Radfem2012 and the ‘problematics of Pretend Radfems’

This is a little off the track with regards to Radfem2012, but as this young woman addressed and criticised the conference for the female-only policy, so her YouTube will be addressed directly here.

Firstly I need to dispel the myth that just because someone is born female, that automatically makes them a feminist. It does not, and some females actively support female oppression and undermine feminism. Feminist is not synonymous with female.

The second myth I need to dispel is that just because a liberal feminist is anti-porn and anti-prostitution, that does not make her a radical feminist – there is far more to radical feminism than just picking and choosing one or two ‘bits’ that take your fancy, and hey-presto, you’re a radfem. Being a radfem involves not only understanding all the radfem points, but how they interact, as well as a view that our ultimate aim is not to patch up a bad system (patriarchy and male domination) but to eradicate it altogether.

Now unfortunately this 25yo, recent university graduate, young woman, has declared herself to be a radical feminist, and has opposed the female-only policy of Radfem2012.  This then becomes my business. Radical feminists are indeed territorial about who calls themselves a radical feminist. This is because we saw what happened during the Third Wave, where feminism became defined by the  personal preferences of the person calling themselves feminist.  This effectively made the term ‘feminism’ useless, as it could stand for anything. I often use the expression that ‘you will not change radical feminism, radical feminism will change you’. If you do not understand what that means, you are not a radical feminist.

Becoming a radical feminist is a process of years, it does not happen over night, it takes learning and life experience to become one, and whilst we welcome novice radfems into the fold, we do not amend radical feminism to be something that suits the newbie’s personal preferences. Usually the process of becoming a radical feminist involves getting some areas straight away, but other areas are more difficult to understand. I sometimes call the new radfems, ‘proto radfems’. It is nothing to be ashamed of, we were all proto-radfems once.

Those are the parameters.

Here is the YouTube in question, below is a transcript as best as I could manage.  I will address most of the issues briefly.

Hey YouTube, how’s it going?
I might alarm everyone by not talking about myself for an entire video.

Radical feminism, Radfem2012, has announced that it won’t allow non-biological women to attend.

That is correct, but to be more specific, it is for female-born (“FAB/FAAB” female assigned at birth) who still live as women/female. This is inclusive of intersex raised as girls and still living as women. The older (problematic) term was “Woman Born Woman” (WBW).

And this is obviously transphobic. But I want to discuss it from the issue, perspective of feminism because it seems crazy to me.

‘Transphobia’ is a relatively new term, the ‘phobia’ means ‘fear of’. Radical feminists do not literally ‘fear’ trans persons – nor is it a counterpart to homophobia, because with homophobia, the targeted person is often bashed by a straight male. Radical feminists pose no physical threat to trans persons, all we have are words, we disagree with the concept of ‘transgender’.

So feminism in its basic form is about equality between men and women,

Liberal feminism is about that, radical feminism is women’s liberation from a male dominated system, the old term which we still use “women’s liberation”.

and I assume that because transwomen are not allowed to go to this event, that men are not allowed to go to this event, and that’s fucking crazy. That’s crazy talk.

That is a logical fallacy by you. You believe that transwomen are women, yet you subconsciously equate them with men. Freudian slip in other words, you don’t actually believe that transwomen (M2Ts; Male to Trans*) are the same as FABs.

What you don’t get male radical feminists, that’s just fuckin’ bollocks. Some of the strongest male feminists, sorry, the strongest radical feminists I have ever met have been men.

There are few genuinely feminist men (that are not invested in upholding the status quo). There are even fewer males that support radical feminism – John Stoltenberg is really about the only one I have met in real life. So yes, I am curious as to where you found this enclave of ‘radical feminist men’. True male radfem supporters actually use the term “pro-radfem”, any male calling himself a radfem is not genuine. Genuine pro-radfems recognise that females set the radfem agenda, their input is minimal, and their ‘job’ is to educate other men and not to dictate to women what (radical) feminism is all about.

So that the idea that the notion that in some way their sex should disqualify them from having a valid opinion on this situation of equality between men and women is crazy in my mind.

It is not just their sex, but their entire upbringing as males that causes the problem. Same goes for transwomen. We call it male privilege. If you have not yet observed that boys are treated better than girls and given more advantages, and men as a class have more resources and advantages over women as a class, I can only suggest that you do not even have a basic grounding in feminism at all, let alone radical feminism.

And I’ve always had a problem with women-only feminist groups. But these groups usually tell me that there are a lot of people, a lot of women in those groups that don’t feel comfortable being around men, that have been the victims of rape or domestic violence and that sort of thing. They want to be free to discuss that type of topic, but I really don’t, I still, really can’t understand it because there are so many male rape and domestic violence victims in the world, that I am not ready to disqualify someone on the presence of their penis from being able to have a discussion on that situation. Even if it is more prevalent against women than it is against men.

A couple of things. You grossly underestimate the disparity in the number of female vs male victims in both those things – the only time a male has anywhere near the risk of rape is when he is in prison. For domestic violence, according to the 2006 British Crime Survey, 85% of DV victims are female, 15% of DV victims are male. Approximately half the male victims are victimised by males. Of DV perpetrators, 88% are male. That is a huge disparity, both in victims and perpetrators. Two books you should read – I never called it rape by Robin Warshaw, and Why does he do that? by Lundy Bancroft. Bancroft is male, and he certainly does not have the male-centric views that you do.

The other thing missing from your limited understanding is that the dynamics of female and male victims is very different. There is little value in having mixed survivor sessions. Even the Equality Act (2010) allows for this.

So men are not allowed, that’s my first problem with the notion that transwomen wouldn’t be allowed.

Circular logic, logical fallacy. Take your pick. And throw in your own subconscious view that men and transwomen are of the same group.

Secondly that, you know, [pause] that transwomen actually experience like a drop in their salary after surgically becoming a woman from becoming a man.

Some might, many retain their jobs in male-dominated professions, thereby skewing the ‘equality’ headcount – the equality count shows that X-number of ‘women’ are employed – but there is no real increase of born-females in those jobs, so by transwomen keeping those jobs, it does not progress the employment opportunities for females. Think about that.

As for ‘surgically becoming a woman’, wrong again. Most who claim to be transwomen do not have (full) Gender Reassignment Surgery, and most (over half) wish to retain their penis. The Gender Recognition Certificate can be issued without surgery, or homones, they are not essential requirements for certification.

If a woman becomes a man, they actually end up earning more money. I think it’s like 3%, I dunno, it’s been months since I’ve been debating this on YouTube. And it’s about [a] 1% drop for a man that becomes a woman. So transwomen are even subject to the same sexism that biological women are subjected to, and have just as much right to be there discussing that problem.

That paragraph is a complete and utter embarassment to you. The difference between the female wage and the male wage is still around 20%. The figures that you supplied are blind guesses. Did you even realise how much lower females are still being paid? Do you even realise the sex bias going on in this recession towards females? You may want to familiarise yourself to the real picture of sexual discrimination going on before you bleat on about ‘equality’. We born females still don’t have it, even after 37 years when it became illegal to pay women less for the same job. Also see the Fawcett Society for more facts.

But the main issue with radical feminism rejecting transwomen, is where [sic] the fuck is making the argument about gender roles in the first place. Last time I checked, unless there has been a big feminist conference that I didn’t fuckin’ get an invite to, which is actually a possibility[.]

Although the above is somewhat incoherent, and I will address gender roles further down, it was second wave radical feminists that named gender roles, and analysed how they were socially determined and enforced. It is not transactivists with some unique insight into gender roles – their main platform is upholding a gender role binary (not to be confused with the genderqueers, although they mix).

One of the main arguments that we as radical feminists are making is that you’re not born a man or a woman, that you’re socialised to become a man or a woman. That the differences we see between men and women in society are largely socialised and not biologically pre-determined.

“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” ~ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex is the quote you are referring to. By the way, you are NOT a radical feminist.

The quote does not mean what transactivists think it means, that one can slap on a dress and mimic females and suddenly ‘become a woman’. It refers to the lifelong socialisation of females from birth to their ‘assigned’ gender role as ‘Other’ (less than males, with males as the ‘default human’). In actual fact, it is a crappy gender role assigned to females, hence Second Wave Feminism set about to stop females being treated as second class citizens.

So if someone is by gender a woman, I really fail to see how in any way, that disqualifies them from being a radical feminist or attending Radfem2012 to discuss those views.

That actually does not make any logical sense, but I assume you mean if a transwoman has the (supposedly innate) ‘gender’ of a woman? See above for male socialisation, males as feminists, and that the gender role assigned to females that is no ball of sunshine.

It’s us propagating the idea that gender roles are not only, do not only symbolise what we already are, but actually inform what we become.

I think you may have stomped on your own point somewhat, that gender roles are something you acquire because of the rather mysterious self-identity as ‘a woman’? The persons claiming to be transwomen were socialised as males, some would have been beaten up or bullied for not conforming to the masculine role, but that is enforcement by patriarchy/society, and nor does it mean they were raised as girls by the adults around them. They were raised as boys, and disciplined as non-conforming boys.

And [—-] radical feminism, just feminism in general, like the whole reason I am a feminist is because I don’t believe that my uterus defines me. And I find it very difficult to get my head around the idea that only, bio-, people, we’re talking about biological women versus transgendered women or transsexual women, but it’s hilarious reading some of the comments around this because you get people talking about the reproductive women and they mean biological women but essentially what they are saying is any woman that hasn’t had a baby or hasn’t had some kind of test that to prove she’s not barren, cannot be a radical feminist.

Like it or not, at your birth you were determined to be ‘female’. That then channels you into socialisation as a girl, into the female gender role – all born-females are. The female gender role is to ensure reproductive exploitation, or probable/potential reproductive exploitation of your uterus. You were conditioned to be heterosexual, praised for being pretty, and your mission in life was to ‘find your prince’ – this is all propaganda fed to you throughout your childhood via things like Disney movies and parental praise. And if you succeed in accepting all that brainwashing, you can look forward to 20% less pay, limited career prospects, a one in four chance of being raped or victim of domestic violence, primary responsibility for child/ren – even if you do all the stuff ‘right’.

No radfem uses the term ‘reproductive woman’ – you just made that up. But most females are fertile, and a minority are born or later become infertile, including menopausal women. We have reproductive vulnerability as females, for we are the ones that bear the consequences of sex or rape.

Also, read this comment which covers a lot of women’s reproductive issues that are deemed ‘transphobic’ by transactivists, transactivists want to shut down these conversations between females, and throw focus onto transwomen’s issues. Talk about hijacking feminism.

No wonder I don’t really hold with organised feminism very much, because it’s fuckin’ stupid shit like this – like that’s a major issue you’ve got there if you’re gunna [—-] that gender is only the elephant in the room as long as it only applies to bio-, people that biologically match their gender sexually.

You need to read/learn more, and talk less. Your knowledge on feminism is limited even for a libfem. You seem to have read bits and pieces, picked up a few buzz terms, but do not really understand the fundamentals (hint, start with equal pay, that is an easy one to grasp). Once we have parity in that area, then perhaps you can worry about the men.

It is you who does not see the elephant in the room with regards to gender. Radical feminists reject the gender role assigned to females (and reject that the only other alternative is to become a transman). The majority of transwomen actually revel in the feminine gender role, the very role we are trying to abolish. Hence trans politics is in no way compatible to radical feminism.

Anyway, I might have missed something,be interesting to hear if I have, and I hope you’re well, see you soon. Bye.

You missed one hell of a lot, have very little understanding of radical feminist politics (even though claiming to be a radical feminist). You have no grounding in First or Second Wave feminism either, and barely a handle on Third Wave/Liberal feminism.

Whilst we welcome anti-porn libfems who are genuinely curious about radical feminism to come to the conference, your understanding of feminist politics is well below the entry level required to gain anything from the conference.

Even some transsexuals can understand the need for born-females to have their own space, why can’t you?

Please issue a clear retraction that you are NOT a radical feminist. Feminism is not some little game or hobby, women’s lives actually depend on it, like the two women per week murdered by the current or former partner. Get with the programme, or get out of the way.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Radfem2012 and the ‘problematics of Pretend Radfems’

  1. Great stuff Davina.

    There really isn’t any excuse for an intelligent woman who is calling herself a feminist and pronouncing on what other feminists should be doing to be this ignorant about what radical feminism is actually about.

    I’d suggest a short reading list: Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics, Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse and Pornography, Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology and Sheila Jeffrey’s Beauty and Misogyny, for a quick grounding in radical feminist theory.

    Maybe it will help her work out why it isn’t a good idea for women to be inviting men into our political spaces. It might also help her find out why she’s finding her life so shit (judging by her other videos).

    Like

  2. I watched a couple of her videos. She is only just experiencing that the world is not ‘as you make it’, and limitations abound. After a few years she may realise that her life/career is not going as well as her male counterparts. If she actuallys recognises that pattern, she may become an actual feminist, and stop worrying about the bloody men all the time.

    Do young women not realise the irony in calling themselves ‘feminist’, and worrying more about males? Humanist or masculinist are more accurate for what they are doing.

    Like

  3. Yes, brilliant.
    Lundy Bancroft is not a radical feminst, does not define himself as a feminist as far as I know, and yet his worldview is far more pro-women than that vlogger. She doesn’t even know the basics, really. She just likes the word “radical”, innit.

    Like

    • My sources tell me she was a marxist feminist not that long back. I watched the video where, as a newly graduated uni student looking for her first job, she contemplated getting into commission-based recruitment so she could earn £60k per year. Later videos have her in a low level job, with much dissatisfaction.

      Like

  4. Check out this extract from the F-Word’s facebook page, yet another radfem pretender, or professes to speak with authority on behalf of radfems.

    When feminists engage in oppressive, discriminatory behaviour, I think other feminists have a responsibility to call them out. Particularly when it’s done in your name – not all radical feminists refuse to accept trans women. – LW

    Laura Woodhouse, who pretended to be a radfem for a number of years, before her pro-porn, pro-bdsm views became known.

    Let me make this perfectly clear, radfems have an abolitionist stance for porn, bdsm, prostitution – there is no wiggle room, no negotiation to be had, no middle ground on this. If any ‘feminist’ is holding out hope for ‘feminist porn’, she is not radfem. If any ‘feminist’ spouts off about ‘choice’, particularly in prostitution, she is not radfem. If any ‘feminist’ thinks regular bdsm is bad, but turning the tables and that a female dominatrix is a-ok, she is not a radfem.

    We are also abolitionist in the matter of gender roles, and its companion, transgenderism. Gender roles are the enforcement imposed onto the sex-class, females, to keep them subservient to males. Playing with gender roles, swapping gender roles, does absolutely nothing to get rid of the system of gender roles (so tah-tah genderqueers as well).

    We have been very clear about this over the years.
    I am the Radfem Police, and I will come down hard on anyone pretending to be a radfem spouting off anti-radfem positions as being radical feminism.

    You will not change radical feminism, radical feminism will change you.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I am the kind of person who likes to change definitions to suit myself. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the comments and to the blog poster for correcting my arrogance somewhat. I think radical feminism is definitely the path I want to follow but I am a Christian and heterosexual so I don’t know if radfem enforcement officers would ever allow me to call my politics radical feminist. But I am becoming a woman who strives to recognize male oppression in all its forms and remedy it. So it might not matter so much what I call myself as long as I am honest and do what is rite.

      Like

  5. I am copy/pasting a comment that No Anodyne made on the Canadian F-Word thread, because it expands on how gender roles keep females subjugated.

    http://www.feminisms.org/5039/anybody-can-be-absolutely-anything-if-they-simply-say-they-are-an-interview-with-sheila-jeffreys-on-transgenderism-and-feminism/#comment-20851

    noanodyne
    May 21, 2012

    Claiming that individual identities are real and meaningful is not an answer to a social/political/cultural critique of the kind that Jeffreys is and has been making. Talking about individual experience may explain some behaviors and feelings, but it doesn’t address the larger issues, such as the effect of an entire movement to normalize genderist claims. Looking at the issue across society, culture, politics, and time is what we’re talking about.

    Many trans people have very serious mental illnesses; by attempting to normalize individual transgender feelings and behavior, the movement is effectively abandoning the idea that those illnesses should be treated, but instead only addressed by a sex/gender change. Sex discrimination exists all over the world; by replacing “sex” (biological reality across all humans) with “gender identity” (a completely individualized claim) the trans movement is gutting legal protections for all females.

    By reinforcing gender, as transactivism does (no need to pretend that it isn’t about reinforcing the gender binary, we’re not that naive and I already commented on this up thread and many other feminists have in many other places), the people who are most harmed are females. Because for us sex = gender = sex role stereotype = discrimination. In other words, females will continue to be treated like shit, while transactivists claim the opposite is happening.

    Just one example is the 5 year old girl who is in the news this week because her parents and doctors are contemplating putting her on medication to “correct” her gender. In other words, a social ill (requiring conformity to gender stereotypes) treated with drugs. And then normalized for treating all gender non-conforming people that way. That’s not an advance; it’s the perfect regressive tool for people who want princess girls and manly boys, even if they have to drug them to get that. It’s beyond dishonest to ignore that the implications of that will fall heaviest on lesbians and gay people. These are social and political ramifications far beyond the individual and that is what Jeffreys and other radical feminists analyze and discuss.

    And finally, an analogy has to make sense; you can’t just put two things side by side and call it good. The anti-gay faction has one argument: God said so. That’s not meaningful analysis and theorizing, that’s shutting one’s brain off entirely. So, no, that analogy to what trans-critical feminists have been doing for decades in analyzing, discussing, developing theories and ideas, and calling out the inherent anti-female nature of transactivism doesn’t hold.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I refuse to comment on male-loyalist threads, but I will paste here somethging that I wrote a while ago, and just a few days ago posted on Tumblr. My meta-definition of radical feminism:

    ——————

    Radical feminism is the conversational space where heterosexual female experience and lesbian experience collide.

    Lesbians are immersed in the heterosexual world whether we want to be or not. But we are (necessarily) not experiencing it in our present lives, as actors. Outside of the context of radical feminism I haven’t encountered any conversational spaces where lesbian life experiences and insights are exchanged with those of heterosexual women.

    It’s clear to me that radical feminism can not (nothing can) effect some social transformation that includes the male population and that makes patriarchy and the depradations of maleness go away. It’s an intellectual investigation, and an emotional safety valve. But in and of itself it doesn’t get us anywhere, unless it can be turned to the purpose of establishing and maintaining strongholds of female energy. Female only space / time continua. Strongholds that cannot be breached by any form of maleness.

    When I approach radical feminism, that is my goal, because that is the only path I see to the survival of the female.

    Like

    • I agree with the need for separatism to a degree, but I don’t agree that it is anyone’s right to deny a human being the opportunity to be nurtured by their farther, unless that person is abusive (then the choice should be given when they come of age). At the moment, contact with furthers is often dangerous and almost always oppressive to women, but I believe that solution to the formation of good and female empowering fathers is possible through radical feminism and the women’s movement.

      Like

  7. I really appreciate when political terms get policed. If anyone can call themselves a member of a specific political group or an adherent of a particular political ideology than words essentially have no meaning and there is absolutely NO WAY to argue your perspective.

    I’m actually surprised that Boundlesseyes is calling herself a radical feminist, she has NEVER been a radical feminist and has actually done a great deal of damage to the radfem community on youtube. She has consistently spoken against our basic political stances regarding pornography and prostitution and engages in zero feminist activism. Why she’s now using this term and ARGUING AGAINST OUR POLITICS is beyond me.

    Like

    • Yep, I know!
      Given that she is claiming to be radfem and is spouting basically nothing but anti-radfem stuff, is why I made an example out of her specifically.

      Also, it was quite a good ramble to debunk point by point.

      I have even heard idiots say stuff like:
      “I’m a pro-porn radfem!”
      “I’m a sex-poz radfem!”
      “I’m a pro-bdsm radfem!”

      *rolls eyes*
      Sorry folks, you cannot pick up what you think is a trendy cool sounding label, then re-define it to your whims. Radical Feminism means something.

      Like

    • Exactly Hermgirl, I rarely get to explain new things.

      It is frustrating that each generation of girls grows up believing the same patriarchy lies, so when they start having an interest in feminism, liberal feminism is loaded with patriarchical/mainstream ideas. Radical feminism deconstructs all that baggage. The young libfems (and libfems are primarily young) think we are a bunch of fuddy-duddies – but the world is a very different place at 40 compared to when you are 20. Radical feminism is the only feminism that really spans the generations of women – from 20s to 70s – libfems should really think about that.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Liberal feminists often find the gay, lesbian and LGTB scenes allot of fun. Most of them are white middle class but they do come in other shades, class usually remains within the same band though. Most are in uini or have degrees, and allot don’t want to offend their pro-feminist male friends, trans friends or scare off their male lovers.
        Please correct me if you think I’ve got it wrong.

        Like

  8. Pingback: TERF and meat-eating vegetarians « Radfem Groundhog Day

  9. Most EXCELLENT post! thank you very much!

    whilst we welcome novice radfems into the fold, we do not amend radical feminism to be something that suits the newbie’s personal preferences.

    yep. The principles of radical feminism are universal, which means that they hold true across chronological time and geographical space, and withstand any scrutiny anybody cares to throw at those principles. Only a freaking moron or an egotistical narcissist attempts to redefine a universal principle to suit herself.

    If somebody isn’t happy with some aspect of “liberal feminism”, well maybe they should look at the principles they’re currently using and notice how those only mirror and re-inforce patriarchal norms. (I personally don’t consider “liberal feminism” to be anything other than the women’s axillary for patriarchy.) And if somebody isn’t satisfied with the much more authentic basic feminism, well maybe it’s time to consider advanced radical feminism.

    Noan has a most excellent definition of feminism here: http://noanodyne.com/2011/11/taking-back-feminism-a-manifesto/ But it does seem as if there’s not enough differentiation between some of her listed principles for basic feminism and radical feminism. I suspect that some of the ideological differences between basic feminism and radical feminism, is that unlike radfems, basic feminists believe the system can be reformed with a few minor changes, and without the need to dismantle it entirely. Another difference seems to be the attitude towards men as a class, and yet whatever form that difference takes, it still differs from feminazism.

    Btw, I have NO idea what the hell a “marxist feminist” is supposed to be, and always keep meaning to explore that subject, but then I never do… As a feminazi (which does differ politically from some people who I still consider to be excellent radical feminists) I believe the argument can be made that not only are men the original source of the harm, but also that sexual oppression will cease only when men as a class stop existing — hence my desire for viable lesbian reproduction. THAT, seems to be the only point of (very minor) disagreement between myself and some radical feminists.

    Anyway. The person in the video is merely a liberal “feminist”, here to cram patriarchy down our throats while telling us it’s “for our own good”. Those are concern trolls, regardless how many slutmarches she attends, or regardless how many hours one of them may volunteer at a domestic violence shelter.

    Like

    • Basically, liberal feminists want a nicer cage, and are only objecting to the gross amount of dirt on the floor. They want radfems to focus our energy on cleaning up the dirt for them, because they just can’t figure out why a cage floor would always be so filthy. Well gee, it’s a cage, that’s why.

      Liked by 1 person

      • And then the men will put a shiny pole in the middle of the cage, and they shall surround the cage and scream at the lib-fems “dance bi***es dance!” And the lib-fems shall dance for the men and truly believe that their dancing is liberating.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Thank you so much for this post. I declared myself a feminist more than 14 years ago and for around 5 years I have been getting involved and viewing things more through feminism. I was given a good induction into radical feminism two years ago through my old flat mate. I thought wow, my politics have changed, I’m a radical feminist now. I am so grateful for your viewpoint on rad-fem status. I am very proud to now call myself (in a political context) a proto rad-fem.

    Like

  11. Reblogged this on Black Metal Valkyrie: Reject male identified bullshit! and commented:
    “The second myth I need to dispel is that just because a liberal feminist is anti-porn and anti-prostitution, that does not make her a radical feminist – there is far more to radical feminism than just picking and choosing one or two ‘bits’ that take your fancy, and hey-presto, you’re a radfem. Being a radfem involves not only understanding all the radfem points, but how they interact, as well as a view that our ultimate aim is not to patch up a bad system (patriarchy and male domination) but to eradicate it altogether.”

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I am not comfortable with including intersex males raised to conform to femininity because they do not know the reproductive vulnerability women face that is central to our oppression. I know you address this is this piece but it seems logically inconsistent to include intersex males in female-only organizing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Pretty much all intersex conditions are technically male (except for XO infertile females). Any fertility within the various intersex conditions are male fertility, not female.

      There is a case for intersex that are raised as girls to be included in female spaces, regardless of their fertility. However, trans activists routinely hijack or claim the intersex case in their trans quest.

      I am open to intersex raised as female (which is the usual default in intersex cases, even though usually technically male) because they generally do receive the same socialisation as females.

      The default human is female. Male is the sub-set of the species. They seriously need to get over it (not being the centre of the universe and all).The beginnings of embryonic development are female, and only the males deviate from that path, hence the default human is female.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s