So, on the subject of bonkers hyperbolic pretzeling over the Bell judgement, Grace 'destroy books I don't like & make inappropriate jokes about sterilising teenage girls' Lavery has some thoughts.

Tell me why my feminism is wrong Grace.


Well, if anyone thought the Bell judgment was going to make TRAs reconsider making massively overblown claims with no evidence backed up with nothing but a thick wadge of emotional blackmail.... HAHAHA, no one thought that.
A high court in the UK made a delimited judgment about teenager's ability to consent to puberty blockers. This puts all trans people everywhere in the world at risk.

Because if any human anywhere has any thoughts that deviate in any way from the rote line dictated by
the trans rights movement, this puts all trans people everywhere in mortal danger.

Let's be honest Grace. It doesn't put trans people at risk. It puts trans ideology at risk. Because trans ideology depends on the idea of innate gender identity, and the trans child is the
necessary material evidence of the ontology of gender identity.

That is, children are being medicalised to provide evidence to underwrite adults identities.

Nothing to see here.
Always a good move to kick off an essay lecturing women on how you are a better feminist than them by accusing them of being 'illogical.'

Defo establishes you're 'not an MRA credentials' right of the bat.

Followed up with liberal application of 'CRUEL NASTY WIMMINS'

We gonna discuss any of the reasons given for why the court concluded that under 16s couldn't consent to an experimental treatment with very poor clinical evidence and possible long-term effects on fertility, sexual function, cognition, bone-density?
Yeah well, except that almost all children put on puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones, and being on puberty blockers stops the natural cognitive and emotional development which leads to dysphoria resolving in many cases where kids are not medicalised.
Transperbole the second.

1. It's not a juridical 'attack.' It's a judgement. About minor's capacity to consent to an experimental medical treatment.

2. It's not an attack on the whole 'LGBT' community.

3. It's not an attack on the trans community. Unless you consider the
well-being and safety of all trans people depends on minors being given experimental medical treatments.

If you need the existence of trans children to underwrite your identity and it feels like an existential threat for that to be challenged, that's a you problem.
Can I get a 100-quid for every time the high priests/priestesses of 'queer everything normativity is bad subjugated knowledges rah' dismiss us by calling us 'marginal.'

I thought the margins was where the challenge to hegemony comes from? Oh, just not when it's bitches right?
'Patriarchy and the impact of male violence on women doesn't matter because some of them have money' Part 789,098

'We are more vulnerable than those bitches, insert sketchy stats, so fuck their rights give us everything we demand and if you don't...' Part 1,987,265
*Descends into gibberish to get around the blatantly obvious assertion that female ppl exist, have been oppressed on the basis of being female, and have certain political interests that follow from that*

You wouldn't be denying the existence of female people as a class now?
So this is a cool little rhetorical slight of hand.

GCs are at odds with mainstream liberal feminism (true, which means that your 'we're so rad smash the status quo' BS is in fact supported by all the corporate and institutional feminist power and that might tell us something)
and GCs are at odds with *one aspect of one of the founders of radical feminism*.

Yes, Shulie thought that patriarchy arises *directly* from the sex difference and that the only option for women's liberation was to remove the sex difference and make babies in pods.
It wasn't her greatest thought.

It may surprise you to know that a great number of us pretty much ignored that thought, right from the start, because it's, all respect Shulie, I love ya, fucking *bonkers.*
There's a lot of stuff we can say here, about the inability of people to think difference without hierarchy, and how that relates to the difference between 'equality' and 'difference' feminisms.

Radical feminism is simply the belief that sex-based oppression underlies all other
systems of domination.

Some radical feminists are equality feminists, some, many in fact, are difference feminists.

I would wager that the one of the things that links together feminists opposing trans ideology, is that we understand that 'equality' =/= 'sameness.'
And that, furthermore, descending from the Beauvoirian line, we understand that thinking women's liberation in terms of sameness just reproduces the patriarchal structure dominated by the male default.

But please, explain my feminism to me again.
When are you going to grasp that we are precisely *not* regulating 'personhood' or 'identity.'

Women being female is not an 'identity.' It's a material reality. And my 'personhood' is not defined by my being female. THAT IS THE POINT.
All we are doing is asserting that women exist as a sex class in law, and we do not consent to being redefined as a gender class. Which precisely *would* define our 'personhood' on the basis of some patriarchal idea of what being female *means.*
Notice how we slip here from 'this one thing that Shulie said which most radfems ignored' to 'this is what all radical feminists have historically thought so they are not being consistent with their own tradition which of course I know better than them stupid women.'
No, it doesn't.

Any woman who grasps that patriarchy functions by male default/othering women from position of male default/patriarchal projection defining women, can grasp, at a glance, that trans ideology is patriarchy on crack.

And we don't need to read Raymond to get that.
That is, any woman who has read the Second Sex, or whose feminism is informed by the Beauvoirian/difference feminist thought, is going to spot what is happening here a mile fucking off.

The bottom line is, you have the assimilating equality feminist 'let's conform to the male-
default' ppl on your side.

We have the 'fuck this entire system structured around male needs and projections and start over' people on ours.

If you were even slightly honest, you would remember that when hooks named 'white feminism,' she was talking about the first group.
Now we get the 'she said we are being appropriating the evil bitch' classic.

Funny how in contemporary discourse appropriation of an oppressed class is high-treason. Apart from when women say they are being appropriated. Then they're just nasty cows.
"Yes we said that female people don't exist.

No we're not erasing you."
"Yes, I can't think the relation of nature and culture, biology and history, or necessary and sufficient conditions.

This is evidence of my intellectual sophistication."
Then there's a lot of pretzeling bullshit designed to obscure the fact that there is ample evidence that puberty blockers don't work as a pause button but who cares, we're just going to keep saying it.
Once upon a time people of pretty much all political inclinations recognised that destroying people's fertility was a human rights violation, now it's just a 'conservative social project' to care about it.

I guess Grace is okay with the horrors of what ICE has been up to then???
Blah blah right wing conservative Christians blah blah Trump Nazis blah blah.
Hysterical irrational crazy bitches amirite PART FIVE AND A HALF THOUSAND YEARS OF THIS SHIT.
You're right. It's chimerical. Because it is entirely made up by you and your endless fucking projections.
Did I mention projection?

'Trans women are women'
'Trans men are men'
'Non-binary is valid'
'No debate'
'Trans rights are human rights'
'Sex is a spectrum'
'Colonialism invented the gender binary'


Wouldn't do to get through this without slipping in the imputation that they're all genocidal fucking Nazis based on the wilful misreading of that one quote from Raymond now would it?
We're a sex.

It's not complicated.

All the batshit efforts at complicating are yours, and no one would be talking about 'large immobile gametes' had a load of nutbags not tried to convince everyone that no one could identify a female person or tree or a fucking mountain.
No, it's like trying to define a tree by having a trunk and branches and leaves.

And how many times Grace, female people and trees *exist*, their definitions are not *why* they exist, and they will carry on existing regardless. Because not your god mind thank you very much.
Here it is....

'Mu-huh-huh, natural kinds don't exist, only hoi polloi who have not my massive and irrefutable intellectual sophistication think that, silly naive little people, the concept of *construction* is just too much for their limited pedestrian brains to grasp. It
couldn't be that they actually understand better than me that human concepts arise out of the constant interaction between humans and the material world, or see all too clearly that thinking that I make the world with my mind is just another idealist patriarchal
fucking god complex, and the essence of the whole damn problem here. It couldn't be that women who have spent their lives examining male logic and culture from, gasp, the *margins*, actually see it far more clearly than me, and know what male identification looks like from a mile
off. Or that by all the alleged rhetoric of progressive politics, when they say this is a pile of patriarchal idealist bullshit the size of a fucking planet I am actually supposed to listen to them, rather than sneering, dismissing, calling them hysterical and fevered, imputing
genocidal motives, pretending they're socially conservative, and positing them as a bunch of irrational naive unsophisticated little ignoramuses that just need to have their own thought explained to them by some far wiser and more enlightened."

Plus ca fucking change Grace.

More from Dr. Jane Clare Jones

Hmmmm, disinformation... like?:

1. Intersex people are neither male or female
2. Intersex people prove that sex is a spectrum, or that male people are female
3. Sex is a cultural, or historical concept, and didn't exist before the colonisation of the Americas

4. All gender non-conforming people that existed throughout history are trans in the modern sense, even though that concept didn't exist and they didn't identify as such
5. Gender identity is a scientifically verified concept
6. There is no possible reason why young people

might experience distress with their body or gendered expectations other than them being trans, and that exploring those reasons is tantamount to conversion therapy
7. There is not a significant desistance rate in young people with gender dysphoria if they are not medicalised

8. Puberty blockers are just a pause button
9. Puberty blockers are totally safe and there is tons of medical evidence that the treatment has good outcomes
10. Women are not oppressed on the basis of their sex
11. Gender identification completely

overrides sex in all and every possible instance. There are no salient sex-based patterns either in physicality or behaviour that means we should continue to organise anything by sex.
12. People who continue to think that sex exists and is salient could only be motivated by
To the small group of women, many of whom have platforms to protect, who are intent on throwing other women under the bus.

1. That a small number of transitioned trans women have been using women's spaces for a long time is not the same as the impact of a new rights movement

that demands that *anybody is a women only on the basis of self-declaration* and explicitly includes cross-dressers under the trans umbrella. There was less than 5000 people who received a GRC. The estimates of the numbers of cross-dressers in the male population is around 4%.

THAT is a MASSIVE difference.

2. Therefore, any comments you make re: women's current resistance are irrelevant. We are not responding to the same thing.

3. Calling women's concerns about the number of males who may now have access to their intimate spaces 'hysteria'

immediately discredits you as a feminist. (Hello Judy!)

4. Female people are socialised into the rapeable class. They are subjected to objectification and violation from childhood, and especially from their early teens. This has a massive impact on

mental health and sense of their own personhood. Many of us experience being female as fucking traumatic. We *do not* share this experience with people who go through childhood and puberty as males, and whose impression of what 'being female' means is informed by patriarchal
@PennyRed @OpheliaBenson @jk_rowling @bindelj No Laurie, you have repeatedly used the kind of monstering rhetoric towards us that many of the people who have repeatedly threatened, harassed and intimidated Julie and thousands of other women do.

When this is repeatedly brought to your attention you disavow the fact that

@OpheliaBenson @jk_rowling @bindelj calling women terfs, fascists, nazis, in league with the far right, etc etc, is rhetoric associated a broad campaign of harassment and intimidation, disavow the violence, and then carry right on with the rhetoric.

We've watched you do this for years. We've also watched you

@OpheliaBenson @jk_rowling @bindelj repeatedly claim you don't understand our position, and don't understand why we think your complicity with the erasure of female people as a sex class makes your feminism incoherent. We have explained all this to you at length, and you somehow, cannot grasp it, and then carry on

@OpheliaBenson @jk_rowling @bindelj calling us fascists.

Perhaps when women who have been on the receiving end of extreme abuse by trans rights activists for years, review your book, and find your feminism wanting, and then you turn around and claim victimhood, perhaps that's a little bit galling. Perhaps when

@OpheliaBenson @jk_rowling @bindelj you are siding with people who have been repeatedly accusing women of 'weaponising their trauma' because they want space free from males, we find it EXTREMELY GALLING for you to appeal to your trauma when you got some shitty book reviews.

Joanne Rowling is a survivor of sexual
Sally Hines' evidence to the WESC.

'I do not accept that male violence is a thing.'

Stephen Whittle.

'I consider female people having any spaces or services to themselves, or being able to stipulate intimate care from people of their own sex, to be a legal abhorrence.'

'Stonewall considers allowing ppl access to the spaces and services of the other sex on the basis of nothing but self declaration regardless of the obvious ways this can be abused and the evidence that it already has been to be sensible.'

'We still don't understand the law'

'Yeah, we really don't understand the law.'

More from Law

This thread will debunk "the judges didn't look at evidence" nonsense that has been going around.

Over and over again, judges have gone out of their way to listen to the evidence and dismantle it, enjoy the carnage!


Bowyer v. Ducey (Sidney Powell's case in Arizona)

"Plaintiffs have not moved the
needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"

This is a great opinion to start with. The Judge completely dismantles the nonsense brought before her.


King vs. Whitmer (Michigan, Sidney Powell case)

"Nothing but speculation and conjecture"

This is a good one to show people who think affidavits are good evidence. Notice how the affidavits don't actually say they saw fraud happen in Detroit.


Trump v. Benson (Michigan)

"hearsay within hearsay"

Another good one to show people who think affidavits are absolute proof.


Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)

"mere speculation"


You May Also Like