Originally a comment by Seth on It means whatever you want it to mean, darling.

Shit like this makes me despair. I’ve spent most of my politically conscious life believing that the endgame of gender politics was removing the notion of gender entirely—breaking that all-too-human need to categorise things that’s resulted in certain behaviours being considered ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. In my vision of society, it shouldn’t *matter* if some people who grow beards like to wear earrings and dress in pink and be in touch with their emotions (in fact all people should do more of the latter), and it shouldn’t *matter* that some people who lactate prefer to be firefighters or lumberjacks, and none of that should keep people from being assertive or self-confident or pursuing any skill or career that interests them. I always thought your plumbing should have about as much to do with your worth as a person as your eye and hair colour or your navel’s status as an innie or an outie.

But no; we live in a world now where well-meaning progressive people with beards and penises say they’re ‘femme’ if they’re sensitive and kind instead of being hyper-aggressive assholes, and where well-meaning progressive people with vaginas who don’t like pink or dresses or the thought of being homebody prom queens say they’re ‘transmasculine’. Instead of building a world where they can just be people, to live and die by their own auspices, we’re building a world where they’re—where we’re—all judged by the same old impossible standards that nobody’s ever been able to live up to.

It would be so much easier on everyone if we just broke the standards and let people express themselves however they wanted. But that’s not how our pattern-seeking brains work, I guess, so it’s back to reinforcing our mind-forged manacles.

Gender sucks!

I am an adult human female. I do not identify as cis. I am not cis. I am a woman trying to fight with every fibre of my being against everything that my “gender identity” tells me to be. Woman as defined by society is not my gender identity. My gender identity is fuck this oppressive bullshit, and let me be a human fucking being.

After revisiting the nonsense of “femmes” and how much better they are than those horrible people called “women,” we need Meghan Murphy on our need to be braver.

We live in a time wherein basic feminist ideas have become unspeakable, while anti-feminist slurs and smears are widely accepted and even celebrated by those who claim to be social justice activists and progressives.

Regardless of the risks, I cannot, in good faith, support the neoliberal, individualistic notion of “gender identity”  — not as a feminist who understands how patriarchy came to be and continues to prevail or as a leftist who understands how systems of power work. I do not wish to be silent in the face of regressive and anti-feminist discourse, because I know that my silence does not help empower other women to speak out. I do not wish to abandon my sisters who have already suffered immensely for speaking out.

And another thing: it’s only getting worse.

As feminists, what we really are doing is working towards an end to gender — a thing that was invented and imposed in order to naturalize the sex class hierarchy that positions men as dominant and women as subordinate. One has to ask how progressive it is, from a feminist perspective, to accept the notion that gender is both real and innate — a thing that one can be born with, as this is precisely the tactic used historically by men to defend the idea that women should not be permitted to vote, work outside the home, or hold positions of power in society. Women were constructed as naturally “feminine,” which meant we were too emotional, irrational, and weak to engage in the public sphere as men did. Men, by contrast, were said to be more suited for public office and to hold positions of power as they were innately assertive, rational, unemotional, and tough.

Are we, as feminists (and as a society) really comfortable moving backwards in this way, by accepting gender roles (which exist only to naturalize and enforce sexism) as innate rather than socially constructed?

And then dressing them up as “femme” and pouring scorn on actual women for not being hip enough to “identify” as “femme” instead of just being a tedious boring afab woman.

It’s time to put our fear aside. Here is what I have learned about feminism (the real kind of feminism — not liberalism, not queer politics, not pro-capitalist rhetoric centered around personal feelings of “empowerment”): Regardless of what we do or say, as radical feminists, we are persecuted, smeared, and silenced. This happens because we stand up for women, hold men accountable, and criticize patriarchy unapologetically. We are called “SWERF,” “TERF,” “whorephobic,” “femmephobic,” “transphobic,” “anti-sex,” “moralistic prudes,” and so on, not because we are terrified of trans people, prostituted women, and sexuality, or because our politics are centered around “excluding” particular individuals (unless, of course, those individuals are anti-feminist — then yes, you will likely feel “excluded” by feminism), but because these terms and slurs effectively silence and exclude us. We are no-platformed and blackballed, discredited at any opportunity, to the point that others cannot associate with us, support us, or share any of our work (regardless of the content of said work), lest they too be tarred with the same brush.

Been there. Got the Tshirt.

You can call us whatever you like, because we know what you really mean: Feminist. Not the fun kind.

Anti-feminists are winning and will continue to win so long as we stay silent. They will continue to claim the identity of “feminist” while smearing and vilifying movement women. Leftist men will continue to proudly call us anti-feminist names and censor our work, comforted by the support and silence of these “queer activists,” “sex worker rights activists,” and liberal feminists — people who have shown themselves as traitors to women and whose politics consist of inventing new words to disguise male supremacy and violence against women. It’s up to us to speak out and to stand by our sisters, despite the repercussions.

Because by god nobody else will.

Like a leopard going back to a rotting carcass, I’m going back to that “Roundtable” on what we mean when we talk about femme, even though I said yesterday I couldn’t stand any more of it. Maybe if I just limit myself to the parts where the awesome femmes throw shit at women, I can get through it.

In my experience, many cis women of all ages feel that my identity as a non-binary femme somehow invalidates theirs. Lots of people like to consider themselves radical without actually being able to make any space for people coming from a different place. My experience of femininity is linked to empathy and understanding that to be feminine is to be less safe in this world, so I understand the need to have spaces that are exclusionary out of respect for our right to protect and value ourselves. But there is a large community of feminists who are misleading in terms of how inclusive they’re actually willing to be.

But being “inclusive” isn’t the goal, nor should it be. Black Lives Matter isn’t required to be “inclusive” of white people in the sense of including them as Black. Feminism shouldn’t be required to be “inclusive” of people who aren’t women. Feminism is about women. We’re allowed to say that.

On the idea that an older generation of people think only women should claim the word femme: I’m afraid I don’t even get that argument, possibly because I’m not super smart but also possibly because that argument is bananas? Cis men are described as “butch,” so does that invalidate an entire self-identified group within lesbian history? No? They get to keep that one? It’s almost like the femme identity… is invisible. Sorry. No, kidding, but I think femme has always been relevant. I don’t think we’re reinventing or reclaiming the word, I just think it’s not been seen.

Right. Nobody saw anything until last week. Feminists never had a clue about any of this until people born after 1999 explained it to them.

The word femme, for myself specifically, is a departure from traditional femininity. I see femme as the rebellious teenage daughter of femininity. Femme is the process of taking the feminine words that were placed in my body, words like “soft, weak, quiet” and transforming them into: “wild, loud, confident.”

No, that would be “feminism” actually.

Femme invisibility is still very real, and extremely difficult to navigate. And I do think that a lot of it has to do less so with any sort of purposeful femme erasure in queer communities (although that is extremely prevalent), and much more to do with the fact that it’s an identity being co-opted by folks who aren’t queer. I think a lot of our discussions around femme invisibility in queer spaces center around masculinity, and those are valid and important discussions, but I’d love to see the conversation change and try to look at the ways our identities have been taken by straight (white) women who want cool points.

Bingo! Women fuck up everything. Cunts.

And that’s the last one – the “Roundtable” wasn’t as long as I thought.

After reading this I have even less idea than I did before why Sincere Kirabo thought it was a good idea for him to say that Women in Secularism is about women and femmes. Femmes appear to despise women, and reject all identification with them, so why would Women in Secularism be about women and femmes? It’s like saying Black Lives Matter is about black people and racists. It’s about saying that and calling it inclusive.

It never stops amazing me how willing and eager people are to treat women as an evil oppressor class.

It’s Trump’s world, and we have to live in it.

A GOP candidate for Kentucky’s state house was caught posting racist images of the Obamas — and his defense was that “Facebook’s entertaining.”

Dan Johnson, who is also the bishop of the Heart of Fire Church in Louisville, KY, posted and shared at least two photos of the Obamas portrayed as apes. A sign in front of his church reads: “Jesus and this church are not politically correct.”

Right. It’s “politically correct” to refrain from publishing photoshops of people as chimpanzees.

Johnson went on to insist that the offensive posts are the norm for presidents throughout history and, therefore, not racist.

“I looked this up. There has been no president that hasn’t had that scrutiny. Not one. I think it would be racist not to do the same for President Obama as we’ve done for every other president,” he said.

Oh yes, it would definitely be racist not to publish photoshops of the Obamas as chimpanzees.

Trump world.

Huh. It turns out that Women in Secularism isn’t about women. It’s about “women and femmes.” I have no real idea what that’s supposed to mean, since it obviously doesn’t mean femme lesbians, because they are of course women so there’d be no need for an “and.”

At least, it’s about that according to Sincere Kirabo, who attended the one last weekend. It’s not about that according to CFI, which holds the conference, but hey what do they know.

This past weekend, my colleague Jessica Xiao and I had the honor of attending the Center For Inquiry’s Women In Secularism 4(WIS).

The honor? Attending isn’t an honor. That sounds like having the honor to ride the bus or see a movie. Buying a ticket to something doesn’t confer honor.

Anyway – on to the femmes.

This conference brought together a diverse lineup of speakers—including American Humanist Association President Rebecca Hale—to address both the progress and challenges uniquely related to the lives of women and femmes.

Women and femmes. Women and femmes, when it’s always been women until now. Why isn’t “women” good enough? Why does Sincere Kirabo – a man – feel the need to shove women aside so that they don’t hog their own movement? Why can’t it just be women?

Whether people wish to recognize it or not, events like this exist and are made necessary due to a continued lack of balanced representation within secular circles. Bias has a lot to do with it, of course. As writer Soraya Chemaly noted in her talk focused on the marginalization of women/femmes in society, sexism shapes human knowledge and behavior.

Did she? Did she say that? I don’t know, I wasn’t there and I saw only tweets and Paul Fidalgo’s blog post, but I doubt it. I read Soraya regularly and I don’t recall seeing her talk about “women/femmes” as if that were a thing. If she didn’t, I find it pretty obnoxious of Kirabo to put words in her mouth.

And more directly, I am beyond tired of seeing people hell bent on forcing women to be “inclusive” in the sense of ceasing to talk about women and instead talk about women-and. It’s just more All Lives Matter, but somehow when it’s women being made to do it, it becomes right-on and “progressive.”

I say it’s spinach and I say the hell with it.

A Mighty Girl:

“my fabulous mighty girl daughter wants to be a firefighter for halloween. because of this, we have had to endure the following from lovely, well-meaning people:

– oh, she wants to be a firefighter? does she have brothers? (no, shockingly, she has thoughts of her own! all by her girl self!)
– while holding ava: hi, where are your firefighter costumes? how old is he? she’s almost 3. what size is he? she’s a 3. does he need a hat? (aaaaarrrrgggh!)
– a firetruck! so cute! do you put your dolls in it? (do you ask boys this question?)
– she’s going to be a fireman? (if she can say ‘firefighter’ at TWO, i’m sure you can, too…)

dear well-meaning world. gender stereotypes suck. and we need feminism more than ever. thanks much for listening to my rant.

– mommy of a little girl who just wants to be whatever she wants to be.”

Kudos to Kim for supporting her Mighty Girl’s interests wherever they take her and thanks for sharing this fantastic picture!

If you’re looking for an empowering costume for your Mighty Girl, our Halloween Costume Guide features 400 options for all ages, infant through adult, on a variety of themes, including many occupational-themed costumes.

If your Mighty Girl likes to pretend to fight fires, you can also find many related toys, including the Fire Truck Pedal Car pictured here, in our “Pretend Play Occupations” section.

And, if you’d like to introduce more gender diversity into your children’s LEGO collection, the Community Minifigures Set includes 22 figures in a variety of community roles, including both male and female firefighters.

Here’s another atheist in Pakistan who could use help.

Aatif is an atheist living in Pakistan, where blasphemy laws carry the death penalty. It is common for street mobs to assault anyone suspected of being insufficiently Islamic. In the face of this reality, Aatif runs an atheist Facebook page. That is how I met him.

His conservative Muslim family has rejected him. He was forced to move away and then to go into hiding. His abusive father and older male relatives have tried to force him into an Islamic reprogramming institute, beating him when he resists.

Though he has a master’s degree in Computer Science, where he now lives he earns barely enough to rent a room and feed himself; he often cannot even afford over-the-counter medicine to treat his health problems.

The GoFundMe.

Not cool.

The headline: Female molester facing strict release conditions

The story:

A woman convicted of sexually assaulting children will have to reside in a halfway house after completing her sentence due to concerns she is a risk to reoffend.

Jeez, you think, women don’t usually sexually assault children.

According to documents from the Parole Board of Canada dated Sept. 1, Madilyn Harks, who was formerly known as Matthew Ralf Harks, will face a residency condition upon her statutory release.

Oh. So…Madilyn used to be “known as” Matthew.

She will also be required to follow a treatment plan, respect a curfew and follow psychological counselling.

She will be prohibited from having any contact with children under the age of 18 unless supervised by an adult who is aware of her criminal history, and must avoid locations where children may be expected to congregate.

Harks began serving a three-year sentence for sexual assault against a seven-year-old female in April 2007.

She was released in 2010 and began a 10-year long-term supervision order.

At the time of Harks’ offence in 2007, she was on probation following two convictions of sexual assault against two children aged four and five years old.

“You have also admitted to having approximately 60 victims and you estimate having committed 200 offences, with some of those offences being multiple offences against some of your victims,” the parole board stated.

The board noted that in April 2006, Harks was identified in a dangerous offender psychiatric assessment as having an “all encompassing preoccupation with interest in sexually abusing young girls.”

The documents indicate Harks could also be facing charges for three alleged offences that took place recently while she was in custody: assault, unlawful confinement and sexual assault.

Harks is also subject to conditions imposed by the court in March 2014 that prohibit her from attending facilities including daycare centres, school grounds or playgrounds.

She is also banned from using a computer system for the purpose of communicating with a person under the age of 14.

Harks has undergone gender reassignment, and legally changed her name sometime between April 2010 and August 2012.

Oops. Roy Moore has been suspended without pay and ordered to pay costs.

Saying that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore violated judicial ethics when he ordered judges not to respect the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, Alabama’s Court of the Judiciary suspended Moore for the rest of his term in office.

The order also requires the head of Alabama’s highest court to pay the costs of the proceedings against him and stipulates that he will not be paid for the remainder of his six-year term.

Once his term is up his age will disqualify him from running again.

The judgment against Moore was unanimous. But the nine-member court also noted that the decision is based on a review of Moore’s behavior and decisions, not on the justices’ views of the Supreme Court’s June 2015 ruling that same-sex couples have the right to marry — contrary to Alabama’s law, adopted in 2016, that had reserved marriage for heterosexual couples only.

Saying that “some members of this court did not personally agree with” the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, the judges wrote, “This court simply does not have the authority to reexamine those issues.”

Because that’s what the “Supreme” in “Supreme Court” means – it’s at the top of the hierarchy, and lower courts don’t get to overturn its rulings.

For Moore, this is the second high-profile dispute that has cut short his term leading the Alabama Supreme Court. In 2003, he was removed from office after refusing a federal court’s order to remove a prominent display of the Ten Commandments from the state judicial building. Alabama voters elected him to the office again in 2012.

Too bad, Alabama voters.