Category Archives: Anti-gender

Extract from The Spy who Came in from Tumblr, by Aiden Williams

An exciting new novel, already hailed as “the Great SJW Novel” by literary critics, has made its appearance. It’s Aiden Williams’ first novel and it’s a rip-roaring story of intrigue and personal search for meaning in a confusing world. I have posted a short extract on here so you can see how great the novel is.

Please note that this extract has descriptions of genitals. It’s kindof necessary to understand the central premise of the novel. They are, on the whole, pretty tame.

***

Mauve Dragonheart’s preferred pronouns were purr, purr, purrself, and “roar!” (with the quotation marks: if said out loud, the quotation marks have to be mimed).

Mauve looked around at the public swimming pool bustling with activity. Purr did not observe purr quarry, contrary to plan, but purr had a plan to compensate for that fact. Purr was free to do what purr loved to do best in the world, perv on teenage girls. There was nothing that Mauve was more enthusiastic about than leering lustfully at the supple young bodies of vagina-havers. Purr entered the women’s changing room. There were a few women in various stages of undress. Some gasped at Mauve’s appearance, especially when Mauve lowered purr swim trunks to reveal a ten-inch erect penis.

“Don’t worry, everyone,” Mauve forcefully said in a falsetto voice, “I identify as a woman called Mauvina.” Purr bent purr wrists and batted purr eyelashes. “This organ that you see before you is a ladystick. Everything is fine.”

The other women in the changing room nodded affirmatively, reassured at learning that the person who looked for all the world like a man with a penis was actually a woman with a ladystick. One or two of them even looked at the ladystick with lust, or so Mauvina thought as purr surveyed the room for big breasts to look at. Purr knew that these women accepted purr as one of them, and that only enhanced purr pleasure.

Mauvina left the swimming pool, checking in with purr fellow agents on purr Bluetooth for the location of the target. A fellow agent reported seeing the target at a local restaurant. Mauvina walked to the edge of the sidewalk and identified as a car called Mauviredo. Purr ladystick became a gear shift, and purr body became the chassis of a car. Purr started to flap purr mouth to make motor sounds and bounded into the street with the other cars. The gear shift bounced around as purr accelerated. Some motorists honked at purr, and purr replied by screaming honks at them.

“Get outta the road, you fucking fag!” screamed one passing driver.
“SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU OPPRESSIVE HETERO-OVERPRIVILEGED PATRIARCHIST CIS-ELITIST SCUM! HONK!!!” purr screamed back.

Mauviredo was bouncing as fast as purr could in order to not get hit, which was quite physically demanding. Purr started to sweat profusely, which, in the car identity, meant that the car’s motor was running hot. Purr skin was actually a metallic chassis, so obviously it could not sweat. To state that Mauviredo was sweating would have been bigotry, because it would mean denying Mauviredo purr car identity.

After an hour of near-collisions and strenuous driving, Mauve arrived at the designated location, an Italian restaurant. Purr rolled onto the sidewalk and identified as a fire hydrant called Mauvian Sentinel, in order to observe the diners through the windows without being seen. Purr gear shift became an erect hose outlet, ready for pumping.

After two minutes of observations, interrupted by a nosy dog with thoughts of urinating on the strange human-shaped fire hydrant, Mauvian Sentinel finally spotted purr quarry: the infamous essentialist, cissexist, transphobic, transmisogynist writer Sheila Dines. Sheila Dines was not just an old white vagina-haver, but she was that most repulsive of vagina-havers, a Feminazi. It was well understood that Feminazis were nothing less than a new, modern version of Nazis, who believed that all queers, transgender people, and otherkin should be beaten until bloody, if not outright killed. Feminazis were responsible for the deaths of thousands every year, they had no respect for personal pronouns at all, and someone had to stop them before the worst happened. Mauvian Sentinel knew purr had to do purr part. Purr identified as a cop called Officer Purple, whose hose outlet became a cudgel, and entered the restaurant decisively, making a beeline for the bad guy.

“Sheila Dines,” purr said to the Feminazi who was sniveling while enjoying an evil spaghetti bolognese, “you are under arrest for hate speech. I’m putting you away for a long time!”
“Who are you? Leave me alone,” Dines said in a nazi-like manner. “You’re not even a cop! You don’t have a uniform!” The Feminazi refused to acknowledge Officer Purple’s self-identification!
“You listen here, civilian,” Officer Purple replied manfully. “First of all, the correct pronoun is not ‘you,’ but ‘roar!’,” purr said, making the hand gesture for the quotation marks. “Second, I am a cop. I’ve always thought of myself as a cop from the youngest age. As a two year old, I was much more of an overbearing asshole than all the children around me, and I kept hitting others whether I was angry or not. I knew I was different. Do you understand what it’s like to be so different that you don’t even integrate your socialization the same way as everyone else?” Officer Purple started to cry. “And for your information, I don’t have to ‘dress as a cop’ to be a cop. I just know that I am a cop, whether I have a uniform or not. Is a cop not a cop when they take off their uniform? I’m just as much of a cop as they are, I’m an even better cop than they are, because I wasn’t even trained and yet I am so skilled at it. Look how well I’m arresting you right now,” purr said while putting handcuffs on the bigot Dines. “You have the right to remain silent. Any misgendering will be used against you in a court of law,” purr continued, kicking her prone body until Dines stopped pleading for mercy. “You Goose-Stepping Trans-Exclusionary Old White Feminists are literally just as bad as the Nazis! I hope you get raped in jail and die, you piece of shit!” Officer Purple waved purr cudgel and hit Dines’ face with it. “Take it, you bitch, take it. This is what women are good for.”

***

As you can see, this novel is really raw and edgy. I highly recommend that you read it for yourself.

FETAs and the denial of the existence of the social class “women.”

All radical analysis is by definition a systemic analysis. And systemic analysis heavily relies on the concept of social classes as a way to understand and articulate the effect of social policies, indoctrination, and moral principles. Some people associate the concept of social classes with Marxism, but everyone uses social classes as part of their argumentation, even right-wing fanatics (given how often they talk about the poor, immigrants, black people, and how they’re responsible for all sorts of social ills). So you’d think that arguments against the concept of social classes would be pretty self-defeating.

There are people, however, who have a vested interest in denying the existence of specific classes. The privileged always want to downplay their existence as a social class. Some take it a step further. Many transgender advocates have dedicated their energies to denying the existence of women as a class. This seems simply blind, as women are very clearly targeted by genderist policies, including anti-abortion policies, opposition to contraceptives, anti-social services policies, wage inequality, and the lack of prosecution of rape and battering, to name only those happening in Western countries. If we start piling on the various forms of gynocide that have been in operation for centuries (sati, witch-hunting, foot-binding, forced pregnancies, female genital mutilation), then the proposition that there is no such thing as women becomes ridiculously untenable.

The reason behind this denial is to eliminate the importance of being “born woman.” They believe rightly that the transgender movement can only succeed if it first exterminates any female resistance. As long as women believe that they are a social class with its own interests (even if they have a narrow view of what those interests are), they will resist the idea that a man who thinks he is a woman, or who had his penis cut off, must be considered a woman on the same level as any other woman.

In order to argue this, they have pushed two main lines of reasoning:

1. The sex binary does not exist, therefore one’s genitals can have nothing to do with whether one is a “woman” or not.
2. Female socialization does not exist, therefore one’s assigned gender can have nothing to do with whether one is a “woman” or not.

In order to make sense of this reasoning, however, we must first ask the question: what is a woman? FETAs are singularly unable to answer it except by appealing to the concept of innate gender, which is not only pseudo-scientific nonsense, but fails to answer the question. The concept “woman” is used in order to describe the targeted oppression I’ve described. Women are targeted by men because they were assigned as women and socialized as women. And they were assigned as women and socialized as women because of their genitals.

Therefore we see that the two lines of reasoning above attempt to deny the roots of gender oppression: biological sex and female socialization. As a matter of fact, FETAs widely argue against these two concepts. How can this be explained, except as a deliberate attempt at erasing gender oppression, opening the way for their new brand of Genderism Lite(tm)?

It is hard to imagine that anyone seriously argues against the concept of biological sex, but there are plenty of FETAs who do (I analyzed one of them here). Their sole argument is that male and female are not absolutely, totally, 100% separate concepts: not all males are XY, not all females are XX, not all males have the same level of testosterone, not all females have the same level of estrogen, not all females have large breasts, not all males have flat chests, therefore there is no sex binary. Often intersex people (who are approximately 0.2% of the population) are trotted out as proof that there is no sex binary (they don’t give a shit about how intersex people are treated, they just want to use their plight as an argument).

But this is a profoundly anti-intellectual way of arguing. We do not simply deny the existence of clusters of data points because there are also points outside of them. Obviously there are some individuals who do not fit the criteria for male or female 100%. We could say the same about living species, businesses, video games, music, furniture, clouds, or any other set of entities that we classify into complex categories. Any definition we use for a complex concept will be probabilistic in nature, not absolute: sure, this makes people uncomfortable, but it doesn’t make us deny the existence of anything complex. Denying the existence of the sex binary is just as pseudo-scientific as, for instance, rejecting the evolutionary timeline because some species fall slightly outside of it.

Now, granted, one can also go pseudo-scientific in the other direction, and posit the existence of clusters where there are none. For instance, Creationists classify all primate human ancestors as being either “like modern humans” or “not like modern humans at all.” A FETA might describe this as a situation where a “human binary” has been assumed, and is clearly wrong based on the science that we have. But quacks cannot take refuge in science: the sex binary is a scientific fact observed throughout the animal kingdom, and it has far-reaching consequences (see for example sexual dimorphism, of which there are many stunning and spectacular examples). In the case of our ancestors, however, we see a clear gradation (e.g. in head shapes and head volume) which does not leave much room for clusters.

FETAs sometimes accuse their opponents of being obsessed with genitals. Actually, we’re not: we just point out the fact that genitals are what genderists use to assign gender on babies. It is therefore a tool of oppression, but it is necessary for genderism to operate in society because it classifies human beings in two categories, the oppressors and the oppressed. In a sane (non-genderist) society, genitals should have no more to do with who you are than your hair color, your skin tone, your height, or your favourite color. But the fact is that our genitals do have a huge impact on how we’re raised and who we’re seen to be. To ignore that fact is delusional.

To claim “not everyone who is born female can bear children therefore bearing children has nothing to do with being female” is rather like me arguing that because I was born with three nipples, any biology textbook which claims having two nipples is a feature of being human is making a random assertion rather than an obvious generalisation. And generalisations matter. To argue otherwise is not only to dismiss the history of discrimination but to perpetuate it.
Cordelia Fine

Their rejection of female socialization is no less irrational. In fact, both arguments are very similar in nature. Remember that the argument against the sex binary is that either all individuals are unequivocally either male or female, or there is no sex binary at all. Their argument against female socialization is that either all females experience their socialization in the same exact way, or there’s no such thing as female socialization. The only difference is that they do not argue that there are people who had an unusual socialization, but that any difference at all disproves the existence of female socialization. As such, it’s an even more absurd claim. Here is an example of it:

TERFs willfully misuse the word ‘socialization’ to misgender trans women and treat us as malicious “men,” saying trans women are and have been perpetrators of male violence, because us trans women pre-coming out and pre-transition must experience malehood and therefore male privilege. They generally base this off how we are read when we are younger, meaning read as male and treated as such. While I understand why folks argue this, it relies on omitting a few things: a key aspect of socialization called response, what privilege actually is, and, naturally, the lived experiences of trans women… As Reed puts it, “There is no singular, universal woman’s narrative. There are as many stories and experiences as there are women.”

And she’s right. What experience of womanhood is experienced by all women? You probably don’t have to think very hard to see that this really is impossible, and for shared girlhood to be a thing, it needs to ignore that us women are multifaceted.

There are two parts to this argument. One is the myth that children can somehow decide how to respond to the socialization they receive, and therefore that children whose innate gender differs from their assigned gender will somehow not assimilate that socialization. Another is that, if all women do not have the exact same experiences, then there’s no such thing as womanhood.

So what is the argument for the belief that transgender individuals have not internalized their assigned gender’s socialization when they were younger? Most FETAs don’t even bother arguing that point, but we are presented with an argument here:

Nobody internalizes all messages sent to them the same way (which is, again, why there are so many different expressions of womanhood). In fact, some are outright rejected, and that’s because folks know a message is not about them. TERFs often act like folks have no agency within these structures, that people, particularly women in this case, are more stone tablets to have their identities engraved upon them. That sounds pretty darn misogynistic, doesn’t it? Seems to be a pattern in TERF rhetoric. Acting like women don’t have agency over their own experiences sounds exactly like what patriarchy says about women.

Those who read my blog will recognize this argument immediately. I analyzed it in my entry “You’re just trying to turn everyone into victims”: the bigot pretends to be on the side of the oppressed by stating that they are powerful enough, or have enough “agency,” to stand against oppression, and that anyone who says otherwise must therefore think that the oppressed are “weak” and unable to stand on their own two feet. In this case, the FETA bigot is arguing that women have the “agency” to reject messages given to them in their female socialization when they feel they’re “not about them.” People who argue against this must therefore think that women have “no agency” and are “misogynistic,” thus projecting the misogyny of FETA rhetoric onto actual feminists. Women are not victims of socialization, as they can reject any message they want, and those women who feel oppressed by their female socialization are just complainers.

There are a lot of things wrong with this logic. For one thing, there is no such thing as innate gender. A child raised to believe it is a boy will internalize messages issued at boys, regardless of how they will see themselves later in life. For another thing, no one has any “agency” to decide to reject a message they do not like. We are all indoctrinated to believe in the social constructs enforced by socialization. Unless they are introduced to alternatives, a three year old will not know that they can simply believe that “there’s no such thing as boys or girls” or “it doesn’t matter how smart someone is.” It’s useless to talk of “agency” when there are no possible alternatives.

Furthermore, socialization is about a lot more than “messages,” and to reduce it to that dimension means ignoring all the other ways we’re trained to be boys or girls:

They said trans women don’t identify with the messages about boys they hear because they know they are girls, so when they hear that girls are weak they understand it means they are weak. But that doesn’t make sense. Socialization is so much more than just people telling you boys are this and girls are that. It’s being catcalled when you’re only eight years old. It’s being laughed at and patronized when you say you want to be the President when you’re older, when the boys in your class get told that if they study hard it’s possible for them. It’s being talked over and told to shut up and never getting a reason why but slowly realizing it’s because you are a girl. Socialization isn’t always easily recognizable, so how could an eight year old transgender kid just automatically know and reject all of it?

FETAs want to imagine that socialization is only a parent telling their child gender stereotypes, like “boys play outside and climb trees, but you should stay inside and read,” and the child standing there thinking “hmmm… do I accept this message or not… I consider myself a girl, therefore…”, and so on. But that’s just one of the ways in which we’re socialized (and we certainly don’t spend our time accepting or rejecting these messages). Most socialization is implicit and exists in the narratives we tell, the ways we treat each other, the ways other people act.

As for the argument that women do not all have the same experiences, it is quite true, but does not prove the non-existence of female socialization. When we say “female socialization,” we’re not saying that all women have experienced the same messages, the same narratives, the same incentives. What we are saying is that all women have been socialized into a certain gender role, and that men have been socialized into a different gender role. While no individual may have been indoctrinated into their gender role completely and totally, the outcomes are predictable: men as a class are more violent, more pedophilic, more sexually entitled, more confident in their ability to reason, more athletic, less caring, less compassionate, less able to deal with unwanted emotions. This is what we mean by socialization.

This reasoning applies to all groups: no one has the exact same experiences, but we don’t use this as an excuse to deny the existence of that group, or of the fact that the members have been socialized or affected in a specific way. As culturallyboundgender points out, we can say the exact same thing about gay people, native people, black people, or rape victims:

There is no shared gay experience. A gay man in Uganda, a lesbian woman in Vancouver–these people have incredibly different experiences of what it means to experience same-sex attraction and love. This does not mean that there is no such thing as gay, or that gay people should be unwelcome to meet without straight people saying “but my parents don’t like my girlfriend and people sometimes called me anti-gay slurs, which is, you must admit, pretty similar to some things that have happened to some of you!”

There is no shared American Indian experience. Some people of American Indian descent grow up on reservations, some don’t. Among both groups, socioeconomic status can vary tremendously. Different American Indian and First Nations groups have very different cultural norms and policies about assimilating into a white-dominated society. It would be ridiculous for someone to say that American Indians should be forced to admit the American Indianhood of anyone who claimed it, simply because they claimed it and there is no universal experience of being an American Indian anyway.

There is no shared black experience. Black kids in the Portland ‘burbs from an upper middle class background and black kids in the Florida panhandle experience very different “black in America” narratives. No one says that a lack of “shared blackness” should make it so anyone who has felt oppressed about their racial role can simply declare themselves black, and thus avail themselves of affirmative action policies designed to redress ongoing racial bias and discrimination against black Americans.

There is no shared rape experience. Rape survivors are a diverse group, including people from every demographic. Some rape victims are infants, some are elderly. Some are violently beaten, others are drugged, others are emotionally coerced. That doesn’t mean that just anyone should be able to claim the status “rape victim,” or use the resources allotted for rape victims in our society.

We do not object to trans women using women’s bathrooms because we are bigoted or because we are transphobic. We object to it because trans women were socialized as men and have a man’s psychology. We do not object to trans women entering women-only spaces because they have insufficient “womanhood.” We object to it because women must be able to assemble and organize if they are to liberate themselves, and having men invade those spaces will inevitably render them useless (of course, that is the clear objective of those transgender advocates who are anti-feminists).

The denial of the existence of women as a class is an attempt at erasing women’s accomplishments and feminist ideals. Not just in the way that some FETAs have started claiming historical women as “genderqueer” or “trans men,” but in the way that they are setting themselves up as an alternative form of genderism, and therefore as an alternative way to justify the oppression of women. This is nothing new for women, whose contributions have been erased for thousands of years and continue to be erased in our modern times (just look, for instance, at all the female scientists whose works were stolen by men, the women whose domestic and reproductive labor doesn’t count as “real” work, the female artists whose work is ignored, belittled, or who have to become sex objects in order to succeed, to name only those). The fact that this new erasure is taking place with the enthusiastic support of so-called leftists is only slightly more troubling.

Should we use personalized pronouns?

A big trend amongst the “genderqueer” and other supertrendy “gender is a performance” people is to push personalized pronouns. There are a great number of such pronouns, from the obvious “it” to “ze, “xe,” “thae,” and so on. There are also animal-themed pronouns, mythical-themed pronouns, royal-themed pronouns, and so on and so forth.

It’s easy to make fun of all this. Who speaks like this except a bunch of teenagers on tumblr who want to feel special? To have personalized pronouns is to force other people to remember your personal preferences. It’s an imposition on someone’s else attention and time. It’s a selfish demand on other people.

Now I know some people will argue that you should be respectful of others. I have no qualms with that proposition. I do think we should respect others. Political Correctness, for example, aims to respect others. We shouldn’t go around saying “bitch” or “nigger” because those words are established as demeaning or offensive words when used against women and black people (note that I said they were offensive, not that they offended people: whether anyone is offended or not is besides the point). We shouldn’t go around gratuitously demeaning people just because they are different from us. This is just common sense.

But where do pronouns factor into it? Obviously we can misgender as a way to demean someone: as telling a man that he is woman-like is the greatest insult one can utter, using feminine words or pronouns to a man can be seen as a provocation. Women can also be punished for their feminism or gender-rebellion by being called a man. This, however, rarely entails using the wrong pronouns, at least in my experience.

Calling a man a she or calling a woman a he can be an honest mistake (if one does not know that person and their personal appearance is ambiguous) or it can be a personal attack. But is it a personal attack to call someone the appropriate pronoun, because they demand that you use a different, made-up one?

I don’t see how it could be. Certainly the other person is free to be irritated at you. If a person asks to be called by a different name than their original one, and you keep calling them their original name, they may very well be irritated about it, but there’s nothing disrespectful about it. Living in a place where people speak English, I prefer when people can say my name right, but most people can’t, and that’s fine. Even when they get it hilariously wrong, I’m not too beaten up about it. It’s not a personal attack. Calling someone their actual gender is not a personal attack, it’s a statement of fact.

Then there are people who actually do have dysphoria and who have wrestled with their gender identity for a long time. The voices of those people get lost in the sea of wannabes, pretenders, and egoists. And I think that’s a very regrettable thing. Because those people deserve more attention and encouragement. Actual gender rebels are constantly under attack in our societies and the fact that so many genderists pretend to be gender rebels just takes attention away from the good people.

It may seem obtuse for someone who is against gender, like me, to denote gender with pronouns. When gender is unknown or abstract, I use ey and em, or they and them. The former has a tendency to confuse readers, and the latter is obnoxious because it looks plural. The obvious solution is to use “it,” which I use to clearly identify cases where using gendered pronouns is grossly inappropriate, but people greatly prefer “he”/”she” to “it”. There’s no good solution here. And in cases where there’s no good solution, I can’t recommend one solution above any others. It would be nice if we only had neutral pronouns, but that’s not the language we’re using (at least English does not go overboard with gendered words, unlike Romance languages like French or Spanish).

What about transgender people and their pronouns? That’s another issue altogether, because in this case it’s not simply an issue of personal taste. Transgender people actually claim to be of the opposite gender, and that therefore not calling them the “correct” pronoun is a form of profound disrespect (at best). Transmen should be called “he,” and transwomen should be called “she,” according to this ideology.

This goes back to the concept that gender is performance. If you agree with that statement, then you may believe that their position makes sense. If a transwoman is performing womanhood well enough, either through following stereotyped clothing, mannerisms, and makeup, or through biological mutilation, we should call them “she.” If a transman is performing manhood well enough, we should call them “he.”

But gender is not just performance. Gender is a hierarchy, based on the oppression of half the population against the other half. This hierarchy is maintained through socialization. Men are men because they have been socialized as men, and women are women because they have been socialized as women, each to fulfill their assigned roles by looking, acting and thinking in accordance with existing gender standards. To call a transwoman “she” is to ignore the fact that they were born male, assigned men as gender, socialized to be men, and reaped the benefit of manhood up to that point.

Look for instance at Caitlyn Jenner (if you have to). They became famous for winning at an Olympic sport which is not even open to women. And now they’re a woman? A little hypocrite, don’t you think? My point being, Jenner was socialized as a man and received the benefits of manhood for all their life. This fact was not contradicted by their later “transformation.”

Dressing differently, acting differently, thinking differently, or getting your genitals mutilated, do not turn a man into a woman. A man of 65 years old cannot become a woman, no matter what they do. So why should we call them “she”? A man is a man. They should be called a “he,” not a “she.”

Use by men of feminine pronouns conceal the masculine privilege bestowed upon them by virtue of having been placed in and brought up in the male sex caste. If men are addressed as ‘she’, then all this privilege, which affects their speaking position and may be crucial to their choice to be ‘women’ in the first place, is disappeared.

Sheila Jeffreys

Even if gender is performance, it still doesn’t make much sense. If gender is performance, and you have to tell people what gender you are, then maybe your performance indicates that you are not the gender you claim to be, or maybe you’re not performing very well. In either case, dictating gender pronouns would seem self-defeating.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that transgender people deserve to be called by a pronoun they do not like simply because they are not womanly or manly enough. I don’t believe in gender performance, because it’s all stereotypes anyway. It’s not based on any kind of reality. What I am saying is that, insofar as gender is real (as a social construct or, as they believe, as a performance), then the demands by transgender people to address them by their preferred pronouns doesn’t make much sense.

There is something to be said about trying to keep the peace with transgender people by indulging their choice of pronouns. As I’ve said before, transgender people are not the enemy. They are, by and large, innocent people who got trapped into an ideology of hate. It is the hate peddlers, the advocates of transgenderism, who are our enemies.

Does “transgender” make any more sense than “transracial”?

The case of Rachel Dolezal has put the concept of “transracial” at the forefront of people’s imaginations. Almost everyone has rejected it with laughter or disgust. It seems absurd to people that a person could claim to be of one race while actually being another. She has been quickly associated with blackface and minstrel shows for her behavior.

Self-identification was clearly rejected in this case: people do not care at all if she claims to “really” be a black person. But this is strange given that self-identification is the banner of the liberals, their rock. Where are all the liberals defending Dolezal’s “agency”? Why do they defend transgender people but not transracial people? Try as I may, I can’t come up with any other, non-circular, answer to that question than: because explicit racism is no longer acceptable, but explicit sexism still is. They care about black people’s integrity but they don’t give a shit about women’s integrity.

The challenge that this case has issued to trans theory is this: if a transracial person self-identifies as a different race, and a transgender person self-identifies as a different gender, and this is the only relevant fact in both cases, then why should we treat the latter any differently than the former? Why aren’t liberals treating transgender people like bigots and ridiculous clowns like they did Dolezal? Or treating transracial people with the respect they give transgender people, as in this satirical article?

Is it that race is somehow more “real” than gender? No, they are both social constructs. Although they are both constructed partially on the basis of biological observations, there is no biological reality behind either of these concepts: there is no more scientific evidence for the proposition that people of African descent are inherently lazy or violent than there is for the proposition that female humans are inherently emotional or bad at mathematics.

A trans theorist may argue that it’s sex we should be talking about, not gender, and that sex is a social construct. I’ve already debunked this latter brand of nonsense. In a great entry, Jonah Mix argued that self-identification makes even less sense for sex than it does for race. There are many more races than there are sexes, and there are far many more “biracial” people than intersex people; these are the two main criteria that trans theorists use to argue that sex is a construct and that we should respect people’s self-identification, and yet race fills the profile much more than sex.

I will add that you could replace “sex” with “gender” and still arrive at the same result. There are more races than there are genders (liberal make-believe genders notwithstanding), and there are far more “biracial” people than transgender people or non-binary genders from other cultures.

Is it that transwomen are “really” women “deep down” in their brain? I reject this position, because there’s no such thing as “being a woman” or “being a man” apart from the society that imposes it. I don’t dispute that some of these people have a very real issue (body dysphoria). At least, I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. But why should we not also give the benefit of the doubt to Dolezal? Or does the concept of “body dysphoria” only extend to the genitals? That’s a pretty limited “body.” Why can’t Dolezal feel “deep down” that she’s really a black person?

The concept seems absurd, because it assumes that there is a “real race” in your brain somewhere that is dissociated from your ethnicity and actual body, disconnected from the reality of who they are. But that’s also what liberals say about transwomen (just replace “ethnicity” with “sex” and “race” with “gender”).

A long time ago, long before Rachel Dolezal, a kerfluffle was happening on tumblr about people (probably anti-SJW trolls, now that I think about it) identifying as trans-racial. Tumblr was up in arms about the issue, and I remember one post (probably long lost at this point) explaining how identifying as trans-racial was problematic because a white person hasn’t had the same lived experiences as a POC. “Yeah!” I said, “A white person hasn’t grown up experiencing racism! And besides, it’s really racist to say, ‘I like rap music and soul food, so I must be black’!”

But then I followed that line of thought. A trans woman hasn’t had the same lived experiences as a cis woman, I thought. She didn’t grow up experiencing misogyny. And isn’t it kind of sexist to say, “I like make-up and dresses, so I must be a woman”?

Trans theory is profoundly sexist, in that it reinforces genderist stereotypes (a child who loves pink must be a girl, a child who likes sports must be a boy, and so on) and demands that people self-identify as their “real gender.” This seems to be very hard for liberals to understand. However, they have no problem understanding how Dolezal “feeling black” on the basis of her liking of black culture and social activism (things which are much less offensive than the reasons behind men becoming transwomen) is racist.

Liberals are moral cowards who are perfectly willing to stab women in the back for the benefit of violent, entitled men. We already know this. The fact that they are not insane enough to believe in transracialism proves the sexist nature of their duplicity.

What the fuck is “gender equality”?

If you’re at all interested in feminism on the Internet, you know that a lot of people equate feminism with “gender equality.” They point to things like unequal pay, discrimination in employment and sexual harassment to argue that what we need is more equality between men and women.

This of course is a surprising statement to those of us who think that feminism is about, you know, identifying the source of women’s oppression and bringing it to light, cure the disease, not just treat the most superficial wounds.

And then we are told that we are supposed to “respect their position” because they are women, all women have the right to define themselves however they want, and we have the duty to buy it wholesale.

But even if we accept the whole “gender equality” concept, it still elicits a lot of questions. For one thing, which men should women be equal with? Each gender contains its own gradations: a gay man is “less of a man” than a heterosexual man, a prude is “less of a man” than a sexually active man, a frail or weak man is “less of a man” than a strong, muscular man, and so on. For every attribute of masculinity there are men who fulfill it more or less, and they are “more or less of a man.”

So if we have gender equality, which women would be equal to which men? Would a lesbian be equal to a gay man, or to a heterosexual man? Would a butch woman be equal to a bodybuilder dude, or to an effeminate man?

There’s a [problem] with the equality definition. Even if we could figure out which men are the ones to whom women should be equal, that way of putting it suggests that the point of feminism is somehow to get women to measure up to what (at least some) men already are. Men remain the point of reference; theirs are the lives that women would naturally want. If the first problem with the equality definition is “Equal to which men?” the second problem could be put as “Why equal to any men?”

Of course these questions are stupid. And in issues like equal pay or harassment, we just want everyone to be paid and treated the same. There are no gender considerations there. So they are not issues of “gender equality” at all, but issues of “equality,” period.

By definition there can be no such thing as “gender equality” because gender is a construct which divides human beings into a hierarchy where men are superior and women are inferior. Gender means, by its very nature, inequality, and that’s the function it serves in society: to classify human beings into two categories, one which is active, aggressive, empowered, and another which is passive, surrendering and disempowered. There are only two options: genderism (inequality) or anti-genderism (equality).

Likewise, there can be no such thing as “racial equality,” “status equality,” “worker-boss equality” or “child-parent equality.” Any term that implies hierarchy is incompatible with equality, because by definition a hierarchy has superiors and inferiors, with directed control flowing downwards.

Some people may be goofing by using such a term as “gender equality” when they really just mean equality between all individuals. But then why add the word “gender”? This seems to serve no purpose apart from associating whatever cause you’re advocating with feminism. If you advocate for equality, well, that could mean a lot of things. But if you advocate for “gender equality,” then you’re a great feminist oh my god have all the cookies.

The “equal rights” definition of feminism basically tells men that they can be feminist without ever changing their behaviour or the way they think about women. Ending sexual assault (and patriarchy!) is going to take an actual change in behaviour and social norms. And that’s probably going to feel a little “uncomfortable.”

Another term I don’t like is that of gender as performance. I posted this Judith Butler video last year, and Heretic made a good point in the comments about the flaws of this idea of gender as performative.

But just take the idea completely at face value for a minute. Gender is performance… performance of what? Not of gender, as that would be circular. A performance is based on some template, some script, some role which must be imitated. So what’s the template?

If you incorporate the FETA concept of “innate gender identity,” then it all makes sense. Gender is performance of something we know deep down, of an ingrained behavior pattern that we must follow in order to be happy, said behavior pattern just happening to coincide with our society’s description of one or the other gender. And, get this, every single person’s behavior pattern happens to fit into a gender (however many there are) that exists in their culture, too. How utterly amazing.

So gender as performance seems to me to be closely allied with the FETA concept of “innate gender,” and therefore ultimately reflective of female exclusion.

If gender was performance, then there would be a way to perform that didn’t result in rape for women. But men rape housewives. Men rape butch lesbians. Men rape quiet women in dresses and lipstick. Men rape snarling punks in leather jackets and safety pins. Men rape every type of woman. There is no way for a woman to be that doesn’t risk rape. There is no way to perform that lets women escape the confines of gender because gender is not performance; it’s the designator of who can rape – us, the people called men – and who can be raped – them, the people called women. Performance has nothing to do with it.

FETAs accusing radfems of essentialism: the ultimate trans projection.

I’ve already shown how FETAs rely massively on projections to defend their transgender ideology. There is, however, one projection that stands above all others for its sheer irrationality: the accusation that radical feminists are essentialists.

Essentialism as applied to human beings refers to the belief that there are fixed attributes of individuals (such as gender, race or ethnicity) which are the “essence” of an individual and dictate behavior (e.g. gender roles, racial stereotypes). This is contrasted with constructionism, the belief that these attributes are social constructs and are not the “essence” of an individual.

FETAs believe that gender is innate and biological sex is a social construct. To be more exact, this is the conclusion they have to uphold in order to maintain their rationalization. They have to believe that there is such a thing as an “innate gender” which dictates how a person thinks and acts in order to make sense of the proposition that a person’s gender is whatever they believe.

And if there is “innate gender” then biology must be swept under the rug. This is why FETAs are also science denialists: they must deny the facts of biology at all costs, and they do so by calling people who uphold those facts of biology “essentialists.” As we’ll see, they use this attack blindly, without actually understanding what essentialism is.

FETAs are essentialists because they believe that an “innate gender” dictates how a person acts, i.e. whether they conform to the man gender stereotype or the woman gender stereotype. That’s why their accusation is a projection: they seek to accuse their opponents of what they’re doing.

Radfems are against essentialism: the radfem position about gender is that gender is a prison, and that neither gender nor sex should imply anything about people’s behavior. Essentialism is a form of authoritarianism, and FETAs are authoritarian supporters (for more on FETA essentialism and radfem anti-essentialism, see this great entry by Women of the Patriarchy).

Cathy Brennan expresses the radfem opposition to sex essentialism in this quote:

What are the behaviors and roles considered appropriate for one’s sex?

If you are a Feminist (even a Liberal Feminist or a Fun Feminist), the answer to this should be “There are no behaviors and roles considered appropriate for my sex because Females can be and do anything.”

So FETAs have to wrangle essentialism from an explicitly and adamantly anti-essentialist position. What kind of mental contortions are necessary for such a pseudo-intellectual magic trick?

This entry from Transadvocate is a good starting point for analysis because it purports to be a very sophisticated attack against radfems on essentialism. Advocates of irrational worldviews trip themselves up when they start talking too much, and this is no exception.

The entry starts with a constructionist quote from Monique Wittig, who was a radical lesbian (precisely the kind of women that FETAs hate with a passion that borders on insanity), discussing how sexual difference leads to the domination of women, and how that domination is portrayed as natural. But the author, Cristan Williams, seems to have confused this radical understanding of sex (as the difference on which oppression of women is based) with the belief that sexing people itself is oppression.

If you strip the pedantic language, this confusion is the same rationalization that many FETAs use to equate radfems with conservatives: conservatives believe in sexual difference, radfems believe in sexual difference, therefore radfems and conservatives have the same agenda.

What they don’t want to discuss is that conservatives believe in sexual difference as the valid (natural) basis for gender (as the Wittig quote illustrates), while radfems acknowledge that sexual difference is the source of the (constructed) oppression of women. Conservatives (and FETAs) hate women and want to keep them enslaved to gender roles, while radfems want to free all women from gender.

You see this equation of radfems with conservatives, with prudes, with moralizers (or even rapists), all over the place. What they want you to believe is simple: anyone who fights for women is just as bad as the people who hate women, anyone who tries to defend women’s freedom is just as bad as the people who want to exploit women. Above all else, they desperately want you to not confront anything and just accept FETA and liberal subjectivist claims as absolute (as bizarre as that sounds).

Williams then directly equates the truth that sex is used to justify gender oppression as natural with the FETA belief that sex does not exist, quoting one Sandy Stone:

What I am saying is that one of the ways that people justify oppressing people of any alternative gender or sexuality is by saying that the social norm is natural. That is, it originates in the authority of Nature itself. In other words, it comes from god, an authority to which to appeal. All of this is, in fact, a complete fabrication, a construction. There is no ‘natural‘ sex, because ‘sex’ itself as a medical or cultural category is nothing more the momentary outcome of battles over who owns the meanings of the category.

Sex is a basic biological concept, and it is natural. Now, as I’ve discussed before, sex is a human concept and, like all human concepts, it is subject to reframing. The issue therefore is not “is sex a transcendent term?” because there’s no such thing. The issue is “does sex actually exist?” and the answer to that is yes. To deny this is just plain science denialism, and believing sex does not exist is no more rational than believing in Creationism or free energy.

While much of the rest of the feminist world is confronting both the causes and effects of oppression, TERFs spend a significant amount of time and energy in preserving, supporting and appealing to a binary sexed body system constitutionally incapable of working with concepts like cis, trans, gender queer, agender, intersex as it relates to reality of human bodies because such views of humanity are supplanted by the asserted preeminence of an ad naturam binary sexed essence.

Radfems are very much concerned with sex, because understanding sex is the basis for analyzing the gender binary. People are assigned gender roles on the basis of their biological differences. The terms “cis” and “trans” cannot lead to any understanding of the gender binary, because they assume a non-existing “gender identity” which is natural and unquestionable. This “gender identity” forms the basis of FETA woman-hatred.

As for the bizarre belief that radfems cannot understand terms like “agender” or “intersex,” I have no idea where that comes from. This is probably an attempt to portray radfems as old hat, passé, a dying breed, and ignorant of anything FETAs consider to be on the “cutting edge” of gender theory.

Phenotype is the physical manifestation of a person. When we hear an anti-trans troll assert that because what is taken to be an acceptably long phallus was discovered at birth, a male sex was established and therefore cannot be changed, they are appealing to a fallaciously constructed concept of phenotype permanence. If a baby is born with a phallus – the phallus being the “essence” of a man – the person is said to have been born a man.

Now Williams degenerates into simple lying. Radfems do not state that a person was “born a man,” let alone on the basis of a penis. No one is “born a man” or “born a woman” (despite the FETA belief in “innate gender”). The labels “man” and “woman” are assigned at birth on the basis of sexual difference, but these terms have no realities apart from the social context. A baby cannot be a man or a woman because it is not yet located within the social context. A person becomes a man or a woman because they are socialized as a man or socialized as a woman.

The phallus is not the “essence of a man.” A man does not act “like a man” because he has a phallus. A man acts “like a man” because he was socialized as a man. The penis is only relevant because it is one of the signs of the male sex, which is then used to assign gender.

The trouble for FETAs is that they must deny the existence of socialization at all costs, because it directly contradicts their religious belief in “innate gender.” They will either deny that socialization happens or deny that it happened to them.

What radfems do say about phenotype is that penises are male. Again, this is a biological fact and denying it is science denialism. FETAs believe that if they imitate the penis with their own flesh, they can become men. But having a penis, or a simulated penis, does not make one a man.

Now, there’s a lot of whining and poisoning the well in these sections. For example, the section “Critiquing the trans essence argument” is mostly one long attempt to portray radfem arguments as silly (calling it a “caricature,” fallacious, hypocrisy, cruel, and so on), but Williams doesn’t explain why it is silly. There is very little attempt at a “critique” here.

The meat of the critique, instead, seems to be in the section “Trans: the non-essenced experience”:

There is no gendered essence haunting the brains of trans women, forcing us to like pink, and gender identity doesn’t just mean social identity.

So here Williams seems to be specifically addressing the issue of FETAs being essentialists. Let’s see what she has to say in response:

When trans people talk about “gender identity” we can be talking about:

A: One’s subjective experience of one’s own sexed attributes;

B: One’s culturally influenced sex identification within the context of a social grouping; or,

C: Both A and B

TERFs like to pretend that “gender identity” only ever means the penultimate Category B because the former and latter deviates from the trans-experience-as-Dualism argument – an anathema for TERFs.

This is one point on which I agree with Williams: the concept that they designate as “gender identity” is purely subjective and culturally constructed, and has no biological reality. But for FETAs to use gender as a replacement for sex, gender has to be innate and immutable.

If that was the extent of “gender identity” for FETAs, then there would be no debate at all, because it makes no claim about reality. It is because FETAs make claims about reality that there is a debate. FETAs claim that sex does not exist, FETAs claims that a person who was socialized man can actually be a woman (and vice-versa), FETAs claim that penises and vaginas are not sexed organs. These are false claims about reality that are important in undermining feminist thought, and they all rely on “innate gender identity” as their support.

Williams then mentions socialization, which is rather surprising in a FETA article since, as I mentioned before, it’s the elephant in the room insofar as their worldview is concerned. But she’s only bringing it up to score a point:

For the TERF, socialization can act as the essential sexed essence stand-in that confers male or female binary status upon the body and as such, it is perfectly acceptable to appeal to it.

But this is a lack of understanding of what essentialism is. An essentialist is someone who believes that there’s something innate in the individual, something in their nature, that dictates their behavior, and socialization is not innate. Therefore it cannot be a “sexed essence stand-in.” All it means is that being socialized into any social construct (such as religion, race or gender) molds people’s behavior. This is an obvious fact. Williams doesn’t even try to address this (rightly, since trying to refute it would just be ridiculous), which is why I say she only brought it up to score a point.

Simply expressed, the role of sex in the genderist mind is to validate and naturalize gender, i.e. behavioral expectations or prescriptions. This is not how radfems talk about socialization: they do not claim that being socialized as a man validates and naturalizes men’s aggression against women, quite the contrary. They are very keenly aware that gender, like any other form of socialization, can be unlearned, something which cannot happen in the essentialist schemas of the genderist and the FETA.

For socialization in a person to be a stand-in for essence, it would have to be, in a meaningful way, part of who the person is. But “being a man” or “being a woman” is not a meaningful identification for many people (including most radfems), not because they are “trans” or “genderqueer” (nonsense concepts in themselves), but because they acknowledge that they were socialized into gender and that it’s not part of who they are.

One last point. Keep in mind that she argued that gender identity is not innate in this very same section when you read this:

Maybe at some point in the future it will become an undisputed scientific fact that trans people experience our bodies in the way that we do as a result of some neurological structure that is triggered due to some genetic/epigenetic causality, but, regardless, the point is that for many trans folk throughout the world, transition is about addressing the way we experience our bodies.

But this directly contradicts her earlier claim. If she believes it is possible for gender identity to be innate, then it cannot be a subjective or cultural construct. She glosses over this with a “regardless,” not realizing the enormity of what she’s just said. That seems to be the one constant of this article: lots of glossing over or gliding over major points of contention, and obsessing over little details meant to portray radfem arguments negatively.

It was hard for me to get through Williams’ article because it is permeated with crass ignorance and arrogance, a pathetic combination. These are the extremities to which a person trapped in an irrational ideology have to resort in order to look credible.

Parents policing each other.

I’ve posted this story before, but I think it deserves more examination. Not from the angle of gender, but from the angle of childism: if you look at it from that angle, there’s some interesting things going on here.

Most salient is the fact that the childist enforcement was done by parents to other parents, and the children were not involved at all. That is to say, the hostile parents did not blame the child for wanting to wear the dress, they blamed the parents of the child for letting him wear the dress.

This point makes sense if you remember that, in the childist perspective, children’s values are irrelevant; in that context, it would make no more sense to blame a child for wanting to wear a dress (and breaking gender rules by doing so) than it would to blame one tree for shading another. The parents, being responsible for raising their children “right,” are responsible for keeping the child in line within its gender role.

Obviously parents put pressure on their children to conform, but the desire to do this comes not only from the parents’ own gender indoctrination, but also from the desire to have “well-behaved children” and the fear of being seen as “bad parents.” What you have to keep in mind (given my antinatalist position, I assume my readers are probably not parents) is that parenting is a highly social activity. Parents pretty much have to cooperate with other parents, and in doing so they judge, and are judged by, the other parents.

Parents also perceive the behavior of other parents out in the world and judge them for letting their children “run amok.” So they don’t want their own children to “run amok.” In short, parents evaluate how well they are doing by judging how well other parents are doing, and they do so by looking at how “well-behaved” the children are.

Note how masculinity factors into it: the father was blamed for being emasculated because he didn’t “put his foot down” in this situation and enforced gender roles on his “son.” As the father, he is expected to stand up for his “son” and raise him right, just as mothers are expected to keep her “daughters” in line and are the primary enforcers of gynocidal measures. In folk psychology, people talk about how “boys” need “father figures”: I think this is part of the same belief.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that the whole “men are irresponsible” principle completely goes to the wayside where gender enforcement is concerned. Then the father is supposed to be responsible.

Now you might say that all of this does not apply to the parents in this story since, after all, they let their “son” wear a dress. I don’t know anything else about the parents in question, so I can’t really judge their behavior. I’m talking about general principles, not this specific case. It may very well be that these parents are part of the group of parents who futilely try to raise their children without gender roles (although the fact that they identify it as “son” seems to contradict that).

For most parents, raising a child is all about them, and in having children they are fulfilling their needs, not those of the child. They enforce gender not for the child’s sake but for their sake: because they don’t want to lose face, because they want a “normal” child, because they want their progeny to reproduce in turn.

The mainstream childist attitude is that either the parents or the media are the primary influence on their children. Here is an example:

There are a number of problems with this, the most prominent being that it’s a false dichotomy. Parents and the corporate world (including the mass media) are always both involved in a child’s upbringing, if a child is to exist in society at all. But the role of such arguments is to justify and reinforce the parental claim of property: without it, we might as well just let anyone raise our children, so the story goes. But this is mindless nonsense, especially given how bad parents usually are at child-raising.

Gender indoctrination accompanies a whole host of thought control guidelines used against children. I’ve previously named three:

* The child must appear “normal.”
* The child must be ready to compete against their peers, either as students or as workers.
* The child must be “intelligent” and competent.

The difference, I think, is that the above guidelines serve a verifiable purpose (so the child can be “successful”) and therefore can be shown to be wrong-headed. Gender indoctrination, on the other hand, has no further aim beyond enforcing gender: as long as a person follows the dictates of his or her gender, the indoctrination “worked.” But since gender indoctrination is perpetuated not only by the parents but by the child’s whole environment, one can hardly say that parenting was the cause of this “success.”

The layers of rationalization for prejudice.

In this entry, I gave a series of stages which, I’ve now realized, represent the layers of rationalizations that support prejudice. These layers are not the same for each prejudice, though. In the case of gender, I presented the following five layers:

1. Gender is innate.
2. Gender is so ingrained in the fabric of society that it cannot be eliminated.
3. Gender can be abolished, but the results would be catastrophic.
4. Gender can be abolished, but it would destroy individuality.
5. Abolishing gender is bigoted because it would go against people’s self-identification.

I think you could make the case that replacing gender with race would yield a pretty accurate account of racism, except for point 5 (or at least, we haven’t gone to the insanity of self-identifying as other races yet). But in this case there are notions of ethnicity and culture complicating the picture, and this mono-concept list can’t convey that.

In general, we can say that there are levels of justifications that exist in all prejudices: first the biological level, then the social level, then the individual level; bigots will argue first that their prejudice is a biological fact (an innate property of the individual), then that it is necessary for society to function, then that it exists for the individuals’ benefit. Before the intellectual impact of the Renaissance, religious dogma would have been the first step (“God made women to serve men,” “God created the black race as a curse”).

[M]ost people are susceptible to the argument that if a difference between men and women has a biological basis, it is inevitable (‘you can’t argue with nature’), desirable (‘what’s natural is good’), and the world should be organized around it.

Deborah Cameron, The Myth of Mars and Venus

These levels are not separate and individualized: they form a self-reinforcing network of justifications.

Take the example of genderism again. As a form of linear logic, the belief that women are inherently passive, emotional and caring leads to the belief that society is best organized along gender lines with men being the leaders and women being nurturers. This belief, in turn, leads to the belief that women are better off when they follow instead of lead, when they have lower-paying nurturing jobs, when they busy themselves with children. It also leads to the secondary benefits of women subordinating themselves (e.g. they don’t have to succeed, they are supported by a husband, they are admired for their beauty, and so on and so nauseatingly forth).

But the logic also flows in the reverse fashion. When a man observes a woman who follows her gender role, runs a “successful” family (the large family being of course the end point of genderism, the black hole where all individuality is absorbed), and seems to live a happy life, he therefore concludes that society is better off when men and women follow these gender roles, and that there must be something innate in men and women to make them happy in these roles.

Racism follows the same linear logic. The belief that black people are inherently deficient in intellect and inherently violent leads to the belief in physical and intellectual ghettoisation (and its moneyed cousin, gentrification), which leads to the belief that it is right for black people to be underemployed and underpaid, overrepresented in prisons, brutalized by police, executed, and so on, that this inequality is the result of individual (innate) flaws and not of systemic capitalist oppression.

Likewise, any instance of a black person being brutalized by police serves as “evidence” (because of the belief in obedience) that black people deserve to be treated as second-class citizens, and this must be because they have some innate moral deficiency.

I have previously highlighted three main lines of rationalization for childism:

1. Children are not physically developed, therefore they are not mentally developed and are incapable of moral reasoning, decision-making, figuring out what’s true and what’s not, and so on.

2. Children are dependent on adults for their survival, therefore children are inferior, therefore children must be controlled for their own good.

3. Children are inherently gullible and believe anything their parents say, because evolution made them that way.

Each of these rationalizations can easily be translated into layers of rationalization:

Biological necessity: Children are not mentally developed/ Children are dependent on adults for their survival/ Children are inherently gullible.

Social necessity: We must have a system whereby children are under the control of some (arbitrary) adults.

Individual necessity: Children will thereby be taught how to become moral agents/ Children will develop “correctly”/ Children will be taught the “correct” beliefs (whatever these are supposed to be).

Because there have been no widespread criticism of these claims, we are still at a stage similar to that time when everyone accepted the claim that women were made by God to serve men, or when the belief that black people had inferior craniums and were best served by slavery was accepted in slave countries. Although there are movements against schooling, and there are laws against physical violence committed by parents, childism has not yet been put into question.

If emancipation can be defined, dixit George Fredrickson in Racism: A Short History, as “the process of elevating the civil and political status of an entire ethnic or racial group from legal inferiority to equal citizenship,” then emancipation takes a whole new meaning in childism (even though children are not an ethnic or racial group, they are a discriminated group), not simply to be reserved for individual children: children as a dispossessed class need to be emancipated, given equal citizenship, but this will not be possible until they are first given equal humanity.

The natural sort of attack to make on these rationalizations is to argue that the so-called biological necessity is quackery, based on the flimsiest pretense of science. Certainly this was a fruitful line of attack against pseudo-sciences like anthropometry, IQ racism, sociobiology, and against our current enemies, evolutionary psychology and innate (brain) gender.

However, the layer model points to the fact that there are many possible vectors of attack, not just one. We know this is true because people have testified that knowing gay people have changed their opinions about homosexuality. I don’t know what influence this really had on gay rights, but it doesn’t seem negligeable. Seeing the evidence that women, POC or gay people can be better than the dominant classes can be as salient as the rejection of biological necessity.

The problem for childism is that children are virtually never encountered in a context without control. We almost always see children when they are either under the direct control of their parents (or guardians) or teachers. Prejudice against children and women shares one crucial property: the victims generally live with their oppressors, although there are many more single women or lesbian couples than there are emancipated children.

This is especially problematic because individuals from oppressed groups need independent safe spaces in order to first become aware of their status as a class, and then to develop theories and solutions about their oppression. Without this process, oppression remains normalized and there can be no systemic understanding of its nature.