She couldn’t un-see it
She thought of it, therefore it’s true. Boy does that make fact-checking easy!
She couldn’t unsee “the connection” she made up in her own febrile brain. Well hey, I can play that game too. She posted this article at the height of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, so I can’t un-see the connection. It’s right there, staring me in the face!
Shall we take a look? It’s every bit as stupid and insinuating and jargon-ridden as you’d expect.
Re-centring white victimhood in the age of Black Lives Matter: a ‘gender critical’ project?
Self-proclaimed ‘gender critical’ feminists have grown increasingly loud within the UK political space over recent years.
Sneering in the very first words. How dare we proclaim ourselves gender-critical feminists? What a nerve! We’re supposed to call ourselves evil transphobic cunts, obviously. And we’re “increasingly loud”…says a woman who probably also considers herself a feminist.
The impact of their rhetoric and political action has been and will continue to be devastating for trans people, from the halting of reforms to the Gender Recognition Act despite public support, to ever more intense levels of transphobic violence taking place online and offline.
In short we’re killing trans people with our rude self-proclaimed insistence on talking.
I explore the function of so-called ‘gender critical’ feminism as a reactionary response to anti-racist and decolonial campaigns which aims to both reclaim the centrality of white women as the ultimate victim in public debates, and to divert attention from calls to recognise and address the role of feminist movements in upholding systems of white supremacy and imperialism worldwide.
Blah blah blah. It’s all in the playbook.
“White” feminism on trial again.
“Open with a shared value.”
1. We all agree men don’t belong in women’s spaces.
*Transwomen are men.
*Transwomen don’t belong in women’s spaces.
vs
2. We all agree black people are inferior to white.
* Black people should have their own spaces
* Black people should stay out of white spaces.
The first one starts with common ground agreement. The second one doesn’t, and doesn’t resemble the first in any way. The real point of contention is the ontological status of transwomen, not fairness — deciding some people are inferior and don’t belong.
TRAs either believe or pretend to believe that it’s obvious that transwomen are women in the same way it is now obvious that black people are human. Remove that and the whole White Woman vs BLM narrative can’t get off the ground.
I’m glad I had a look at the Twitter comments on the LSE post–unanimously critical of this piece, and many from gender-critical women of colour pointing out the number of women of colour who have been visible leaders in the gender-critical movement.
I’m starting to place the blame for this kind of thing not on the authors, since people have been writing stupid shit since before the invention of the printing press, but on the editors that disseminate it–it’s on LSE that it put its imprimatur of alleged quality on this, in the same way that it’s on Foreign Policy that they published Grace Lavery. It’s the editors who should know better, and maybe in the absence of knowing better at least think twice before tossing their institution’s reputation into the bin.
“You are doing A while B is also happening.”
*eyes narrow*
“That’s pretty sus.”
Much like the group formerly known as ‘women’, we are not given permission to name ourselves.
Does she really want to be bringing up the BLM shit from last summer as if it was some sort of universal good? Neighborhoods ablaze?