the narrative that only 'right-wing' conservatives are against the pernicious 'trans' movement.
I'm glad the medical profession is finally being challenged by nearly everyone for what amounts to atrocities done to healthy bodies. I once read an article about the complications and side effects of male-to-female surgical transitioning and thought I was reading something out of the journals of the Nazi Dr. Mengele. This information is being withheld from the public by the trans lobby - and even, at times, from prospective trans patients. To allow these procedures (and transitioning drugs) to be administered to people under 18 is criminal. Say what you want about Trump, I heard one of his speeches a few months ago where he promised to make transitioning of people under 18 a criminal act, punishable by a prison sentence. I wish other politicians would take the same stand. Physical atrocities aside....the assault by trans people on women's sports is disgusting. So is the "unisex bathroom". I've heard many mothers say they will not allow their children into such bathrooms unattended. I would like to add something else: prior to the trans movement Gay Pride events were not targeted to children. The hetero public (including me) had no issue with them. It's only recently, where you have this whole "transitioning" discourse being taught in schools and the introduction of Drag Queen story hours for children at schools and libraries, that the hetero public went ballistic. If that is not recruitment, I don't know what it. But there's a kind of logic going on. The trans movement embraces the notion that one can "choose" gender, so recruitment is possible. If I understand correctly, the majority of the gay/lesbian community does not believe gender and sexual preference is a "choice", but innate. Two diametrically opposed ideas, yet the trans movement seems to have gained traction.
The 'trans' movement did not just gain traction they took over every legacy LGB and women's org. New women's and LGB orgs had to be created to counter the 'trans' narrative. 'Trans' 'gender identity' is an astro-turfed movement w/ a lot of money and influence--power-- behind it. Drag Queens--many are hetero--have no place in schools or around minors--they are a disgusting display of misogyny and porn-addled, sexualized content that I think is, in part, to desensitize minors to cross-dressing men that are not always safe to be around.
Also, I assume you know that the 'trans child' is an invention as cover and prop for the hetero autogynephiles/transvestic fetishists--those males w/ an erotic fixation--sexual fetishes and some w/ paraphilias. And most of the men who cross-dress and pretend to be women have no surgeries (not that it matters, they are still males). See the clip below from an interview w/ Helen Joyce, author of 'Trans, When Ideology Meets Reality.'
Joyce explains the heterosexual men who are the "nuclear reactor" of the 'trans' movement and why the need to invent the fictional 'trans child.' And that kids who are non-conforming to sex stereotypes do often grow up to be LGB--it is innate. But the 'trans' movement has parasitically adopted that innateness fact about LGB sexual orientation and grafted it onto their male sexual fetish or erotic fixation movement.
Fascinating. I suspected a lot of what was going on was sexual fetishism but never heard it described that way until now (and very well, I might add). I also wasn't aware that many Drag Queens are hetero. The critical gender literature I read in university (well, back in the 1990s so I go back a long way) represented them always as gay men. (So do films like "The Birdcage"). So yes, the whole thing reeks of misogyny, sexual fetishism - and with this latest business of "performing" for children, pedophilia. Thanks for the link. I'll read it.
I support the specific aims of the TERFs because it is reality based common sense. What I don’t accept is the claim that feminism bears little or no responsibility for the madness. Second wave feminists adopted the premises of gender ideology pretty much from the get go with Simone de Beauvoir’s anti male women are not born argument. It was very convenient for the cause of liberation to agree with lunatics like John Money and say boys and girls are interchangeable constructs. More currently, gender studies departments tell us a la Judith Butler that gender is pure performative theatre. So now drag queens are ‘trans’. All of this sort of nonsense is baked into feminism since it was seen as serving the cause. Liberate women to be exactly like men with a bogus philosophy and guess what, you get men claiming the same! So I don’t buy that this is some sort of fight against the usual misogyny and ‘patriarchy’. The TERFs don’t seem to care at all about the explosion of Rapid Onset affecting young girls and the devastating damage to their health and wellbeing as a result of ‘gender affirming’ care, because that’s nothing to do with men ‘invading’ women’s spaces. Gender ideology is madness for everyone. More feminism is not the answer.
It was not second-wave feminism that threw their lot in w/ the 'trans' lunatics--esp. accepting men pretending to be women--that happened w/ the Third-wave, 'academic' Vichy feminists. Feminism is not a monolith. And you may not know that even before lesbian feminist, Janice Raymond, a professor at the U of Mass, published her book in 1979, The Transsexual Empire, lesbians and feminists were calling out the danger 'trans' posed for women. Men and some women want to blame other women for men's sexual disorders, their sexual fetishes and paraphilias and violence against women--but men are responsible for their behavior not women--own it.
No. ‘Men’ don’t have to own it, individuals do. ‘Men’ are not a monolith! No where do I blame ‘women’. I blame feminism, which is a set of ideas. It’s typical for feminists to equate criticism of feminism with attacks on women, then call it misogyny. I don’t fall for that nonsense. As such, my point was 2nd wave feminism bears responsibility for gender ideology, not that it supported trans activism. That was an unintended consequence of adopting a convenient lie denying the role of biology in the differences between the sexes. Yes many feminists were horrified, horrified by what their own ideology allowed, the seeds of which which can be traced back to Simone de Beauvoir in 1949 saying a woman is not born, she is made. No wonder no one can define what a woman is today. It’s ideas, all ideas. It’s the people who have the ideas that need to ‘own’ it, not men or women.
You misinterpret the meaning of what Simone de Beauvoir said. She was not questioning basic biology-sex itself- she was referring to the proscriptive roles society forced upon women. And second-wave feminism fought against those proscriptive roles as well and worked to liberate women from them and to expand their place in society. It was second-wave feminists (women) who built women's shelters for those who were victims of domestic abuse. And they built rape crisis centers and fought against violence against women. And worked to gain greater independence for women and to expand their opportunities in the workplace and achieve greater equality. They worked for maternity leave and many other changes to help women gain greater independence. These women did not deny biology as many members of women's rights orgs were married and had children--I have met many of these women and they had no doubt about their sex as it was the basis upon which women had been denied equal rights throughout history. That women were discriminated on the basis of their sex in undisputed as the legal record will show.
The men I was referring to are those who perpetrate violence against women and disregard their boundaries. Men who supplant women's sex-based rights and invade their spaces.
Women are not responsible for those men's violent or disrespectful behavior--those men must take responsibility for their actions--they must own it. Men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence and women are often the victims of it. Those misogynist men are the problem and the responsibility for their behavior rests w/ them and w/ them alone.
I don't misinterpret her thinking. That's why I said 'seeds'. The push to deny biology grew from there, abetted by the likes of Kinsey and John Money and reached its apogee perhaps with Judith Butler. By my observation, all through the 2nd wave movement, the role of women as bearers of children, ie. as mothers, has been denigrated, and the very existence of the nuclear family portrayed as an oppressive 'patriarchal' institution that needs dismantling. And what could do that more effectively and thoroughly than to claim in absolute terms that biology is not destiny. The very existence of a child implies unique responsibilities for women and men respectively, and feminism has largely sought to 'liberate' women from theirs through all sorts of policies and ideological fictions.
Yes, most 'normie' feminists would not agree with this radical position, but as you say, feminism is not a monolith, and the conviction that women can BE men (ergo vice-versa) underlies so much of what is happening today. Do you think the current invasion of men (trans women) into women's spaces was not preceded by decades of efforts by feminists to dismantle everything that was once considered a male space? Even men's clubs, Boy Scouts, the military and men's support groups on campus have been ‘disrupted’. Of course, many or most of the barriers in education and the workplace did need to be eliminated for the sake of equal opportunity for women, that's true. But feminism to me is basically a wrecking ball to the culture. Rather than respecting men in their unique roles, it saw men as the enemy to be defeated on all fronts a la Gloria Steinem - a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. If you take down barriers that restrict your freedom, you run the risk of going too far by not realizing some of those barriers were actually designed to protect you. The ‘sexist’ institution of chivalry, for example, is all but lost, such that men today won’t as easily step up to protect women from other men. Feminism fails to see the value in any restriction at all because it wants what it wants. One of its biggest intellectual errors.is the belief that to achieve ‘equality’ one must have total freedom because apparently men have always had total freedom. That isn’t even remotely true, as a moment’s reflection will reveal.
In any case, I appreciate that you seem to be placing the responsibility for the current debacle squarely on the individuals involved, not blaming ‘men’ en masse. We also need to take responsibility for our ideas, our thinking, and that is not on one sex, but on all who adopt and propagate ideas that could have deleterious effects on society.
We just have some disagreements but I appreciate your engagement and civility in discussing these matters. I would hope that decent men and women would help someone in need but I think men and women are afraid to get involved to help others these days. I was on the train from downtown Minneapolis some years ago after work and a young, effeminate man was being harassed by another guy. I and another person said something and began to stand up to help him and the harasser stopped. I think we--men and women--have lost some of our humanity and collective courage when it comes to bullies. And I consider the men who insist on invading women's sex-class--and their spaces--to be misogynist bullies of the worst kind.
Sure. But you also, quite reasonably, laid some blame at the door of third wave feminism -- don't see many feminists stepping up to the plate to take responsibility for that. However, I'll also concede that more are doing so -- Louise Perry and Mary Harrington in particular, though can't say much about the specifics of the latter.
I am so happy this was posted. Much of the propaganda I see from proponents of "gender ideology" is hate speech similar to racist or religious hate speech. They have posters calling for violence against radical feminist for the "crime" of being against self-hate, child grooming and molestation, etc. But, we are called hateful bigots??? I wanted to add that I am a FORMER democrat turned independent. I simply cannot stomach or support a political party that is throwing women under the bus. That does not mean I have love for the Republican Party. I am simply saying I am politically homeless and will be screwed no matter which party is in power.
Good for you. I don't understand why you have to bend all backwards to reassure yourself you are not a republican for prioritizing women's rights. And why you reject that a Republican can not be a feminist. Most people do not agree with every single last position that a political party holds. That would be normal. I personally don't love either party, I think it is called compromise.
If you don't love either party then don't get bent out of shape that I'm not a republican. And if you don't agree with everything a party stands for then there's no logical reason for you to reject the democrat party. At least adopt a consistent position.
I am so sorry if I gave the wrong tone. I am not bent out of shape about anything. I freely admit I pick and choose from the two parties, and admit to neither in closed company. I just know being a republican doesn't always mean you can't be feminist.
SUZ, You are correct. My mother-in-law was a Barry Goldwater Republican, and a feminist. A lot of the boundaries around these sorts of categories are way more fluid than people think.
I share your position.
The only thing I dispute in the acronym is “radical.” There is nothing radical about recognizing the fact of biological sex. There is something radical about obscuring it.
I prefer the term gender critical, myself, but there are those who feel that too is a definition based on a rejection of the other.
The trans movement not only seeks to erase women, but is using the bodies of teen girls as shields in their efforts.
Anyone remember the song I Am Woman Hear Me Roar? We are starting to roar again. Men are not and Never will be Women.
And equally women are not and can never be men.
Absoutely!
We leftist feminists have been objecting to gender ideology for *years.* We’re very loud on social media. But the media consistent ignores us and paints opposition to gender ideology as strictly a conservative position.
Hear hear! The lesbian feminists were the 'canary in the coal mine' re this issue of men pretending to be women as these heterosexual men (autogynephiles/transvestic fetishists) w/ an erotic fixation have been harassing lesbians for decades. Janice Raymond, a lesbian feminist professor at the U of Mass, wrote her book, The Transsexual Empire, in 1979 calling out the dangers of 'trans' and lesbians and feminists have been doing so for decades and been vilified, attacked, and de-platformed for it.
A group of lesbians testified in the House of Lords earlier this year about the invasion of women's/ lesbian spaces by men masquerading as women.
Changing sex is cultural appropriation!
Sex cannot be changed. Sex is encoded in every cell of our bodies. Mimicking our culture's sex stereotypes of how women (adult females) should look like and behave and how men (adult males) should look and behave is not really "cultural appropriation" since our culture's notions of "feminine" (how females should be) and "masculine" (how males should be) is part of our culture. Furthermore, no woman actually conforms to the various aspects of "femininity" nor does any man actually conform to the various aspects of "masculinity". It is not how some males, claiming to be "transgender", want to appear (clothing, makeup, accessories like jewelry) that is the problem for women and children. It is their demanding access to the few women-only spaces in our society where women (adult human females) are able to enjoy privacy, dignity and safety by not having men in those spaces or activities like women's sports. I do not care how any man dresses. I do care that girls and women not be forced to attend to their own intimate care, including being undressed, in the presence of men, no matter how those men dress or how they "identify".
Men must never be able to enter the sex-class of female/woman and the invented and incoherent 'gender identity' must never gain legal recognition as it is in direct conflict w/ women's and LGB's sex-based rights. If 'gender identity' is legalized women's/girls' rights and opportunities are supplanted and their single-sex spaces invaded by men pretending to be women thus eliminating women's right to safeguarding, privacy, and dignity in those spaces. Men pretending to be women, primarily heterosexual male cross-dresser sexual fetishists w/ paraphilias (autogynephiles/transvestic fetishists), are already invading women's spaces and attempting to colonize womanhood itself and this must be stopped as some of these domineering men are quite dangerous.
Trans women are con men
Yes, they are but the other con is that few people ever mention that the majority of these cross-dresser sexual fetishist males w/ paraphilias who are the primary drivers of the 'trans' movement are heterosexual men. Helen Joyce, the author of the book, 'Trans,' has talked about this but it is often not mentioned. These men forced-teamed the T onto the LGB to gain greater acceptance for the T but they are not and do not represent LGBs. So-called trans 'gender identity' ideology is misogynist and homophobic to its core.
👍 But "transwomen" -- compound word like "crayfish" which ain't. 🙂
Wiktionary: "However, ['transwoman'] is often associated with views (notably gender-critical feminism) that hold that transgender women are not women,[1][3][4] and thus require a separate word from 'woman' to describe them. For this reason many transgender people find 'transwoman' offensive."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trans_woman#Usage_notes
HTH ... 😉🙂
Yes! I wrote about how I feel in all of this. As a female, I have real reservations about being around people with a penis in an intimate space. I refuse to pretend biology isn't real because it can get you hurt. And, no, you aren't likely to be able to fight off a grown man no matter what he identifies as.
"People with a penis"—that's gotta a nice ring to it!
Very insightful article. It is important to understand terms being used in public discourse. I agree with the leftist feminists on gender even though I am not a radical, leftist feminist. We need to find ways to work together.
I stand with you, Kara. Not left, no longer a dem, politically independent and if I need a label it’s probably socially conservative. Christian. A woman that admires feminism. Thank you for all you are doing to fight this fight. Biological reality must prevail.
Well said!
Agree completely. You say it all so well. Thank you.
Thank you for publishing this and thank you, Kara Dansky, for sharing it.
The best governmental system ever invented to secure individual rights is the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, it is this system that has enabled the greatest level of individual liberties ever experienced by the most number of people ever. The concern with the Left is their constant efforts to undermine the U.S. Constitution. Gender identity is just another manifestation of Leftist mentality. If you wish to secure Women's rights, embrace the Conservative values of preserving the U.S. Constitution as written, with clear and distinct roles of the three branches and with a decrease in the centralization of power.
Faux left and faux leftist, if you please. As Kara points out, there are plenty of people on the American (real) left who don’t like gender ideology. We are disturbed at organizations we once supported (like the ACLU) now becoming political tools and undermining civil liberties and the Constitution.
Plenty of good patriotic Americans consider themselves liberals without (as many on the right seem to believe) hating America and undermining the Constitution.
Plenty of good patriotic Americans consider themselves conservatives without (as many on the left seem to believe) having hate or bigotry in their heart toward those who are different.
*We all have to understand* that there are many good people who differ politically from us without those political difference meaning that they are enemies, monsters, or Bad Guys.
This is what simplistic news sources (on both political sides) and polarizing social media algorithms (on both political sides) have brought us to. It’s damaging to our nation.
My dad, a lifelong moderate liberal “nice guy” just posted a meme about the importance of voting out “neo-Nazis” -- that’s what he believes now from the content he consumes. Meanwhile conservative family members post about how “Marxists” are ruining things -- that’s what they believe now from the content they consume.
It’s all equally wacky: most people are normal and moderate (liberal moderates, conservative moderates) and are good. Most liberals and conservatives probably agree on about 90-95% of political values. It’s ok and possible to disagree on the rest without being a monster. A few extremists on each side are not representative of that side.
We ALL need to stop the political hyperbole in order to get our country back. It’s unhealthy.
It is a cult tactic to keep people in the fold and to keep them divided by using fear.
This is not a counter-argument to the statement above, just paranoid insinuation.
"Plenty of good patriotic Americans consider themselves liberals without (as many on the right seem to believe) hating America and undermining the Constitution,"
"Plenty of good patriotic Americans consider themselves conservatives without (as many on the left seem to believe) having hate or bigotry in their heart toward those who are different."
I was responding to the above remark. When either side merely vilifies the other side and offers no evidence for its assertions that is a tactic used by cultists and zealots to keep its adherents within the group.
Thank you for clarifying.
The left invented identity politics, to the detriment of our individuality. This terf war is a consequence. Congratulations Kara. You are becoming a conservative.
The point as she expressed it so well is precisely that she is _not_ “becoming a conservative” -- because there are liberal/progressive arguments against gender ideology as well. The current faux left chooses to ignore those and thinks it can cast us out of the tribe by labeling us far-right or bigots.
And also: you can be a conservative and be against gender ideology (and not be a bigot!) and that’s all fine too -- no one should tell you “congratulations you’re becoming a radical feminist.”
A person should be able to remain a liberal/progressive and reject this regressive gender ideology -- a “good” liberal/ progressive by the way; not a “bigot”; not “transphobic”; not ostracized by the unthinking herd who embrace gender ideology without considering the costs to women/girls (not to mention the thousands of people, both kids and adults, who are harmed by non-evidence-based “affirmation”).
For example, I’m in favor of any adult living their best life however they choose as long as they don’t harm others. But I also see, after digging into this topic, that it’s literally medically impossible to be “in the wrong body” and most people who are distressed at their body’s sexed characteristics need mental health services and assistance accepting reality, not “affirmation” and expensive and medically damaging and unnecessary “treatments.”
The fact that _both_ conservatives and liberals/progressives can be against this ideology makes it even more compelling, if you ask me.
Well said.
Kara just doesn’t know it yet. Conservative women have always been “feminists”, they just didn’t hate or bash men. They enjoy being women.
Kara and I and other radical feminists very much enjoy being women, but we know that there are many ways in which women are abused in our culture. Neither Kara (whom I know in the real world) nor I "hate" or "bash" men. "Feminist" has no one meaning. There are very important differences between the many women who consider themselves to be feminists, not the least of which is whether women should have bodily autonomy and complete control over our choices relating to reproduction.
Not to belabor the point, but Kara defends lesbians because lesbians are women and she is a feminist. She is not herself a lesbian. (She rarely refers to her private life, but she doesn’t hide it either.)
Some people don't realize that some of the so-called feminists speaking 'on behalf of women' are men pretending to be women--they are not women.
Although I'm glad the radical feminists are pushing against the trans movement, as a classical liberal/progressive conservative I'm not prepared to join them in any protests. Their voices should be heard along with conservative/traditional voices in turning the tide on this diabolical movement that endangers women, children and traditional families along with the trans persons who've been misled by doctors and psychologists.
If you think that the trans movement should be opposed, why are you not willing to join in "protests"? What is it about being a "classical liberal/progressive conservative" that makes you content to sit on the sidelines? Pushing against transgender ideology and activism can and is taking many forms, not just street demonstrations or picketing. Take a look at the many different things that Women's Liberation Front is doing: https://womensliberationfront.org
You have totally misunderstood me. I won't join a group of radical feminists in a protest but I do protest in my own way. To my senior community centre, for example, when they celebrated LGBTQ Pride Day. They are a Jewish organization and such lifestyles are against Jewish law. Believe me, it didn't endear me to the administration, which is filled with non-religious woke types. I don't need the women's movement to speak my mind and I don't sit "on the sidelines".
The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my friend.
In a pluralistic, democratic society such as ours, we should not be casting people as "enemies or friends". Things get accomplished when people form coalitions on particular issues or policies without having to agree on other issues or policies. Most things can get bipartisan support because they really are not partisan issues. I am not trying to make friends when I work with Republicans and Independents in Oregon to get certain legislation passed or block other legislation. But neither are they my enemies, just because we disagree on many issues. I am pragmatic. Many good things can be accomplished by collaborating and cooperating with people on things we agree on. (Actually, I do feel that some of the Republicans and Independents that I work with are now my friends. There is absolutely no reason why friends have to agree on everything politically or otherwise.
The problem with forming coalitions with folks who don't share your views on most things, but do on one issue is that it reduces your credibility on the other issues. When you have a clear set of values, you think twice about who you associate with.
People need to stop judging people's credibility based on who they associate with and who they form coalitions with on specific issues. Right now, if we "think twice" and do not join with conservatives on stopping harm to women and children by the transgender movement, then women and children will continue to be harmed. Many irreparably. My credibility and that of anyone should be assessed by facts like human sex cannot be changed and that men/males cannot be women/females, nor is any child "born in the wrong body". I fully understand your point, but unfortunately that is stopping many women and men from advocating for what they know is right! My values are very clear, but I am also pragmatic. I know that many women are afraid to be thought to be conservative if they express agreement with attempts in red states to pass laws prohibiting males from participating in girls' and women's sports or prohibiting the use of puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries on minors in the name of "gender affirmation". Meanwhile, in blue states, thousands of girls and boys under 18 are being provided with hormones by Planned Parenthood and other medical providers which cause irreversible, harmful effects, despite the fact that a majority of Democrats oppose such medical interventions for minors. We need Democratic candidates and office holders willing to buck the current party line and have the courage to stand up and speak out against the harm being done to children. Having values does not get anything done to implement those values. I care about getting things done to stop people from being harmed.
First, I'm Canadian and I do have conversations with my Member of Parliament (not my Congress person) even though he is not with the party I voted for - which is Conservative. I'm well aware of the medical and psychological damage to trans persons, but it's the medical and psychological associations that need to be pressured, not the politicians. And they won't be influenced by a bunch of radical feminists with signs. If I was an American my main concern would be ensuring a fair voting process and then I'd vote for Trump because he already stated that if elected, he'd make it a criminal act for anyone to give or approve gender transitioning drugs and/or procedures to persons under 18. Trump's other policies are also something I approve of, even though some of them pit the US against Canada in certain trade issues. Under Trudeau Canada has become a socialist joke with basic freedoms being denied and the woke mob reigning supreme. Finally, as an individualist (not a collectivist, as you seem to be) I would tackle any immediate concerns with the trans movement by removing my kids from public school and either homeschooling or sending them to private. If more individual families did the same thing, you'd see the left's stranglehold on public schools - which promotes gender transitioning and other principles of critical race and gender theory - end.
That's a good point.
You're overthinking—again. It's a tribal maxim that explains much of human behavior, more than political coalition building (and fracturing) does...
Exactly. If you read my response to Holly Hart, you'll see that I protest in my own way. I don't want to be associated with radical feminists because they don't represent my views.
Most protests are self-indulgent, attention-seeking orgies of anger and the least effective form of activism. In fact, they are often counterproductive. Why should anyone be bullied into joining a mob and putting out more hate into the world? Maybe this person wants to engage in something hopeful or constructive. A mob is a mob regardless of what they claim to represent. Also, cancelation is a real phenomenon. Going public with one's beliefs carries great risk, and therefore it's a private, personal decision that everyone deserves to be able to make on their own, free from bullying, coercion and harassment.
LGBs have been fighting against 'gender identity' nonsense as well--esp. lesbian feminists-- who have been doing so for decades.
Do you remember a TV series called Transcendence? In one episode the lead character - a trans guy - visits a feminist retreat and is not exactly made to feel welcome! My chief concern is the gender identity issue because those who espouse the ideology are not looking for equal rights - they want to proselytize and recruit. Why else would they target schools, libraries and other venues that children attend? I also don't support open demonstrations of LGB lifestyles in faith-based places where such lifestyles go against their religion. There is such a thing as religious freedom, too. Live and let live. We don't have to assert our own rights by tromping on others' rights.
I must have missed that tv series but you point to an issue re whether a woman who has 'transed' herself will be accepted into a given group. I guess it would depend on the group or enough people in the group as to acceptance or no acceptance. I would have an issue w/ a woman pretending to be a man or who has hormonally or surgically mutilated herself unless she was a de-transitioner. I have more empathy for de-transitioners but the others who have tried to opt-out of being a woman I find more difficult. So-called gender non-conformity in a woman is fine but it is off-putting when that woman tries to become an ersatz man. As to your other remarks. First, I don't consider being gay or lesbian a lifestyle--the Amish have a lifestyle-- but most LGs live like everyone else. Secondly, I don't like public displays of affection be they hetero or homo unless it's mild like holding hands. Thirdly, I don't think it is appropriate to confuse kids w/ the gender nonsense. Just leave kids alone and if a kid is obviously so-called gender non-conforming be supportive as a teacher but do not invalidate him/her by saying they were 'born wrong' or the absudity of being 'born in the wrong body.' No person is born in the wrong body--what utter lunacy.
Also look at what WDI (Women's Declaration International) is doing: https://womensdeclarationusa.com/
Those voices have been heard. You may not be aware of the joint protests by conservative, liberal, feminists, lesbians, lesbian feminists at the American Assoc. of Pediatrics convention in San Diego not long ago. Of course, MSM does not cover these events, that would make it harder to maintain the narrative that only 'right-wing' conservatives are against the pernicious 'trans' movement.
I'm glad the medical profession is finally being challenged by nearly everyone for what amounts to atrocities done to healthy bodies. I once read an article about the complications and side effects of male-to-female surgical transitioning and thought I was reading something out of the journals of the Nazi Dr. Mengele. This information is being withheld from the public by the trans lobby - and even, at times, from prospective trans patients. To allow these procedures (and transitioning drugs) to be administered to people under 18 is criminal. Say what you want about Trump, I heard one of his speeches a few months ago where he promised to make transitioning of people under 18 a criminal act, punishable by a prison sentence. I wish other politicians would take the same stand. Physical atrocities aside....the assault by trans people on women's sports is disgusting. So is the "unisex bathroom". I've heard many mothers say they will not allow their children into such bathrooms unattended. I would like to add something else: prior to the trans movement Gay Pride events were not targeted to children. The hetero public (including me) had no issue with them. It's only recently, where you have this whole "transitioning" discourse being taught in schools and the introduction of Drag Queen story hours for children at schools and libraries, that the hetero public went ballistic. If that is not recruitment, I don't know what it. But there's a kind of logic going on. The trans movement embraces the notion that one can "choose" gender, so recruitment is possible. If I understand correctly, the majority of the gay/lesbian community does not believe gender and sexual preference is a "choice", but innate. Two diametrically opposed ideas, yet the trans movement seems to have gained traction.
The 'trans' movement did not just gain traction they took over every legacy LGB and women's org. New women's and LGB orgs had to be created to counter the 'trans' narrative. 'Trans' 'gender identity' is an astro-turfed movement w/ a lot of money and influence--power-- behind it. Drag Queens--many are hetero--have no place in schools or around minors--they are a disgusting display of misogyny and porn-addled, sexualized content that I think is, in part, to desensitize minors to cross-dressing men that are not always safe to be around.
Also, I assume you know that the 'trans child' is an invention as cover and prop for the hetero autogynephiles/transvestic fetishists--those males w/ an erotic fixation--sexual fetishes and some w/ paraphilias. And most of the men who cross-dress and pretend to be women have no surgeries (not that it matters, they are still males). See the clip below from an interview w/ Helen Joyce, author of 'Trans, When Ideology Meets Reality.'
Joyce explains the heterosexual men who are the "nuclear reactor" of the 'trans' movement and why the need to invent the fictional 'trans child.' And that kids who are non-conforming to sex stereotypes do often grow up to be LGB--it is innate. But the 'trans' movement has parasitically adopted that innateness fact about LGB sexual orientation and grafted it onto their male sexual fetish or erotic fixation movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xUrtNW6Fzo&t=664s
Fascinating. I suspected a lot of what was going on was sexual fetishism but never heard it described that way until now (and very well, I might add). I also wasn't aware that many Drag Queens are hetero. The critical gender literature I read in university (well, back in the 1990s so I go back a long way) represented them always as gay men. (So do films like "The Birdcage"). So yes, the whole thing reeks of misogyny, sexual fetishism - and with this latest business of "performing" for children, pedophilia. Thanks for the link. I'll read it.
I support the specific aims of the TERFs because it is reality based common sense. What I don’t accept is the claim that feminism bears little or no responsibility for the madness. Second wave feminists adopted the premises of gender ideology pretty much from the get go with Simone de Beauvoir’s anti male women are not born argument. It was very convenient for the cause of liberation to agree with lunatics like John Money and say boys and girls are interchangeable constructs. More currently, gender studies departments tell us a la Judith Butler that gender is pure performative theatre. So now drag queens are ‘trans’. All of this sort of nonsense is baked into feminism since it was seen as serving the cause. Liberate women to be exactly like men with a bogus philosophy and guess what, you get men claiming the same! So I don’t buy that this is some sort of fight against the usual misogyny and ‘patriarchy’. The TERFs don’t seem to care at all about the explosion of Rapid Onset affecting young girls and the devastating damage to their health and wellbeing as a result of ‘gender affirming’ care, because that’s nothing to do with men ‘invading’ women’s spaces. Gender ideology is madness for everyone. More feminism is not the answer.
It was not second-wave feminism that threw their lot in w/ the 'trans' lunatics--esp. accepting men pretending to be women--that happened w/ the Third-wave, 'academic' Vichy feminists. Feminism is not a monolith. And you may not know that even before lesbian feminist, Janice Raymond, a professor at the U of Mass, published her book in 1979, The Transsexual Empire, lesbians and feminists were calling out the danger 'trans' posed for women. Men and some women want to blame other women for men's sexual disorders, their sexual fetishes and paraphilias and violence against women--but men are responsible for their behavior not women--own it.
No. ‘Men’ don’t have to own it, individuals do. ‘Men’ are not a monolith! No where do I blame ‘women’. I blame feminism, which is a set of ideas. It’s typical for feminists to equate criticism of feminism with attacks on women, then call it misogyny. I don’t fall for that nonsense. As such, my point was 2nd wave feminism bears responsibility for gender ideology, not that it supported trans activism. That was an unintended consequence of adopting a convenient lie denying the role of biology in the differences between the sexes. Yes many feminists were horrified, horrified by what their own ideology allowed, the seeds of which which can be traced back to Simone de Beauvoir in 1949 saying a woman is not born, she is made. No wonder no one can define what a woman is today. It’s ideas, all ideas. It’s the people who have the ideas that need to ‘own’ it, not men or women.
You misinterpret the meaning of what Simone de Beauvoir said. She was not questioning basic biology-sex itself- she was referring to the proscriptive roles society forced upon women. And second-wave feminism fought against those proscriptive roles as well and worked to liberate women from them and to expand their place in society. It was second-wave feminists (women) who built women's shelters for those who were victims of domestic abuse. And they built rape crisis centers and fought against violence against women. And worked to gain greater independence for women and to expand their opportunities in the workplace and achieve greater equality. They worked for maternity leave and many other changes to help women gain greater independence. These women did not deny biology as many members of women's rights orgs were married and had children--I have met many of these women and they had no doubt about their sex as it was the basis upon which women had been denied equal rights throughout history. That women were discriminated on the basis of their sex in undisputed as the legal record will show.
The men I was referring to are those who perpetrate violence against women and disregard their boundaries. Men who supplant women's sex-based rights and invade their spaces.
Women are not responsible for those men's violent or disrespectful behavior--those men must take responsibility for their actions--they must own it. Men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence and women are often the victims of it. Those misogynist men are the problem and the responsibility for their behavior rests w/ them and w/ them alone.
I don't misinterpret her thinking. That's why I said 'seeds'. The push to deny biology grew from there, abetted by the likes of Kinsey and John Money and reached its apogee perhaps with Judith Butler. By my observation, all through the 2nd wave movement, the role of women as bearers of children, ie. as mothers, has been denigrated, and the very existence of the nuclear family portrayed as an oppressive 'patriarchal' institution that needs dismantling. And what could do that more effectively and thoroughly than to claim in absolute terms that biology is not destiny. The very existence of a child implies unique responsibilities for women and men respectively, and feminism has largely sought to 'liberate' women from theirs through all sorts of policies and ideological fictions.
Yes, most 'normie' feminists would not agree with this radical position, but as you say, feminism is not a monolith, and the conviction that women can BE men (ergo vice-versa) underlies so much of what is happening today. Do you think the current invasion of men (trans women) into women's spaces was not preceded by decades of efforts by feminists to dismantle everything that was once considered a male space? Even men's clubs, Boy Scouts, the military and men's support groups on campus have been ‘disrupted’. Of course, many or most of the barriers in education and the workplace did need to be eliminated for the sake of equal opportunity for women, that's true. But feminism to me is basically a wrecking ball to the culture. Rather than respecting men in their unique roles, it saw men as the enemy to be defeated on all fronts a la Gloria Steinem - a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. If you take down barriers that restrict your freedom, you run the risk of going too far by not realizing some of those barriers were actually designed to protect you. The ‘sexist’ institution of chivalry, for example, is all but lost, such that men today won’t as easily step up to protect women from other men. Feminism fails to see the value in any restriction at all because it wants what it wants. One of its biggest intellectual errors.is the belief that to achieve ‘equality’ one must have total freedom because apparently men have always had total freedom. That isn’t even remotely true, as a moment’s reflection will reveal.
In any case, I appreciate that you seem to be placing the responsibility for the current debacle squarely on the individuals involved, not blaming ‘men’ en masse. We also need to take responsibility for our ideas, our thinking, and that is not on one sex, but on all who adopt and propagate ideas that could have deleterious effects on society.
We just have some disagreements but I appreciate your engagement and civility in discussing these matters. I would hope that decent men and women would help someone in need but I think men and women are afraid to get involved to help others these days. I was on the train from downtown Minneapolis some years ago after work and a young, effeminate man was being harassed by another guy. I and another person said something and began to stand up to help him and the harasser stopped. I think we--men and women--have lost some of our humanity and collective courage when it comes to bullies. And I consider the men who insist on invading women's sex-class--and their spaces--to be misogynist bullies of the worst kind.
Man: "What I don’t accept is the claim that feminism bears little or no responsibility for the madness."
Indeed. As Substacker Helen Dale put it:
"The transcult is feminism’s bastard child ..."
https://helendale.substack.com/p/a-common-humanity-or-bust
Though not sure that I fully agree with the rest of her sentence or with her guest poster's argument.
Men are responsible for their own behavior not women--they need to own it.
Sure. But you also, quite reasonably, laid some blame at the door of third wave feminism -- don't see many feminists stepping up to the plate to take responsibility for that. However, I'll also concede that more are doing so -- Louise Perry and Mary Harrington in particular, though can't say much about the specifics of the latter.