I was just reading a post on the Occupy Patriarchy website – although this post is not directly to do with that, it serves merely as an introduction to the topic of sex equality versus gender equality.
Here is a snippet from the post:
Several days ago, I got an e-mail from two longtime feminist activists who pointed out that the upcoming National General Assembly, Continental Congress 2.0 being planned for July 4th in Philadelphia had a gender problem. Despite a goal of delegate gender equity calling for there to be one woman and one man as delegates from each state, the current slate of candidates is overwhelmingly male.
We are writing to urgently call your attention to the fact that the current list of delegate candidates DOES NOT MEET the stated intention to have ONE WOMAN and ONE MAN from each Congressional District, an essential feature of the National General Assembly document, and necessary to a successful, democratic and transformative assembly. The voter registration section of the website specifically declares to voters that there will be gender balance in the election of delegates
As of May 25, the current gender balance of delegate candidates is 155 women and 495 men, a situation in which women are outnumbered over 3 to 1 and men exceed 50% of 876, the target total, both of which are unacceptable.
Here are a few serious questions, for all trans-supporting feminists –
- How exactly do you benefit born-females if the parity targets are laid out in terms of ‘gender equality’ and not sex-equality?
- Can you see that places allocated for born-females can easily be taken by transwomen, thereby meeting the quota, but in reality, nothing has changed for born-females?
- In male-dominated politics and occupations, how is the cause furthered for females when representation is done by transwomen, who care little about things like women’s reproductive health matters? (In fact, they call these matters ‘transphobic’ and boring.)
Of course, I already know the answers to these questions, they are rhetorical to get some libfems thinking about the bigger picture with regards to females.
I am not criticising the OP post directly, but there really is not any clear indication that actual females are prioritised in the call for ‘gender equality’, after all, it is trans-inclusive is it not? Given general trans acceptance (and yes, they have acceptance, the UK Government alone has featured them in several pieces of legislation over the last eight years), it is common for woman/man, female/male to mean very different things, depending on the audience. Even now I have to cringe at using the term born-female to make my point clear – females, born-females, are the default females. [end personal rant]
Liberal feminism cares about equality, but these days they care far more about men/males than they do females. They ensure that ‘men have voices in feminism’ and that transwomen get prioritised over females who have put up with discrimination against them from birth because they were born female. If a person is promoting equality, worrying about males, and giving males an equal say in ‘feminism’, then that is not feminism, that is humanism. Besides which, men already have the majority say in feminism and women’s reproductive issues in the mainstream – there is no need to give them an ever greater share. Can you see how self-defeating this all is?
Feminism focuses on females, actual born females, over everyone else, to redress the discrimination done to us over our lifetimes from cradle to grave, and over many centuries of misogyny that we have suffered. Radical feminism seems to be the only feminism around that still does prioritise females over the male-born.