If only women were foxes
“Cis” man singles out feminist woman for opprobrium again.
Of course the headline doesn’t say “I am being silenced” – it says “women won’t be silenced.” She’s not talking about herself, she’s talking about women. Maugham wouldn’t understand.
As if there aren’t “loads of powerful white men” on his side.
He must be opening different newspapers than I am.
There’s so many irritating men on Twitter, yet Jolyon manages to get into the Top Ten every time.
I wish Australian women could speak out like English women are. Here no opposition to men in women’s spaces is brooked.
This must be the DARVO version of feminists’ responsiblility for men attacking and killing trans identified males.
I’m curious though. Did I miss the part where Maugham’s bludgeoning of the fox “is trans people’s fault?”
Unless someone was confused by the kimono…
I’m guessing what the Foxkiller is talking about here is women’s legitimate concern that predatory males will use the cover offered by Self ID to access vulnerable women in what had been, up until now, single sex spaces? As if a) “transness” magically renders TiMs safe and harmless,* and b) women can tell the difference between evil, scary, predatory “cis” males and safe, harmless TiMs. Trans activism has signally failed to admit that this is a legitimate concern, let alone done anything at all to address it.
Though to the extent that “cis” men champion and advance the cause of TiMs against the health, safety, and dignity of women, there is actually something to the accusation, if not its alleged ubiquity in print media. Just not in the way Maugham thinks.
There must have been some sympathetic, non-trans men on the inside of those institutions which were captured, who quietly opened the drawbridges and gates to welcome the agents of usurpation. They were certainly acting on behalf of, or at the behest of “trans people.” The cover and camouflage provided by the forced teaming with LGB rights was also vital in this quiet revolution. (Of course women were in on it too, against their own material self-interest, but I’m more concerned here with Maugham’s “cis-male” part of the equation.) Without the support and effort of powerful “cis” male allies, trans activism would have gone precisely nowhere. Not nearly as nowhere had it been a movement designed primarily for the benefit of TiFs instead of TiMs, but not nearly as successful at turning so many institutions and systems into organs of trans “rights” promulgation and enforcement had there been no “cis” male allies collaborating from within the establishment. No threat to patriarchy here. As has been noted elsewhere, nothing says “liberatory, revolutionary social movement” quite like a rainbow hued corporate logo.
*and how, conversly, being a predator is a character that is exclusively “cis”, and that TiMs would NEVER engage in such activity.
It makes sense in that it follows deductively. All you have to do is fill in the blank with sexism:
i) transwomen are women
ii) _____ are safe and harmless
iii) transwomen are safe and harmless