The TERFs were right... again

You should listen to us

The cultural phenomenon of “woke” has been analysed to death by popular podcasters citing all kinds of fun historical figures who are responsible for theories about this or that. The “where did it come from?” question has ruminated around those of us who like to comment in the intersection of culture and politics. 

The idea for some, is that if we find the historical brew of ideas, we can take them out and execute them in the public square. Foucault has been hanging from the tree for a while as has Marx of course and the Frankfurt School. While discarding traditional western political analysis, the podcast bros seek Jungian enlightenment from such modern gurus as Jordan Peterson, and cool anti-establishment vibes from the king of the podcast bros, Joe Rogan.

But as far as a research team go, the bros are not always on point. In contrast, many of the women connected with the gender critical feminist world have been researching the origins of gender identity and its harms to women and girls for decades.  Many women currently track the way Gender Identity (GI) is infecting institutions and causing harm to women and girls.  

The women who have been labelled (incorrectly mostly) Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists have been growing steadily in numbers in the three years since I got mixed up with the “TERFs”.  The body of work into gender identity that exists in gender critical women’s rights movement is extensive, and it is a surprise to me that anyone would discount our input on anything to do with trans issues. The TERFs you will find, are right about everything to do with GI and trans ideology.

Although GI critical women’s rights activists have always had a reasonable relationship with the centre and right, there has long been a tension with feminists and the “anti-woke” types. I think the problem is market driven. There is a special fire ignited in the audience of the centre right when a feminist is being roasted. Feminism, unsurprising enough, remains unpopular with men.

There are also areas of disagreements with anti-feminist types including pornography, surrogacy, drag and apparently trans identified men who know they are men.

Some in the centre have decided to express their distress about the vocal rabble that are GI critical feminists, by highlighting how terribly unkind such feminists are to men who know they are men, but wear pretty dresses and take on AGP names like Debbie or Julia.

Julia Malott was introduced to the gender critical feminists by Genspect on X last year, and it is fair to say, he did not get a standing ovation from the ladies.  Centrists Chantel Pfahl, Leslie Boyce and Christina Buttons all praised Malott in the face of what Pfahl called “hate” being directed towards Malott. The philosophical approach of the centre that lacks any solid political or moral anchor, has led them into the allure of the “true trans” psychotherapy nonsense.  We are hearing formerly very rational centrists argue that the use of feminine clothing by AGP men is merely a form of normal male feminine expression, like we may have seen with Prince.

With this kind of humanist postmodernism being spouted as philosophical liberalism by the podcasting centrists, we seem to be seeing a shoehorn phenomenon in the reactionary aesthetics of anti-woke, where their arguments are becoming indistinguishable from the woke in their desire to silence gender critical feminists as haters and Nazis.

Julia Malott was being vehemently defended by the centre, in an attempt to casts the feminists as people who had politics ground in “disgust”. It didn’t matter how much we referenced experts in our section of the political world, that map the pornographic and financial origins of particular types of trans identity, and how much we pointed to how harmful that the normalisation of AGP is to women and girls, we got a stern lecture from our centrist friends on how our analysis was actual violence towards men who were just trying to get on their life as “transwomen”.

Had the centrists left the GI critical women to make criticism in line with the feminist analysis that they specialise in, they wouldn’t all be looking like dodgy creeps today as it becomes blindingly obvious that their best “feminine presenting” bloke is hell bend on green lighting the use of babies in the sick fetishes that grown men perform in public. A video of Malott is going around X today, where he is calling people who object to men breastfeeding “transphobic”. He goes on to say that “plenty of biological women make bad choices with breastfeeding and we allow them to do this”

The remarks by Malott have been made in the wake of the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust issuing guidance that “breast milk from transgender women is just as good as that produced by a mother who has given birth”. All sane people know that the guidance is an indication of how captured the NHS is by GI infected consultancy organisations.

It is well known that heterosexual trans identifying men, overwhelmingly have a sexual element to the motivation to identify as trans. Fetishes are known to be object orientated sexual obsessions that can escalate, and often thrive, on boundary crossing.  The boundaries that are crossed in men’s sexual fetishes are almost always those of women and children.

GI critical feminists have long had reasonable arguments about why breastfeeding should not be attempted by men. Three years ago I wrote about the issue in The Spectator OZ and I don’t even think I realised I was a TERF. I used my own feminist education and classic liberal thought to come to the obvious conclusion that the Australian Breastfeeding Association was going the wrong way in accepting “chestfeeding” men in their purview.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/05/on-chestfeeding/

Genspect have been feeling the feminist heat again today, and have had to come out with the obvious statement to any sane person, that “babies come first”. The X post went on to say that there “is little evidence to support the safety or efficacy of artificially induced male body lactation, and males are unable to produce anywhere near enough lactate to sustain the calorific needs of an infant. Which begs the question - why is it being considered as a viable method to ensure babies are fed?”

I guess my main point is that the GI critical feminists should be listened to in their area of expertise and that portraying feminists as authoritarian for speaking the truth is a dick move that is undermining the safeguarding of the entire gender critical movement. Stop it please.