Category Archives: Radical feminism

Clarisse Thorn tries to refute an argument against BDSM.

It has occurred to me that, while I do get BDSM people wasting my time while trying to defend their abusive sexuality (see for example the comments section on this entry), I don’t really engage with the more serious BDSM arguments out there. That, I think, would be a lot more productive.

Therefore I wanted to start by addressing the words of one Clarisse Thorn (probably not her real name, but who knows), a self-professed “S&M feminist,” a contradiction in terms. In this entry, she intends to address the anti-BDSM argument that “BDSM legitimizes abuse” (despite labeling the entry #1, it seems she wrote no more, perhaps weary of the cognitive dissonance she was triggering in her own head).

I want to make clear, first of all, that BDSM does not only “legitimize abuse,” it is abuse. BDSM is a cult-like framework and, like all other such frameworks, it is highly concerned with reframing language and concepts (“consent,” “sex,” “play,” “toys,” “power,” “dominance,” etc). The peculiarity of this ideology, however, is that it has managed to get its reframing accepted by society at large. It has gone on to the point that now we see BDSM sexual abuse as “edgy” and “sexy.”

BDSM is not only an ideology of abuse which twists language, it also concerns itself with the constant reproduction of abuse, all the way from spanking and caning to “rapeplay,” “breathplay,” “knifeplay,” and all the gamut of so-called “play.” Based on the sexual charge people can get out of them, they have reframed these forms of abuse as “sex.”

Thorn presents the anti-BDSM argument we’re discussing as such:

1) When two consenting people do a BDSM scene together, it can look like abuse to outsiders who are not aware that the scene was worked out ahead of time and that the bottom can opt out at any time. That is, outsiders can’t know the difference between BDSM and abuse by looking at it.

It does “look like abuse,” because it is abuse. The fact that the abuse was “worked out ahead of time” and that one can “opt out” does not make it any less abusive.

Much of the reframing in BDSM has to do with “consent.” I’ve already discussed the problems they have with consent. Within the cult mentality, they believe that purely symbolic gestures like signing contracts or establishing “safe words” turns an act of abuse into a sexual act. Not only that, but they call it consent, as if consent is established by contracts or magic words.

2) If the outside world becomes more accepting of BDSM, then outsiders who see signs of violence will become more likely to assume that it is BDSM and not abuse. Therefore, they will be less likely to interfere with a violent situation, or help a victim.

Yes, obviously it is a huge problem when abusers use BDSM as a tool to portray themselves as innocent of any wrongdoing. Not just because outsiders may be fooled into confusing the sexual abuse brought about by BDSM with “normal” sexuality, but because it means our concept of sexuality has been hijacked by a dangerous and abusive cult mentality. The problem is BDSM itself, the belief that codified abuse can be a healthy sexuality, not just its consequences.

3) Thus: legitimizing BDSM puts people in danger. It means that abusers will be more likely to abuse, because they will think that they can get away with it. Or, alternatively: it means that abusers will be more likely to abuse because they don’t learn the difference between abuse and consent. It also means that people who are actually being abused will have a harder time getting help.

I completely agree with this point. It does mean all that. It also means a lot, lot more, but at least we have a good starting point. So what does Thorn reply to all this?

The argument assumes that people cannot learn to tell the difference between abuse and consent… I can say that, in my experience, there is very high pressure in the BDSM subculture to ensure that all partners consent.

Here we see the doublespeak inherent in the BDSM cult mentality: getting people to submit to abuse means “ensuring that all partners consent.” It also aims to project the image that the BDSM community is ethical and non-violent despite the abusive actions done in BDSM, and even though 30% of people in American BDSM communities have had their “consensual” limits violated and 64% of people in Dutch BDSM communities have reported the same. A community that is so violent that it engenders in its victims a PTSD-like state euphemistically called “sub drop.”

Despite their constant protests and attempts at reassuring the gullible that they follow strict standard of ethics, any community that not only legitimizes these practices but encourages them cannot be an ethical community.

Anti-BDSM people argue what they do precisely because they understand the difference between abuse and consent. And, unwarped by the BDSM mentality, most people can generally make the difference between abuse and consent as well. They can tell that a person is getting roughed up, beaten up, or tortured. And that’s a big problem for the BDSM community, even though they make a good show of sneering at the “vanilla” peons who just can’t understand how “edgy” and “cool” they are. A cult must always have enemies, and that’s what feminists are for (Thorn calls herself a “feminist,” but we know it’s a lie).

If BDSM is legitimized — if it “comes out of the closet” — then the community’s attitudes towards consent will come out of the closet with it. It’s not like legitimizing BDSM means that everyone will start thinking it’s a great idea to beat other people without their consent.

But that is precisely what everyone is thinking: that by using some official, symbolic mumbo-jumbo, you can beat other people with their “non-consensual consent.”

Arguing that accepting BDSM will lead to accepting abuse is analogous to arguing that accepting human sexuality will lead to accepting rape. In other words — telling me that I encourage men to abuse women by having consensual BDSM sex is like telling me that I encourage men to rape women by having consensual vanilla sex.

Even if you repeat it twice, this is still a horrible analogy that Thorn should be ashamed of writing. The core of the argument is that BDSM is a system of thought which legitimizes abuse because it is itself abuse. “Vanilla sex” in itself is not a system of thought. So there’s no comparison to be done here.

But if we interpret “vanilla sex” as a larger heteronormative context, then Thorn’s analogy is, ironically, a fairly good one: BDSM legitimizes abuse like heteronormativity legitimizes rape. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s closer to the truth than anything Thorn can muster.

As for our “S&M feminist,” her blog is inactive, but she still operates as a mouthpiece for BDSM. At any rate, she is no feminist: feminists cannot be pro-BDSM for the same reason that they cannot be pro-VAW, pro-rape or pro-sexual abuse. People like her portray opponents of BDSM as uninformed and their criticism as superficial, as she does in her entry. Systemic criticism must be silenced or dismissed as the nattering of “bitter apostates” so it never penetrates the cultist shield.

But it’s hard not to laugh at Thorn portraying her opponents as naive and uninformed when her understanding of feminism is so trivial and silly, given that she seems to believe feminists oppose BDSM because they are somehow confused by the difference between abuse and consent (as if that was a hard thing to figure out). Silly befuddled feminists, they just don’t “get” it, so you see this is all very reasonable!

If any of my readers, or BDSM trolls, have another entry like this for me to look into, I would welcome it. But I don’t expect much.

The projections of FETAs (Female-Excluding Trans Activists).

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.

FETA and its attack on women: “gender rights.”

The so-called “International Bill of Gender Rights,” not recognized by the UN despite its grandiose name, is a good starting point to discuss the fact that the ideology pushed by FETAs (Female-Erasing Trans Activists) is profoundly genderist and anti-feminist in nature. Not surprisingly, it was written by two individuals who were socialized as men (one of the two, JoAnn Roberts, was a crossdresser).

Gender Identity Watch states that the goals of the IBGR are threefold:

(1) elevate a Man’s “Gender Identity” over a Woman’s Sex and Sexual Boundaries

(2) destroy Women-only space

(3) eradicate the Category of Sex.

So let’s begin:

#1: The Right To Define Gender Identity

We already start with a problematic term, “gender identity.” As I’ve already discussed, trans activists treat “gender identity” as an innate preference which causes gender expression, but how we think of ourselves is the result of our gender expression and how society reacts to it, not the cause.

As such, the emphasis by trans advocates on “gender identity,” instead of talking about gender as a social construct, is a deliberate part of trans genderism. It aims at reducing all gender issues to individual issues, and therefore to negate prejudice against women. The term “cis privilege” fulfills that function as well, in positing that female women have privilege over male women by virtue of being female. But this is false: being identified as female means you are subject to more violence, abuse, repressive laws and ideological attacks around the world.

At any rate, let’s examine this first “right”:

#1: The Right To Define Gender Identity

All human beings carry within themselves an ever-unfolding idea of who they are and what they are capable of achieving. The individual’s sense of self is not determined by chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role. Thus, the individual’s identity and capabilities cannot be circumscribed by what society deems to be masculine or feminine behavior. It is fundamental that individuals have the right to define, and to redefine as their lives unfold, their own gender identities, without regard to chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.

I must point out again that this is absolutely backwards. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that not only our “gender identity” but our entire sense of self is “not determined by chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role”? That is incredibly silly. Of course all of these things have a profound influence on our sense of self and cannot be dissociated from it.

More importantly, there appears to be no connection whatsoever between this statement and the rest of the point, despite the use of the word “thus.” How does a deep connection between the sense of self and one’s sex mean that we should circumscribe every individual into “masculine” or “feminine” gender boxes?

Keep in mind that this document was created and revised over a period of years, so it’s reasonable to assume that nothing written here is accidental. Feminists emphasize the importance of sex as a real biological feature and the constructed nature of gender. This goes counter to the interest of FETAs, so they downplay sex as a way to reinforce the importance of gender. Their aim is to erase the existence of biological prejudice because, again, they want to make us believe that female women are not punished for their femaleness.

Can one’s “gender identity” be changed as much as one desires? Sure, but how is that a human right? This obviously has nothing to do with individuals, and all about pushing a specific genderist view.

#2: The Right to Free Expression of Gender Identity

Given the right to define one’s own gender identity, all human beings have the corresponding right to free expression of their self-defined gender identity.

Therefore, all human beings have the right to free expression of their self-defined gender identity; and further, no individual shall be denied Human or Civil Rights by virtue of the expression of a self-defined gender identity.

At the risk of repeating myself, I have to point out the reversal again: it is assumed that “gender identity” becomes “gender expression” when it is, well, expressed, but this is backwards. Any “right to free expression” is pointless if the way we feel about ourselves was conditioned by other people’s approval or disapproval.

But as long as gender exists, we will be conditioned to see ourselves through that lens. FETAs will not, and cannot, acknowledge that fact. Therefore they must evade it as much as they can.

Children should have the right to not be subjected to gender. That would be a real right. FETAs are not going to fight for that, because it would mean the end of their ideology (see point 5).

#3: The Right to Secure and Retain Employment and to Receive Just Compensation

Given the economic structure of modern society, all human beings have a right to train for and to pursue an occupation or profession as a means of providing shelter, sustenance, and the necessities and bounty of life, for themselves and for those dependent upon them; further, all human beings have the right to secure and retain employment and to receive just compensation for their labor regardless of gender identity, chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.

There is nothing objectionable about this particular point, so I will not belabor it. It is the first point in this “bill of rights” that actually addresses an issue of importance to individuals, instead of making an ideological polemic.

But don’t assume it’s all going to be this helpful from this point forward. In fact, the next point is the big one:

#4: The Right of Access to Gendered Space and Participation in Gendered Activity

Given the right to define one’s own gender identity and the corresponding right to free expression of a self-defined gender identity, no individual should be denied access to a space or denied participation in an activity by virtue of a self-defined gender identity which is not in accord with chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.

Therefore, no individual shall be denied access to a space or denied participation in an activity by virtue of a self-defined gender identity which is not in accord with chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.

This is the most direct and eloquent statement demonstrating that FETA is anti-feminism. Historically, feminism has only been able to flourish when women-only spaces were available. If FETAs win, and women-only spaces are abolished by law, then any possibility of furthering women’s rights will be legally eradicated.

That being said, the point is also a misrepresentation of the feminist argument for women-only spaces. They do not seek to deny transwomen access to women-only spaces on the basis of “self-defined gender identity.” They couldn’t care less what your “self-defined gender identity” is. They object because transwomen were socialized as men, and therefore continue to behave as men.

They try to make the issue of women-only spaces as an issue of bigotry. But there is no bigotry there: transwomen are free to associate with each other, and they are free to associate with women in public as long as those women allow them to do so, like anyone else. But people socialized as men feel entitled to be in any space they want. Transwomen were socialized as men and act like men. They make threats, they intimidate, and they crowd everyone else out.

Everyone should have the right to associate with whoever they want in their personal lives (not talking about serving customers in a business or professional setting, which is a wholly different matter). The “right” to bully people into accepting them is not a right.

#5: The Right to Control and Change One’s Own Body

All human beings have the right to control their bodies, which includes the right to change their bodies cosmetically, chemically, or surgically, so as to express a self-defined gender identity.

Therefore, individuals shall not be denied the right to change their bodies as a means of expressing a self-defined gender identity; and further, individuals shall not be denied Human or Civil Rights on the basis that they have changed their bodies cosmetically, chemically, or surgically, or desire to do so as a means of expressing a self-defined gender identity.

Taken as it is, this seems to be a good solid point which can be applied universally, like point 3. But we know what FETAs are referring to here: they are referring to the coercive practice of gender reassignment in little children, including the use of untested chemicals in order to block puberty and surgery to “change gender.”

In short, this “right” is really there to defend the “right” to abuse one’s children because they exhibit signs of gender rebellion. This highly unethical, quack practice based on a failed treatment (we can say this with certainty given the percentage of transgender people who commit suicide or detransition/desire detransition) should be illegal and met with public resistance.

The next point concerns medical treatments and is an extension of this one: therefore the same objection applies. So I will continue on:

#7: The Right to Freedom From Involuntary Psychiatric Diagnosis and Treatment

Given the right to define one’s own gender identity, individuals should not be subject to involuntary psychiatric diagnosis or treatment.

Therefore, individuals shall not be subject to involuntary psychiatric diagnosis or treatment as mentally disordered, dysphoric, or diseased, on the basis of a self-defined gender identity or the expression thereof.

There is a huge bait and switch here. If you don’t pay attention, this point seems like a pretty obvious statement that people shouldn’t be coercively committed, something no one would disagree with. But there are two specific words that telegraph what the objective of this point is: “diagnosis” and “dysphoric.”

Some transgender people see themselves as dysphoric (that they are in the “wrong body”) and are diagnosed as such, other transgender people become such because they fetishize gender (and in the case of transwomen, they fetishize women’s oppression, as most men do). I mentioned in the beginning that JoAnn Roberts was a crossdresser. I did not mention this out of spite, but to demonstrate that the objective of these people is not to help dysphoric people who genuinely need medical help but to turn gender into a fetish (which is what crossdressing is), to trivialize the objectification and subjection of women and turn it into their personal masquerade. This is not only callous but also obviously anti-feminist.

What is asked of us here is to refuse to diagnose transgender people, which means to treat gender fetishists on the same plane as dysphoric individuals and to grant them the same access to medical services. This is profoundly wrong.

#8: The Right to Sexual Expression

Given the right to a self-defined gender identity, every consenting adult has a corresponding right to free sexual expression.

Therefore, no individual’s Human or Civil Rights shall be denied on the basis of sexual orientation; and further, no individual shall be denied Human or Civil Rights for expression of a self-defined gender identity through private sexual acts between consenting adults.

The first sentence has two parts which, again, do not follow. How does the “right” to gender identity entail the right to sexual expression? You can’t translate a right to a thought to a right to an action. It would have been simpler to skip the first half of the sentence and assert the right to free sexual expression.

But either way, it simply has no place in a “bill of gender rights.” Connecting gender to sexual expression is simply offensive. People can be of any sexual orientation regardless of gender, and gender should have nothing to do with it (unfortunately, since gender roles include sexual roles, it has plenty to do with it).

#9: The Right to Form Committed, Loving Relationships and Enter Into Marital Contracts

Given that all human beings have the right to free expression of self-defined gender identities, and the right to sexual expression as a form of gender expression, all human beings have a corresponding right to form committed, loving relationships with one another, and to enter into marital contracts, regardless of their own or their partner’s chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.

Therefore, individuals shall not be denied the right to form committed, loving relationships with one another or to enter into marital contracts by virtue of their own or their partner’s chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role, or on the basis of their expression of a self-defined gender identity.

There is no such thing as a “right to marriage” because marriage is the creation of new members of a privileged class. There can be no more “right to marriage” than there can be a right to punch people in the face. But marriage has a powerful propaganda effect, which is why it’s so important for minority groups. I do not blame such groups for such propaganda actions. But let’s not fool each other and call it a right.

I have nothing against the point that’s specific to FETAs. In pursuing marriage as a high and noble goal, they are no different than other genderists.

#10: The Right to Conceive, Bear, or Adopt Children; The Right to Nurture and Have Custody of Children and to Exercise Parental Capacity

Given the right to form a committed, loving relationship with another, and to enter into marital contracts, together with the right to express a self-defined gender identity and the right to sexual expression, individuals have a corresponding right to conceive and bear children, to adopt children, to nurture children, to have custody of children, and to exercise parental capacity with respect to children, natural or adopted, without regard to chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role, or by virtue of a self-defined gender identity or the expression thereof.

Apart from the clusterfuck of misrepresentations and errors summarized in the first half of the sentence, and the fact that I am an antinatalist and therefore absolutely and categorically reject any notion of “right to conceive children,” I find nothing else that’s wrong with this point. So this is at least half decent. If only the rest was at least this good…

***

What in the hell do having children or employment have to do with “gender rights”? If the intent of this “bill of gender rights” was to list human rights and to tack on “regardless of gender identity,” then it is, at best, a rehashing of existing human rights declarations. The reality is, this document is a mix of (mostly dubious) rights with “gender identity” tacked on and FETA propaganda poorly disguised as rights.

Let’s agree at least that the document is badly named. This is not about “gender rights” and cannot have anything to do with “gender rights.” The notion itself is absurd: gender is not a freedom, it is a duty imposed. Gender does not have rights, it has obligations. The concept of a “gender right” is a contradiction in terms.

Gender is a hierarchy and, as for all other hierarchies, the only right we should have is to be free of it. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a depraved fool.

The assumption that sex is about power.


I know the principle that rape is about power is not totally accurate, but I would definitely say that sex based on power is rape.

There is an assumption, probably helped by the evolutionary psychology mythos propagating in the general population, that relationships and sex are a power struggle.

Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.

This quote (supposedly by Oscar Wilde, but everything’s attributed to Oscar Wilde) is perhaps unwittingly the most elegant statement about genderism ever written. Two basic premises of genderism are that humans, men especially, are solely driven by reproductive advantage (including our highest pursuits), and that our sexuality is always a power play between men (who want to spread their genes) and women (who want a faithful partner to raise children). Everything is about sex, but sex is about power.

From a feminist perspective, this is absolutely and completely incorrect: sex that is “about power” is not sex, it’s rape. In fact it has become a bromide that rape is about power, but yet people fail to recognize this in most instances because we are trained to believe that power is desirable and commands respect, or is at least “superior” and justified in its sexual abuse.

Now, if you take hierarchy and if you take sex and if you understand that hierarchy is very sexy, then what you have is a situation in which people are exploited systematically; and they are exploited in such a way that everyone thinks it’s normal.
Andrea Dworkin

Given what’s already been covered, I think our first stop should be traditional genderism. Marriage was framed in the West as a form of sexual ownership of women. Nowadays this unilateralism is frowned upon, and we’ve made it a form of mutual sexual ownership. This, of course, is considered progress.

But whether it’s unilateral or mutual, the fact remains that under traditional genderism women are under obligation to satisfy their husbands by providing sexual services, and that their sexuality are under the purview of the husband. The fact remains that we live in a heteronormative system where heterosexual sex is the only “real” form of sex that exists, and that all women should, in theory, be available for men to exploit. The fact also remains that women are generally in more precarious financial situations than men and that they often financially depend on their husbands. While spousal rape is now illegal in Western countries, it had been legal up to the latter part of the 20th century.

This is what feminists (and when I say feminists, I mean radical feminists) are talking about when they discuss the ethicality of intercourse, not simple-minded propositions like “all heterosexual sex is rape” (or its preposterous liberal reverse, that no pseudo-consensual sex can possibly be rape), which no feminist has ever said anyway. The problem with heterosexual sex is its hierarchical nature, the fact that it involves a superior and an inferior on the gender hierarchy, unlike homosexual sex. But homosexual sex often apes the hierarchical elements of heterosexuality because those are seen as normal in a heteronormative society.

Instead of remaining in generalities, we can look at more specific cases. Pornography, prostitution and BDSM are cases where the abuse of power is very clear. In all three cases we have a clear imbalance of power (between corporation and employee, between johns/pimps and prostituted women, and between doms and subs) which form the basis for sexual activity.

In prostitution and pornography (which is, after all, organized prostitution), the imbalance is, at least on the surface, financial in nature; johns and porn directors trade money for sex, either with themselves or other people (and for those who object that pornography cannot be prostitution because porn directors don’t make actresses have sex with them, some johns have prostituted women have sex with each other too). Prostituted women and porn actresses are often coerced into unwanted sexual acts so they can get the money they need, and are exposed to high risks of sexually transmitted diseases, extremely high death rates, and extremely high percentages of PTSD (equal or higher to that of war veterans).

As has been pointed out by feminists, making women have sex with you by giving them money means they wouldn’t want to have sex with you in the first place. They’re doing it because they need the money, which makes it non-consensual. Furthermore, if consent is granted beforehand, and cannot be given or revoked for specific sexual acts as they happen, then it’s not consensual either, simply because it’s then very easy for a john or a porn director to decide to add new sexual acts and force the woman to do them under the threat of not getting paid.

And all of that is predicated on a capitalist society which makes work contracts and organized prostitution possible, as well as normalize the position that everything is potential property, including people’s sexuality.

But the more profound power imbalance, I think, is psychological: psychologically healthy men who have no qualms exploiting women who have been abused in childhood and devalue their own sexuality, or otherwise have bought into their “womanly” duty.

I can already hear the pro-prostitution advocates hissing like the snakes that they are, “see, you do hate sex workers!” I don’t hate prostituted women, I listen to the voices of ex-prostituted women who speak up about their experiences and who tell us that it was their devaluation of their own sexuality that led them to accept prostitution as a way of life. Pro-prostitution advocates tell us to listen to the voices of prostituted women, but they want you only to listen to the privileged white women who got what they wanted out of prostitution and then joined pimp-led advocacy groups. Of course such women have a vested interest in hiding the truth.

But to pro-prostitution advocates, anyone who disagrees must hate “sex workers.” To pro-pornography advocates, anyone who disagrees must hate porn actresses. As if hating an industry means hating the people who work at the lower echelons! Hating capitalism has never meant hating the workers, it means hating the institutions that exploit the workers. I hate prostitution and pornography and the people who defend those institutions, not the women whose sexuality is exploited by them. The power is generated by those institutions, not by a woman taking her clothes off.

Unlike prostitution and pornography, BDSM is not a commercial hierarchy but a relational one. There is a dom and a sub, and the sub not only “consents” to coercive acts but is said to be the one with the real power in the relationship. The imbalance is not based on any pre-existing form of power but is completely manufactured by the two participants.

As for pornography and prostitution, the use of power in sex in BDSM is considered edgy and liberatory, in this case because the acts committed are transgressive (and cross not only one gray area, but a whole forty of them). Likewise, BDSMers have complained that radfems are against BDSM because of the transgressive nature of the sexual acts in BDSM.

But this is a straw womyn. Transgression is not the issue, the pseudo-consent to sexual abuse and violence is the issue. There is nothing particularly edgy about rape, violence and abuse against women: women are subject to these things every day. Likewise, reproducing rape, violence and abuse against women is not edgy either, it’s fairly commonplace in the mass media.

Again the same story repeats: the inferior is supposedly the one with the power because they control the sexual act. This is tied with the notion of women as gatekeepers for sex. Obviously not all subs are women, but, according to studies done on the largest samples of women, women in BDSM are three to four times more likely to be sub than to be dom, while men have a roughly equal ratio. This is not a coincidence. Take away the premise of women as gatekeepers and the whole concept of the inferior having the “real” power dissipates.

Orgasm is one of the most powerful conditioning devices that exist. Associate your orgasms with a hierarchical relationship and you will come to not only see that relationship as normal, but you will defend it with all your strength. How could you not defend your capacity to get orgasms? This is what gives BDSM subs such vigor in defending their own exploitation, and pornography and prostitution users their relentless drive to attack radical feminism. Any debate no these topics cannot take place unless the addict is detoxified first: otherwise you might as well “debate” with a heroin addict whether ey should get more heroin.

I want to end on the instances of power used in sex, that is to say rape, against children: pedophilia (esp. parental incest), spanking and genital mutilation (although the latter is not sex as such, but an attack against sex organs).

The parental relation is the prototype of power relations. This is not by far a novel insight: it’s been made many times, many ways about the relation between God and man, the State and its citizens, husbands and wives. It is only because we are all raised on brain-warping pedagogy (as Alice Miller would say, all pedagogy is bad pedagogy) that we are susceptible to fall prey to these other forms of power relations. It is perhaps in this context that we can agree with Theophile de Giraud (in his antinatalist book L’Art de Guillotiner Les Procréateurs) that parenting is a form of sado-masochism.

The less damaged people are from pedagogy, the more difficult it is for them to invest themselves into becoming inferiors and superiors. Voluntarily joining BDSM, pornography, prostitution, or becoming a child abuser are not hallmarks of healthy minds. Conditioning, indoctrination and brainwashing (or if you prefer, thought control) are necessary to turn a baby into this sort of person, or indeed any sort of slavish follower.

People may balk at me calling spanking children a form of rape. And yet spanking does bring sexual pleasure. It is a sexual act. So when it’s done as punishment to a child, how can it not be rape? I see no way to defeat this argument.

Although people do try to deny it quite strenuously, in Western societies we accept that the parents of a child have near-total ownership of that child (only specific, “really real” kinds of rape, serious physical abuse and murder are frowned upon). This is predicated on the notion that children are not full human beings and therefore do not deserve human rights (a bizarre notion, but no more bizarre than the notion that women, POC, “immigrants” or “criminals” are not full human beings).

The reason why I point to parental incest and spanking specifically is because they both emerge from the familial hierarchy. Parents can (legally) use a wide array of intensive manipulation techniques against the child, including physical and mental isolation, conditioning, indoctrination and brainwashing (as previously mentioned), verbal and physical violence, deprivation of property, emotional and material blackmail, and so on.

There is no point in listing them all because everyone has been through many or most of them and knows what they are very well. There is a strong similarity between being a child and being a cult member (with the exception that the child is dependent upon its parents to a degree that no cult leader has ever been able to emulate).

Pedophiles have tried to position themselves lately as another “edgy” sexual orientation, insisting on a demarcation between ephebophiles (the good guys) who want to fuck teenagers and the really real pedophiles (boo hiss) who want to fuck little children, and arguing that ephebophiles have a long hallowed historical tradition. Well sure, we already know that men as a class are pedophilic, this is not exactly news, but how does that make it edgy and cutting edge? All these forms of rape have a long hallowed historical tradition going back to ancient civilization and so on, a history long enough to bore anyone to tears. So what?

Why FETA?

As I’ve started to use the term FETA (Female-Excluding Trans Activists) to replace trans genderism (which is perhaps too confusing), I think I should probably explain fully why this term should be used.

The term is intended to mirror the slur term TERF (Trans-Excluding Radical Feminists). Both terms are structured the same and intend to single out certain specific people: radical feminists who “exclude transgender people,” and trans activists who “exclude women.”

What is not clear, in the case of TERF, is where the exclusion is taking place. Where are transgender people being excluded? Not from the public square, since more and more legislation is being passed to accommodate transgender people. Not from the LGBT community, where they are rising to prominent positions. Not from women’s spaces, since transgender people who were socialized women are still allowed to attend.

The term TERF is not just a slur, it’s a piece of rhetoric which serves a political purpose: to marginalize and destroy the credibility of radical feminists.

We know very clearly what females are being excluded from by trans activists. They are being excluded from owning their own spaces. They are being increasingly excluded from feminist discourse and, as lesbians, they are being increasingly excluded from LGBT discourse and demeaned for being lesbians. Finally, their identification as females is being attacked by a FETA ideology which argues that sex is a social construct and has no political relevance.

To talk over female voices, to make them irrelevant, to silence them: this has always been men’s objective in reaction to feminist movements, and this is the objective of the transwomen who fight against feminism.

The term FETA makes clear not just who they are (genderists), but also what their objective is (to exclude females).

Who is a FETA? Any trans activist who argues any of the following:

* Feminism should take men’s interests and men’s issues into account.
* Sex is a social construct. Genitals have no connection with sex.
* Men should be allowed to enter women’s spaces.
* Lesbians should sleep with men.

Transgender people aren’t the enemy. By and large, any group of people just wants to be free to live their lives without getting hurt. It is only those people who openly advocate the exclusion of females that we have a problem with.

Is sex a social construct, and does that validate trans genderism?


From Deep Green Resistance.

In a Daily Dot article, trans genderist Samantha Allen argues that “sex is not a biological reality.” This is not exactly a new tactic on the part of FETAs (Female-Erasing Trans Activists), but the way Allen argues is, I think, particularly sophisticated compared to most of her colleagues:

But, like any facet of biology, our understanding of “sex” is shaped by our social world. As biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling notes, sexual dualism (the idea that there are only men and women) is a cultural fiction. In reality, intersex infants are born with many chromosomal and genital configurations; doctors often perform surgery on these infants in order to make them conform to socially conventional standards for sex assignment…

“Sex” isn’t made up of “biological facts,” as Williamson believes, while gender is a social construct. Sex and gender are both socially influenced systems of categorization—the difference is that sex is allowed to posture as objective, biological, and pre-social. Sex is a reflection of our social commitment to a two-gender world.

Using the intersexed as a tool in an argument is pretty crass, but what do you expect from intellectual bullies like FETAs. Actually, the existence of the intersexed represents a puzzle for them; how can they be an exception to the biological rules if there are no rules?

[T]he existence of intersex people goes a long way towards confirming sexual dimorphism. After all, the prefix inter- means between or across. Intersex, broken down, would translate to between or across sexes. It’s hard to understand how this could be a meaningful concept without the existence of two discreet, recognizable things to be between or across. What could intersex mean if there weren’t two sexes as a point of reference?

That being said, I agree with Allen’s analysis on the whole. I do not follow her to the point of saying that sex is not biological at all; obviously sex is based on biological realities (internal and external genitals, hormones, chromosomes, reproductive system), but it’s not just biological. It is also the result of an arbitrary evaluation on genitals which exist on a continuum.

To illustrate her error of omitting biology:

Crucially, we only feel the need to assign children a “sex” in the first place because of gender, because our society is structured around the idea that two divergent kinds of bodies should meet, couple, and reproduce.

I hope you see the two obvious logical problem here. Most obviously, her argument is that gender comes before sex, but that gender is based on there being “divergent kinds of bodies,” which is precisely the biological basis of sex!

The other problem is that gender without sex makes no sense. The exploitation of women’s reproductive and sexual labor is rooted in women’s biology. The concept of gender without a pre-existing sex distinction is just a bunch of arbitrary and nonsensical standards. Only through the lens of the exploitation of women’s biology can we make any sense of the development of gender roles.

So now here’s the kicker. Allen’s general argument is completely irrelevant to her attempt to discredit sex in order to bolster Female-Erasing Trans Activism; in order to do that, her argument would have to demonstrate that sex is not only not a biological reality (which is not entirely true to begin with), but not a social reality as well. The fact that something is partially or completely made up does not entail that it has no importance, that it cannot be a social construct.

Radical feminists use the concept of sex to point to females as a class, assigned gender on the (logically invalid) basis of biology, being subject to gender socialization and to gendered violence. Stating that sex is only partially biological does not change the existence of gender classes and the fact that people are distributed in those classes on a (spurious) biological basis.

FETAs almost never address socialization because it’s a fact of reality they cannot refute. When they do, they usually try to argue that everyone is socialized differently and that there is no such thing as a uniform gender socialization. But this is never what has been understood by “gender socialization” in the first place. The point is not that everyone is raised the same, but rather that the way children are raised depends heavily on their gender.

For FETA to be true, we must first eradicate any understanding of women as a class, we must first eradicate any understanding of woman-hatred as a social phenomenon, and we must believe that “cis” women are privileged because they are women. In short, we must abandon all systemic analysis of gender, which is to say, we must abandon feminism altogether. But feminism is clearly true, and FETA cannot be true.

The error is repeated throughout. For example:

Today, people like Williamson argue that the lives, bodies, and experiences of transgender people are wholly determined by their chromosomes or their genitals or… something, some sense of an “original” and unchangeable sex. Every generation, there’s another miracle molecule, another form of prejudice, and another tragic attempt to marry the two together

No, everyone’s life, not just transgender people, is not determined by their chromosomes, their genitals, or even sex, but by the multifarious ways in which social institutions impose hierarchies based on spurious and arbitrary biological or mental attributes, and how we are socialized to conform to those hierarchies and their premises.

Again, social constructs and socialization are the name of the game, and anyone who’s not aware of that fact hasn’t even found the board yet.

It’s ironic to see Allen complain about prejudice. The trans genderist use of “cis” and “cis privilege” is a prejudice, because it implies that women have privilege over transgender people by virtue of being women, which is an egregious lie used to stimulate hatred against radical feminists and other anti-genderists.

Transgenderism supports the idea that there is something natural and inevitable about gender. This is despite the fact that feminists, and women in general, constantly challenge ‘femininity’ in their actions and appearance. Transgender activists do not appreciate these challenges and seek to enforce their view that the protection of femininity should be the goal of feminism against clear evidence that many women, lesbians in particular, want no part of it. Gender functions as an ideological system that justifies and organizes women’s subordination and for this reason it must be dismantled.
Sheila Jeffreys, Gender Hurts

What is the end point of this reasoning for Allen? I think it lies here:

Hormone replacement therapy is, in fact, “sufficient” to change “biological facts.” An entire medical association full of world-renowned endocrinologists, surgeons, and medical practitioners have established standards of care that completely replace a person’s original hormone levels with hormone levels that correspond to their target gender. If Williamson wants to measure a person’s sex by their bodies, hormones completely transform human bodies in a safe and controlled way.

I do not dispute that medicine can change someone’s hormones, but hormones are only one criterion we use to determine sex. To say that a man is now a woman because of hormonal levels is like saying a human must be an ostrich because they are both bipeds: surely bipedalism is a trait of ostriches but it does not solely define what an ostrich is.

I don’t want to be understood as saying that biological sex is a black-and-white issue. Obviously it is not, and there are plenty of real-life examples of that. But the party line that FETAs are pushing has nothing to do with such quandaries: mosaicism can make us question what sex means, but a transgender person changing their hormone levels doesn’t. They are free to try to pass as any gender they wish, but socialization remains more than a product of the imagination.

Is fighting pornography a waste of time?

I’ve been writing a lot about Wendy McElroy and the individualist arguments for pornography. But her arguments, while important enough in the pro-pornography world, are hardly the final word. There’s a lot of people ready to defend pornography out there.

The most common argument, I think, is that the anti-pornography movement is just a waste of time, that it doesn’t address the real problems that women face, that pornography is just a symptom, that pornography doesn’t cause men to rape and that we should fight the real reasons why men rape.

This can be rephrased in an even better radical-sounding argument: why don’t you concentrate on the social conditions that give rise to the objectification of women, instead of attacking the objectification itself?

My first answer would be, why can’t we do both? What’s so bad about some people fighting pornography and other people gnaw at the roots? The latter can be a rather frustrating endeavor and something like antiporn has a greater chance of success, for one. A movement cannot be single-minded, and enforced conformity has never been healthy.

On the other hand, while people who make the argument may be honest, when it comes from men it does sound to me a lot like “stop attacking my boners.”

One example of this attitude comes from a paper called “Pro-Sex Feminism: Redefining Pornography.” The author’s argument is that the problem is not “all porn” but only “bad porn”:

There are many ways that feminists can change the impact porn has on society without resorting to laws that will only backfire. One way is for there to be more feminist porn producers. If there is more female-friendly porn on the market, the impact of the bad porn will lessen. As Betty Dodson states, “The answer to bad pornography is good pornography, not no pornography” (Dodson).

Although the term is not used here, it’s obviously another instance of the “feminist pornography” myth, that if only women were in charge of manufacturing the hierarchy-reproducing facsimiles of sex instead of men, they would produce “good pornography” which would not have any effect on sexual desire.

But this is a basic economic misunderstanding. All corporations seek to make and increase their profits, and they do so by manipulating and exploiting desires. It doesn’t matter if you put demons or angels in the command chairs, the result will be the same because the system will not change based on who’s taking what post. Female politicians, female policemen, female judges are subject to the same incentives as their male counterparts, and they do not change the world.

I might agree that “good pornography” would be one of the responses we should be making, if there was such a thing as “good pornography” and if such a thing was not doomed to failure within a pornography industry which is escalating the threat of violence, and actual violence, against women.

By educating women in the porn industry without taking away their free will, the flow of degrading materials will slow as quality ones are put into the market.

So these women would be “educated” (about what?) in a way that would somehow get them to create “quality materials” (“good pornography,” I assume), so cause them to change their behavior, but without taking away their “free will,” which is the (non-existing) ability to make “choices” without any external influence. What you’re seeing before your eyes is an incredible, wonderful Gordian Knot of bullshit. And this is supposed to be the workable solution?

But anyway, this education process is explained a little more in the preceding paragraph:

The key to battling the influence that the “bad” forms of pornography have on women is educating women about their sexuality. Education, along with other tactics, can prevent degrading, violent porn from disturbing those sensitive to its messages.

So educating women about their sexuality (women’s sexuality, not any specific person’s sexuality, I assume) is some kind of mental shield that prevents “bad pornography” from reaching their brains. Got it.

Another pro-pornography page tries to use Chomsky to make their point:

As Noam Chomsky has pointed out (see “ATC” 56, 25), whatever “harm” some pornography may be charged with, its effects (on women in particular) are surely insignificant compared with the effects of the continual barrage of sexist, racist, imperialist propaganda that spews forth from the mainstream, non-sexual media.

This, I think, goes to the core of the argument. The point raised by the author by referring to Chomsky is actually pretty great, but they obviously haven’t thought it through:

1. In this argument, pornography is designated as a source of harm, which defeats the author’s whole reasoning.

2. Obviously pornography is only a small part of the media, but the influence of objectifying images extends to the “mainstream, non-sexual media.” Objectifying images, poses that originate in pornography, become part of the “barrage of sexism.”

3. Radical feminists, being radicalized, don’t generally support the State either. They are also very well aware that pornography is only one of the sources of Patriarchal conditioning, and that it finds its roots in a deeper ideology of objectification and hatred of women.

They also argue that censoring pornography means giving more power to the State, especially power to censor women’s sexuality. I find that argument specious. As I’ve pointed out before, pro-pornography advocates don’t complain about the fact that we censor many other things, including child pornography, defamation, threats, and so on. I don’t know of any pro-pornography advocate who argues that censoring defamation and threats could give the State the power to censor run-of-the-mill gossip or healthy expressions of anger.

Of course as an Anarchist I am against the State by definition, and I’d rather live in an Anarchist society, but that’s not what we have right now. Given the situation we’re in, I’d rather the State censor pornography than simply ignore it, just as I’d rather the State prevent murder, rape, corporate fraud, and so on and so forth (it won’t, but it would be nice if it did).

The slippery slope argument is extremely weak, anyhow, because we want to censor corporations, not individuals. Pornography is manufactured and distributed by corporations. Surely there’s not a lot of ambiguity between a corporation putting out a pornographic video and two people filming themselves in their bedroom.

But I also agree that censorship is not a long term solution, although I don’t see why that would prohibit us from seeking it in the short and medium term. The long term solution is to take down the Patriarchy. But we can’t really challenge the Patriarchy in any meaningful way if we refuse to deconstruct and challenge its institutions, no matter what size they are.

Why is there no counter-argument from the pro-PIV side?

There have been a number of entries written against PIV sex, including two of mine (here and here). Here are some others:

femonade’s series on intercourse
femonade’s radfem101 on PIV
PIV is always rape, ok? by radical wind
The problem with consent to intercourse by when women were warriors

These entries have been quoted and mocked on other web sites, including the self-professed reactionary site The Right Stuff and the white supremacist site takimag. They were also mocked on various forums (atheist foundation of australia, 4plebs, forum.bodybuilding.com). This is not by far all the exposure that the anti-PIV entries have gotten (as you can expect, reddit got into it as well), but the rest is pretty much more of the same.

I am not writing this entry to argue with the imbeciles who wrote these entries. Rather, my point is that I can’t argue back to these imbeciles because they haven’t presented anything of substance in response. When I say “anything,” I don’t mean that they just haven’t present an argument or empirical evidence, I literally mean anything.

I’ve said in a previous entry on PIV that all pro-PIV arguments basically reduce themselves to “me feel good when stick pee-pee in pussy, me big dick, me make baby, baby good” and “me feel good when pee-pee is in pussy, me ‘modern woman’.” But only one of the links I’ve found (the one from 4plebs) even gets that far, and no one has tried to get any farther than that level of discourse.

That’s pretty damn astounding, and conspicuous. Most of the time right-wing assholes love to argue as vehemently as they possibly can. No matter what the topic, you can always find right-wingers debate it endlessly and badly. PIV is an issue of central importance, so it should at least stimulate angry rebuttals. But we don’t see that.

When people don’t argue, it is generally because they consider the opposing position absurd and irrational beyond discussion. Few people debate the Flat Earth Society or David Icke, because those belief systems just seem too silly to even think about, let alone discuss with seriousness. In most debates, people think their opponents are stupid, but not absurd. They at least take their opponents’ positions seriously enough to discuss them in some way.

So my initial conclusion is that the anti-PIV position is not being discussed because our opponents think it is absurd.

Is the anti-PIV position absurd? How can that be, when everyone is aware of the health risks of PIV sex? A position is usually absurd when the social consensus goes against it, but to my knowledge there is no consensus to the effect that PIV sex is not risky, especially for women: rather the opposite, as the dangers of unwanted pregnancies and STDs are quite openly discussed in our societies as negative things that should be alleviated. So where’s the absurdity?

Does the absurdity lie in the rejection of PIV itself, as opposed to a liberal “just be careful” argument? But reactionaries constantly advocate banning things they consider to be morally wrong, so they obviously don’t consider such an attitude absurd.

Some have suggested to me that the anti-PIV position is considered absurd because of male entitlement to PIV. But men strenuously argue that there’s no such thing as male entitlement, therefore they do not seem to consider the male entitlement position itself to be absurd.

It can’t be that we’re putting into question people’s behavior in the bedroom, since there’s plenty of discussion going on about homosexuality, BDSM, spousal rape, and so on.

It’s possible that there are discussions going on about PIV somewhere, apart from the entries and the responses to them, and I am not aware of it. But if such discussion is going on, then why has no one brought it up as a response to our position?

So we come back to the paucity of arguments issue. The fact of the matter is that the people who push the pro-PIV line can’t really look rational or logical, because they have nothing to argue that is not purely hedonistic. I think they’re not saying anything because they simply don’t have anything to say. Instead of analyzing what the anti-PIV entries say, they either outright lie about what’s being said (as in The Right Stuff response) or turn it into a misogynistic, deliberately grossly offensive comedy bit (as in the takimag response).

I think male entitlement, ironically, has a lot to do with this lack of response. Female critics of PIV are assumed to be lonely virgins who rail against people who enjoy sex, and male critics of PIV are called “losers” and “betas” (as in the forum.bodybuilding.com discussion thread). In this way, all criticism of PIV can be easily reduced to personal unattractiveness, and the issue doesn’t even need to be thought about in any way.

I don’t really need to say this, but the attractiveness or social status of a person does not dictate the validity of their criticism. This is just a desperate form of evasion.

This bring to my mind another interesting question: why would anyone decide to label themselves as a defender of PIV, especially since it involves saying such laughable things? I can’t possibly see that any man would gain status from it, especially if I am right and the anti-PIV position is considered absurd. Perhaps it is simply a way for men to show that they agree with other men about how absurd it is, that they’re not some kind of penis-hating whackjob, but that doesn’t seem like much of a cohesive statement. Why do they even bother?

I do understand why right-wing nuts and genderists do it, because they are both committed to male entitlement and therefore must at least make a show of defending it. If they become aware of it, the existence of anti-PIV criticism must rankle them. They wish radical feminists would shut the hell up, get off the Internet, get raped, or just die. We know this because they tell radical feminists as much, every single day. And the equation between radical feminism and being anti-PIV is a longstanding one… otherwise they wouldn’t have made up the “fact” that “all radfem think sex is rape”; and to them, PIV is the epitome of sex, it’s what it all leads to, so being against sex means being against PIV.

It must be frustrating to realize that some people are attacking what they most cherish, and yet having absolutely nothing to argue in return. Take pity on the poor dudebros. All they want is to stick their penises in someone’s vagina, and here we are, blaming them for their completely natural urges that have nothing at all to do with the social context (especially pornography). Such cruelty cannot advance the feminist cause and will inevitably turn all men against it. So you see, they are right after all! Critics of PIV are just a bunch of losers who can’t get laid and who wouldn’t get touched by the opposite sex with a ten foot pole!

Yea, that last paragraph was completely sarcastic.

Incidentally, there was one entry I found that actually tried to engage the PIV issue (although with copious misogynistic slurs). I will discuss it in a later entry.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 249 other followers