Kara Dansky’s book, ‘The Abolition of Sex: How the ‘Transgender’ Agenda Harms Women and Girls’ is part of a growing struggle by US feminists.
Source: Why US feminists are behind their UK counterparts – and how they’re catching up
Category: Feminism
Is it Time for a 4B Movement in the West?
South Korean radical feminists have been kicking ass in the last few years, with movements like “Take off the Corset” that sees them rejecting cosmetics and strict South Korean beauty norms in droves; organizing massive protests against the depravity of male voyeurism via webcams stashed in bathrooms and hotel rooms; and creating their own female-exclusive spaces online and in the real world.
But one of the most radical and seemingly-harsh movements to emerge from South Korea is the 4B or “4 Nos” movement: no dating men, no having sex with men, no marrying men, and no having children for men.
It’s not the first time women have banded together to issue a sex ban. The Greek comedy Lysistrata by Aristophanes comes to mind, probably one of the earliest examples in literature of women “withholding” sex to persuade men to change their behavior. More recently in 2003 during the second Liberian civil war, the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace encouraged its members to stop having sex with their male partners in order to end the fighting. (And it worked! Within months, the two warring sides were engaged in peace talks.)
So is it time for women in the west to follow their lead?
It may already be happening. Birth rates in North America and Europe have declined, mimicking similar trends in Asian countries, including South Korea. The most popular dating apps are skewed heavily male, showing that women aren’t exactly falling all over themselves to date men. Women are more inclined to pursue a college degree and/or a high-paying career than a wedding ring. And despite the sex-positivity movement touted by liberal feminists, millennials and gen-Zs are two of the most sexless generations in recent history.
So while there may not be a formal movement in the west at the moment, these numbers seem to indicate a growing trend of women taking a good look at what men have to offer and opting out.
Gender Critical Coming Out Day – Gender Critical Coming Out Day
19th December 2021
What is Gender Critical Coming Out Day?
Gender Critical Coming Out Day is a day to let others know you support the reality of biological sex, and that you are against an ideology that says gender identity can replace sex.
It’s a chance to find safety in numbers as we all “come out” together. You might use a different term to describe your views, eg gender atheist, or no label at all. The label isn’t the important thing, and there’s no right or wrong way to engage in the issue; we all take different approaches.
The point of a single day focusing on coming out as gender critical isn’t to get into the detail of the arguments around the issue of gender identity ideology. It’s simply to show that there are others out there who want to ask questions and be allowed to talk about the issue; to connect with people who might not realise you think the same as they do; to open the door to the issue for people who aren’t aware of it at all.
We’ll be adding more info and links as we get nearer to the day, so keep checking back here.
Why December 19th?
We’ve picked December 19th as Gender Critical Coming Out Day because this is the anniversary of the date J.K. Rowling posted the following tweet:
This tweet inspired so many other people to stand up and speak out about the issue of gender ideology and how it negatively impacts women, children, and LGB people. Lots of other tweets and actions have inspired people too, but we’ve picked this one to be symbolic of whatever tweet, speech, action, event or news story brought this issue to your attention or inspired you.
Source: Gender Critical Coming Out Day – Gender Critical Coming Out Day
Edna Ryan Awards 2021 – YouTube
Andrea Dworkin: Biological Essentialism vs. Political Materialism – Women Are Human
Women Are Human shares with our readers the following excerpt from Janice G. Raymond’s newly released book Doublethink: A Feminist Challenge to Transgenderism, published by Spinifex Press. More of her work can be seen at https://janiceraymond.com. Her previous books have included The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male (1979/1994), A Passion for Friends: Toward a Philosophy of Female Affection (1986/2001), Women as Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women’s Freedom (1993/2019), and Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths About Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade (2013).
In a 1989 interview, Dworkin said, “So much of what happens to women happens to us not just in our bodies, but because of our bodies … if you cannot deal with the reality of what it means to physically exist as a woman in this world, then you can’t know anything” (Jenefsky, 1998, p. 105).
If Dworkin spoke those words today, trans advocates would brand her a biological essentialist. In the same interview, Dworkin states that the oppression of women happens, “because” of our material bodies. And when you take away everything else, “what you have left as a woman is your body: it is your commodity, your existence … it’s what people violate you for” (Jenefsky, 1998, p. 105, italics mine). It is women’s body parts, especially breasts, which are hypersexualized and ruthlessly objectified.
I spend some time in this chapter refuting Stoltenberg’s interpretation of Andrea’s opinion on transgender because he has become the mediator of Dworkin’s views; views she did not publicly align herself with after writing her first book, Woman Hating. Stoltenberg’s version of Dworkin as a trans advocate stands in stark contrast to the rest of her writing in which Andrea conveyed that female bodies matter. In a 1989 interview, Dworkin said, “So much of what happens to women happens to us not just in our bodies, but because of our bodies … if you cannot deal with the reality of what it means to physically exist as a woman in this world, then you can’t know anything” (Jenefsky, 1998, p. 105).
In the final chapter of Woman Hating, Dworkin had also affirmed incest and bestiality. Jenefsky wrote that this chapter centered on a multisexual paradigm that Dworkin believed at the time were repressed practices and should be accommodated in an ‘androgynous world.’ Dworkin admitted she was wrong in her last chapter of Woman Hating, so it’s doubly wrong that Stoltenberg is perpetuating an analysis of transsexualism that Andrea would not have affirmed today. Funny, I don’t see him defending her early views on incest and bestiality, both of which Dworkin had supported in her last chapter.
I believe that Andrea, were she alive today, would have recognized and named the dangerous direction that transgenderism has taken and would never have condoned the sexual objectification, sexual abuse, the rape and death threats, the medical mutilation and the denigration of natal women on which the transgender movement is built and which Stoltenberg has decided to disregard.
Source: Andrea Dworkin: Biological Essentialism vs. Political Materialism – Women Are Human
The way forward | Josephine Bartosch | The Critic Magazine
I want to talk about pride and about shame. I have never been what is crudely referred to as a “flag shagger”. I have never sat through the Queen’s Speech at Christmas, and I can’t name a single English football player.
But one thing that does make me genuinely proud to be British is that we are now known to trans activists across the world as “TERF Island”. And that’s important because the UK punches above its weight in terms of cultural exports.
What we are doing here is watched by the rest of the world. And what we are doing is standing firm against an ideology imported wholesale from the US; an ideology that has the backing of some of the world’s most powerful people.
And I’m not talking about elected politicians and peers who make the law in that building over there. I’m talking about the technocrats, those in Silicon Valley, with the power to shape minds. Social media has become a vector for body dysmorphia, and pornography has made the prospect of growing up female a sentence to sexual subservience.
Covid, compassion, conscience and civil disagreement | The Spectator Australia
Frost shared that she hadn’t received a Covid vaccine, alluding to health reasons, saying that there are many different reasons people aren’t getting vaccinated. However, she said the “segregation” between those who are vaccinated and those who aren’t and the “harsh judgement” directed at the latter had caused her to feel “less of a human” and “too scared to talk”, making it “a really hard time to be in society right now”.
You’d think with our culture’s current focus on the importance of mental health, empowering women, individual autonomy, and values like tolerance, acceptance and inclusivity, a raw and vulnerable Frost would have been shown support and extended the very compassion, kindness and empathy she was pleading for. Instead, the same people who preach mental health awareness, feminism, ‘my body, my choice’, and ‘progressive values’, jumped on her like a virtual pack of wolves. Why? Because she dared to share a view that was different.
Unfortunately, women tearing down other women is an ugly phenomenon that continues to persist despite feminist notions of equality, freedom, empowerment and the so-called “sisterhood”.
A friend of mine publicly posted her decision not to get vaccinated on social media. She had people swarm her business accounts telling her they wished she would die from Covid or to kill herself (this friend had been suicidal in the past). She is not alone in the vicious sentiments she received.
Source: Covid, compassion, conscience and civil disagreement | The Spectator Australia
My hope for a more open discussion of women’s and trans rights is fading | Susanna Rustin | The Guardian
Over recent years, women with views like mine have routinely been described as hateful. This happened even when we made it clear that we oppose bigotry and support laws protecting transgender people from discrimination. But what is shocking is the escalating language and threats, to the point where Stock – the author of a well-reviewed book on this subject – was advised by police to install CCTV.
It seems easy, for some, to dismiss any resistance to changing cultures of gender as reactionary (or quasi-fascist). It is true that most of the MPs speaking up for Kathleen Stock so far have been Tories. By not explicitly condemning the demands for her to be sacked, while calling for an “investigation” into “institutional transphobia”, the academic union, the UCU, appeared to side with the campaign against her.
But it is a mistake to imagine that the only people for whom sexual differences are meaningful are evolutionary biologists or religious conservatives. For gender-critical feminists, our politics are underpinned by an analysis of the way female bodies and reproductive labour have historically been controlled and exploited. This is why we describe women’s rights as “sex-based”.
I Am Woman Hear Me Roar – YouTube
Victorian Women’s Guild – Threats to Lesbians
We are very concerned about the dangers to lesbians resulting from the advance of Trans Rights Activism (TRA) and the rapid, unquestioning adoption of trans perspectives by governments, institutions and community organisations. Not only are our rights to be lesbian, and to congregate as lesbians, being eroded there are even moves to completely erase lesbianism as a sexuality!