Jobs for the nice girls network
Jo Bartosch on the elite feminism that can’t define women:
Even seasoned Westminster watchers could be forgiven for not having heard of the Women’s Equality Party (WEP). Co-founded by luvvie-extraordinaire Sandi Toksvig, the group works towards the laudable, if somewhat woolly, aim of making “equality a reality”. But their brand of insipid dinner party feminism is sinking into irrelevance; washed away by a wave of grassroots women’s rights activists who are tired of playing nice.
I love the combination of luvvie-extraordinaire and insipid dinner party feminism. I mean the verbal combination; the actual combination I don’t love at all.
To date, the most notable achievement of WEP’s leader Mandu Reid has been to stand next to a woman who was offended by the late queen’s lady-in-waiting.
She hastened to write a Guardian piece about it.
Perhaps this is fair enough; wringing political points and publicity out of the news is part of her job. But it is worth noting that neither Reid, nor indeed any of the class of professional feminist, have found a media slot to defend the ordinary women who have been vilified for saying that biological sex matters.
Well, you see, it’s like this. Race is absolute and unmistakable, while sex is malleable and subtle and subjective.
If you say so, but then how does feminism work? What even is feminism?
Oh look, a squirrel.
This is because WEP reject the definition of “woman” as simply an “adult human female” in favour of the idea that any biological male who says he’s a woman should be treated as such. This was confirmed at last month’s conference, where delegates voted to support a system of gender self-identification; transforming the slogan “transwomen are women” into policy. This is about as logical as the Communist Party failing to define ‘worker’ lest it upset industrialists who identify as proletarians.
Or BLM cheerfully agreeing that if Donald Trump says he’s Black then he is.
Just a few days before Reid bore witness to “institutional racism” at the palace, a group of women of all backgrounds met at Hyde Park for a Standing for Women rally, a grassroots membership group. Uniting under the dictionary definition of “woman” as “adult human female”, they sought to raise awareness of the dangers of allowing men to identify as women. They were met by a baying mob of masked counter protesters, some of whom held a large banner reading “Arm Trans People”.
One threw liquid in the face of organiser Kellie-Jay Keen, and another was arrested after physically attacking a woman. There was no statement from WEP, Fawcett or Right to Equality to condemn this, and no round of media interviews
A palace greeter makes a clumsy mistake and there’s an uproar; men threaten and attack women and there’s a pointed gaze in the opposite direction.
It is now abundantly clear that organisations like WEP, Right to Equality and Fawcett do little more than provide jobs for the nice girls network. While they complain about funding and etiquette at the palace, they have been outstripped by a revitalised movement of righteously raging females; the ordinary women that professional feminists are too scared to even define.
Or they just call us Karens.
“Wait. Strike that, reverse it.”
Someone remind me why all those (infuriatingly inaccurate) “biologically speaking, sex is a spectrum” people aren’t defending race shifting? Helluva lot easier to use biology to deny the existence of race than the existence of sex; easy picking!
Toksvig – a Woman and a Lesbian, pissing on women. I thought she was smarter than that, but it seems she was just very good at reading scripts and sounding convincing.
Also currently hospitalised with pneumonia. I won’t be sending a card or flowers.
Also, an individual can be “mixed race” with various ethno-geographic origins of parents, grandparents etc. We are one big, mongrel species. Not necessarily a happy one, but still. Nobody is “mixed sex.” Disorders of Sexual Develpoment* do not change that; my understanding is that each particular condition is specific to one sex or the other.
*From what little I’ve come across from people with a DSD condition, they dislike being called “intersex,” and dislike having their condition appropriated by gender ideologues, as DSD has nothing to do with “gender identity.” As far as I’m concerned, “intersex” is as much of a slur as “cis.” The use of either is an insulting, manipulative, bad faith move that constitutes an attempt to smuggle unexamined and uneveidenced assertions into an argument or discussion.
Genderists have instrumentalized the “assigned [SEX] at birth” phraseology (that, as far as I know, originated with diagnosis and treatment of people with DSD) for their own purposes, which have no connection or bearing on people with DSD. Genderists are not really interested in the plight of people with DSD at all; they only covet the convenient terminology that aids their ability to blur the sex binary, and the benefits they might glean from forced teaming . The words are useful. The people themselves are best ignored, as they are not so convenient.