I’ve discussed in the past how advocates of irrational ideologies have no material to attack their opponents with, so their attacks are heavily laced with projections, if not exclusively projections.
A FETA called Miriam Dobson wrote an entry called “Truly radical environmentalism must have anti-oppression at its heart.” This is basically an anti-DGR (Deep Green Resistance) screed, which I find despicable in itself, but I’ve chosen this entry specifically because virtually every single criticism raised by Dobson is actually a projection of what FETAs are doing. It provides us with a wide overview of all that’s wrong with trans genderism.
Just so it’s clear, let me restate what I mean by trans genderism: I mean by that an ideology which uses transgender people as an argument to rationalize the existence of gender. Trans genderists (FETAs) believe that individuals whose “gender identity” (a nonsense concept) clashes with their assigned gender are transgender and must be “reassigned.” Traditional genderists, in contrast, believe that everyone must be forced to conform to their assigned gender.
My aim here is not to defend DGR (they are certainly able to do that themselves), but to look at these projections and what they reveal. So here are all the projections that I could find in this entry.
The dismantling of oppressive power structures should be a key tenet of any group wanting to move towards an equitable and sustainable future society.
I completely agree with that statement. In fact, I couldn’t write it better if I tried. But coming from a FETA, this is a profoundly hypocritical statement which heralds what is to come. Gender is not only an oppressive power structure, it’s the origin of all oppressive power structures. Genderism is not only oppression, it’s the origin of all oppressions. To cloak it as a form of tolerance for the theetie-wheetie crowd does not make it any less oppressive.
Unfortunately the landscapes these (white, male) writers advocated erased the often-violent colonial histories of the places they wished to preserve. This thus erases human voices of societies who were oppressed or even destroyed by the colonisers…
I have nothing against this attack in itself (indeed, I think it raises a very good point), but the accusation of colonialism is very ironic given that many people have called trans genderism colonialist for equating all “third genders” in the world within their rigid, Western-based “trans” umbrella. It is offensive, insensitive, and culturally ignorant.
Fundamentally, all genderists are colonialists, because they seek to impose their Western-centric conception of gender on other societies. The only position which is not guilty of colonialism is anti-genderism, that is to say, people who believe that the individual cannot, and must not, be reduced to a set of criteria dictated by Western societies.
More importantly, gender roles are an erasure not only of voices in oppressed societies, but of voices in our societies as well: a massive erasure of the voices of gender rebels and homosexuals, for which trans genderists advocate an untested and brutal chemical “treatment.”
And equally importantly, trans genderism, through intimidation, death threats and sexual bigotry, pushes one giant act of erasure: they seek to destroy all women-only spaces, which means erasing any possibility of feminist advancement.
Any blithe statement of trans genderists’ voices being erased must be measured with these heavy facts in mind. Like Christian fundamentalists, they complain of being silenced when they are made unable to bully their victims.
Therefore, gender binaries are falsely constructed. Erasing transgender voices reinforces the idea that gender is binary and unchangeable.
I agree that gender is not a binary. But it is bizarre to see FETAs say it, since gender being a binary is the core premise of trans genderism: either one is “cis,” meaning that one conforms to one’s assigned gender, or one is “trans” and wishes to conform to the opposite gender. There is no place for even a gender spectrum in this black-and-white theory: you’re either cis or trans, man or woman, in the right body or in the wrong body. Gender rebels must be converted to the “right” gender (i.e. opposite to the one they were assigned).
As for “unchangeable,” FETAs believe in a “gender identity” construct which somehow springs forth in every individual and does not depend on anything else physical or psychological. So what exactly is the mechanism by which this “gender identity” changes? Indeed, many transgender people believe their “gender identity” is absolutely fixed and innate.
So it seems to me that it’s FETA voices that reinforce the idea that gender is binary and unchangeable, because… they believe that gender is binary and unchangeable. And that seems to me like a pretty good reason (although not a sufficient reason) to erase FETA voices.
This policy refers to people “born male”, elevating somebody’s sex organs to a greater position of importance than their own knowledge of themselves. And if somebody’s sex organs determine their gender forever and ever, surely the same organisation that believes this cannot argue that gender is an oppressive construct that should be abolished. Their own policies judge people based on gender. Conflating gender with sex organs implies that there is only one way to be a man, only one way to be a woman.
There’s a lot to unpack here, so let me take this step by step:
“This policy refers to people “born male”, elevating somebody’s sex organs to a greater position of importance than their own knowledge of themselves.”
This is a straw man used by FETAs to trivialize biological sex. But it is not true that the existence of biological sex “elevates sex organs to a position of importance.” Biology is biology, we can’t do anything about it, but that doesn’t mean it must be important. Right now the distinction between males and females happens to be important because it is used as the justification for misogyny and violence against women. In an egalitarian society, the nature of one’s sex organs should not have any importance, but that’s not the kind of society we live with.
Like any other social construct, gender is important to the extent that it permeates discourse. But simply referring to biological sex does not mean that one is supporting the importance of gender. And likewise, as FETAs demonstrate, one can still believe gender is of primordial importance while rejecting the existence of biological sex altogether.
“And if somebody’s sex organs determine their gender forever and ever, surely the same organisation that believes this cannot argue that gender is an oppressive construct that should be abolished.”
The only people who believe that sex organs determine your gender “forever and ever” are traditional genderists. Radical feminists like the DGR people do not believe that sex organs determine anything except the way they are treated by society. Sex organs certainly determine gender in the eyes of the State, but not in the eyes of radical feminists.
So the conclusion is false. Radical feminists believe gender is an oppressive construct and that gender is only connected to sex organs through an arbitrary system of classification which they do not support.
“Their own policies judge people based on gender.”
That’s an interesting statement. It’s also false. Women-only spaces judge people not based on gender (which for FETAs means: “whatever they say their gender is”), but on socialization. Children who are raised as men are indoctrinated into male sexual entitlement. Children who are raised as women are not. If radical feminists judged people based on what FETAs call gender, then they should be against transmen: but they are not, because transmen were socialized as women.
Now compare this to the FETA attitude, whose policies condemn and wish death on “cis” people based on their “gender identity.” Is this not “judging people based on gender”?
“Conflating gender with sex organs implies that there is only one way to be a man, only one way to be a woman.”
A true statement but, again, one which only applies to traditional genderists. Like many other anti-feminists, Dobson is eager to paint feminists with the same color as religious fundamentalists, to attack them by association. But this is a childish tactic: there can be no association between people who seek to end the oppression of women (radical feminists) and those who seek to protect and strengthen it (traditional genderists).
For those who do believe in gender, there can only be “one way to be a man, only one way to be a woman.” To have a gender means to be judged on the basis of a rigidly define role which one must perform. So this is not really an issue of “conflating gender with sex organs,” but of believing in gender, period.
Deep Green Resistance erases their voices, too, and thus stands on the side of industrial white-supremacist capitalist patriarchal society, against oppressed communities, by implying that some people do not deserve recognition or a voice.
The “their voices” referred to here are the voices of “people who do not fit in either [gender] category.” This is a supremely ironic projection, since FETAs spend much of their time reducing everyone to man or woman through their framework of cis/trans. There is no greater proponent of erasing gender rebels’ voices than FETAs! Does that mean FETAs stand “on the side of industrial white-supremacist capitalist patriarchal society”? There is certainly a case for them being colonialists, as I’ve already pointed out.
As far as I know, the only people who are consistently against capitalism, colonialism and Patriarchy are radical feminists (Anarchists get 2 out of 3, mainstream liberals get at most 1).
I also note some mild irony in calling white-supremacist a movement (radical feminism) that contains both bell hooks and Audre Lorde as major thought leaders, although I don’t know if DGR would consider them thought leaders as well.
Deep Green Resistance may wish for a society without gender. But treating everyone as if we already live in this society is wishful – and harmful – thinking.
Another statement which radical feminists would heartily agree with, and which correlates with the behavior of trans genderists. The only way to make sense of the complete refusal of FETAs to acknowledge socialization is if we already live in a society without gender: after all, only in a society without gender could a man decide to become a woman without being a threat to other women. As has been made clear by the behavior of transwomen, they are at least a potential threat to feminist women.
Dismantling oppression and elevating the voices of those previously denied a voice should be the very core of building an equitable, just, and indeed sustainable society.
Again, not a statement which would meet with much disagreement amongst radical feminists. But FETAs hate feminism and must fight against any attempt to eradicate gender, which make such a statement dubious at best. The main objective of FETAs is to elevate gender to the status of untouchable personal choice and to downgrade biological sex to the status of make-believe, so they can have the rights they believe they deserve. But by this maneuver they can only further harm those who are already harmed by gender. There is no way around it: trans genderism, like all other forms of genderism, is pure evil.