If it weren't for bad faith arguments, the aptly named Karen wouldn't have any arguments at all. But let us not forget the equally self-aggrandizing Ultra known as A Slightly Twisted Female!
A good rule of thumb is: if you think Genspect is no better than WPATH, you are precisely the ignorant, hateful bigot the TRAs accuse all TERFs/GCs of being. Helen Joyce put it best: "fuck off!"
I think I’m lucky I haven’t encountered that particular group on X. I have to believe that only a very, very small percentage of people who consider themselves feminists of any variety think it would be appropriate to encode sex-specific dress codes into law. The pitfalls of this, and the ways such laws have been used against women in the past, seem pretty obvious.
Who are these radical feminists you mention calling for a ban on cross dressing ? Is this a USA thing because I have never heard of it (UK) and no rad fems of my acquaintance give a toss about cross dressing .
Unless it’s the drag queens in schools, which is a bit much, enough to put the poor kiddies off sex for life. Assuming they will still have working genitals that is .
The problem with having drag queens perform or "read" to minors is not that they are crossdressing. It is that they behave in highly sexualized ways that are inappropriate for minors. Would a library or school have female strippers or pole dancers read to children? I would hope not!
"radical feminists" have nothing against cross dressing or gays. 75% of everyone dosent want men in womens spaces. its not just one group or that who support this idea. its everyone. as a similar example, the misrepresented misnamed "dont say gay" law in FL is supported by the majority of republicans and democrats in FL. Taking heads around the country claimed the law was anti gay. but that wasnt true.
wait. ur claim that "feminists" want to ban this or that is based on an off color comment from Karen Davis? this is more serious than i thought. karen davis is a thought leader of feminists (no shes not). karen davis has 5k followers on twitter, maybe 100 on substack. i like karen. but few others do. and no one would think her comments represent feminists. i dont even think ms. davis is a feminist. whatevr that is.
but what gender ideology represents is the theft of rights of women, kids, ppl with psych issues, gays and others. who does this benefit? white men, some of whom are cross dressers and the medical industry. gender ideology is intentionally deceptive and confusing. if people promoting the religion of gender ideology told people the truth, no one would go for it. so they have to lie. when these lies are told, and none of it makes sense, people get confused. perhaps as did Ms. Davis. or perhaps she actually figured out what is going on. either way, its a lie to claim feminists this and femistis that. typical woman hating talk thats old as the hills
Reviewing your four comments, you have now implied, directly or indirectly, that I hold or defend twelve separate views which I do not hold or defend. If you want to rail against people who misrepresent the Florida law, or people who defend men in women's restrooms, or people who say crossdressing is not a "choice" (that one is way out of left field tbh), then go find those people.
There is nothing to be gained by trying to convince me of things I already agree with you on.
What we ALL should be concerned and thoughtful about are young impressionable minds with NO lived experience having immediate, unadulterated access to porn that would probably blow the hair back on any person over age 40!
I am a radical feminist and know many other radical feminists in different parts of the USA and Europe. I have never heard any radical feminist advocate for laws forbidding crossdressing. We do, however, oppose the notion that any male who "identifies as a woman" should be considered a woman by any laws, thereby being permitted to enter women's spaces such as restrooms, changing rooms, women's athletic competitions, women's prisons or other places where girls' and women's (human females) sense of privacy, dignity and safety would be sacrificed. Neither should females be permitted into the restrooms, changing rooms or other places where boys' and men's sense of privacy and dignity would be sacrified, even though boys and men would not feel unsafe due to the presence of females.
I follow and read a ton of GC content on X and have never seen a wish for such a law.
Sure, I read that it would be great to have permission to make it shameful/show scorn for men to dress like a slutty woman -- outside of their adult drag shows or clubs that cater to such men -- rather than applauding them as brave and stunning.
So "Imagine it's the future. Somehow radical feminists, who can't convince each other of anything, have managed to convince lawmakers to ban crossdressing on the grounds that it represents the public performance of a sexual perversion."
is actually,
"Imagine it's the future. Somehow three women on Twitter with extreme views about what it is acceptable for men and women to wear in public have managed to convince lawmakers to ban crossdressing on the grounds that it represents the public performance of a sexual perversion."
Interesting article about an imagined future but proceeding from an equally fictitious premise.
Are you wilfully misrepresenting radical feminism or do you genuinely mistake the views of those three women as deriving from radical feminism?
"Radical" in this context means "root", not "extreme". Their views are extreme: that does not make them "radical" as in "radical feminism". They also do not sound rational.
Radical feminists have never attempted to ban cross dressing. It is radical feminists and many other feminists who have long advocated for the acceptance of gender non-conforming dress for everyone. Both children and adults.
I so appreciate your writings. Thanks for this, as always.
I'd like to draw you out on one assertion: that "the true spirit of pornography [is] the humiliation of women[.]" How literally and comprehensively do you mean this? Do you think all pornography is inherently immoral and exclusively or primarily about humiliation of women? Do you think it's impossible that any porn ever created was basically two (or more) people of sound mind and meaningful free will choosing to have sex for the viewing enjoyment of others?
I do however think that the vast vast majority of porn is more concerned with themes of humiliation than of sex. There is a conspicuous asymmetry in what occurs in porn. There is no porn where a man must go down on twenty women, for example, or where a woman gets oral from twenty men, or where men get smeared with women's secretions. The inverse are dominance scenarios, not simply sex variations.
I am not inclined to use the word "immoral" in relation to porn, for what it's worth.
Thanks for clarifying! I think I probably see it mostly the same as you. It bothers me, because I really like porn of the variety I described ["two (or more) people of sound mind and meaningful free will choosing to have sex for the viewing enjoyment of others"], and it is so rare. I believe sex between consenting adults is fine and I reject what I'll call for simplicity's sake puritanism. I don't feel bad about enjoying watching other people have sex. In theory porn is fine, but yeah, in practice it's mostly disgusting, terrible stuff. Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful writing.
"This is an oft-repeated wish among a faction of this group on X/Twitter."
Without even looking, Karen Davis?
She's the queen of that contingent!
If it weren't for bad faith arguments, the aptly named Karen wouldn't have any arguments at all. But let us not forget the equally self-aggrandizing Ultra known as A Slightly Twisted Female!
A good rule of thumb is: if you think Genspect is no better than WPATH, you are precisely the ignorant, hateful bigot the TRAs accuse all TERFs/GCs of being. Helen Joyce put it best: "fuck off!"
I think I’m lucky I haven’t encountered that particular group on X. I have to believe that only a very, very small percentage of people who consider themselves feminists of any variety think it would be appropriate to encode sex-specific dress codes into law. The pitfalls of this, and the ways such laws have been used against women in the past, seem pretty obvious.
Who are these radical feminists you mention calling for a ban on cross dressing ? Is this a USA thing because I have never heard of it (UK) and no rad fems of my acquaintance give a toss about cross dressing .
Unless it’s the drag queens in schools, which is a bit much, enough to put the poor kiddies off sex for life. Assuming they will still have working genitals that is .
The problem with having drag queens perform or "read" to minors is not that they are crossdressing. It is that they behave in highly sexualized ways that are inappropriate for minors. Would a library or school have female strippers or pole dancers read to children? I would hope not!
Japanese porn is weird, weirder than porn in general.
"radical feminists" have nothing against cross dressing or gays. 75% of everyone dosent want men in womens spaces. its not just one group or that who support this idea. its everyone. as a similar example, the misrepresented misnamed "dont say gay" law in FL is supported by the majority of republicans and democrats in FL. Taking heads around the country claimed the law was anti gay. but that wasnt true.
I never said radical feminists were against gays.
They are however the only group I see calling for a ban/law against cross-dressing (even OUTSIDE women's spaces).
wait. ur claim that "feminists" want to ban this or that is based on an off color comment from Karen Davis? this is more serious than i thought. karen davis is a thought leader of feminists (no shes not). karen davis has 5k followers on twitter, maybe 100 on substack. i like karen. but few others do. and no one would think her comments represent feminists. i dont even think ms. davis is a feminist. whatevr that is.
but what gender ideology represents is the theft of rights of women, kids, ppl with psych issues, gays and others. who does this benefit? white men, some of whom are cross dressers and the medical industry. gender ideology is intentionally deceptive and confusing. if people promoting the religion of gender ideology told people the truth, no one would go for it. so they have to lie. when these lies are told, and none of it makes sense, people get confused. perhaps as did Ms. Davis. or perhaps she actually figured out what is going on. either way, its a lie to claim feminists this and femistis that. typical woman hating talk thats old as the hills
I'm not the only one who's noticed.
https://twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1758204431332479461
All the feminists are telling you you’re wrong. Add me to the list. You’re wrong.
Reviewing your four comments, you have now implied, directly or indirectly, that I hold or defend twelve separate views which I do not hold or defend. If you want to rail against people who misrepresent the Florida law, or people who defend men in women's restrooms, or people who say crossdressing is not a "choice" (that one is way out of left field tbh), then go find those people.
There is nothing to be gained by trying to convince me of things I already agree with you on.
What we ALL should be concerned and thoughtful about are young impressionable minds with NO lived experience having immediate, unadulterated access to porn that would probably blow the hair back on any person over age 40!
I am a radical feminist and know many other radical feminists in different parts of the USA and Europe. I have never heard any radical feminist advocate for laws forbidding crossdressing. We do, however, oppose the notion that any male who "identifies as a woman" should be considered a woman by any laws, thereby being permitted to enter women's spaces such as restrooms, changing rooms, women's athletic competitions, women's prisons or other places where girls' and women's (human females) sense of privacy, dignity and safety would be sacrificed. Neither should females be permitted into the restrooms, changing rooms or other places where boys' and men's sense of privacy and dignity would be sacrified, even though boys and men would not feel unsafe due to the presence of females.
I follow and read a ton of GC content on X and have never seen a wish for such a law.
Sure, I read that it would be great to have permission to make it shameful/show scorn for men to dress like a slutty woman -- outside of their adult drag shows or clubs that cater to such men -- rather than applauding them as brave and stunning.
There is one such example in the footnote. Two others who hold this view more or less stalk me on X.
So "Imagine it's the future. Somehow radical feminists, who can't convince each other of anything, have managed to convince lawmakers to ban crossdressing on the grounds that it represents the public performance of a sexual perversion."
is actually,
"Imagine it's the future. Somehow three women on Twitter with extreme views about what it is acceptable for men and women to wear in public have managed to convince lawmakers to ban crossdressing on the grounds that it represents the public performance of a sexual perversion."
Interesting article about an imagined future but proceeding from an equally fictitious premise.
Are you wilfully misrepresenting radical feminism or do you genuinely mistake the views of those three women as deriving from radical feminism?
"Radical" in this context means "root", not "extreme". Their views are extreme: that does not make them "radical" as in "radical feminism". They also do not sound rational.
Nah, there's far more than three. It would be great if other radical feminists called them out, but that isn't how it's going.
And yes, I know what "radical" means and what radfems stand for. Started reading second wave feminists when I was 11.
However, here's one who has called it out.
https://twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1758204431332479461
Have radical feminists ever attempted to ban cross dressing? How likely do you think this would be?
Radical feminists have never attempted to ban cross dressing. It is radical feminists and many other feminists who have long advocated for the acceptance of gender non-conforming dress for everyone. Both children and adults.
That's how it used to be.
I so appreciate your writings. Thanks for this, as always.
I'd like to draw you out on one assertion: that "the true spirit of pornography [is] the humiliation of women[.]" How literally and comprehensively do you mean this? Do you think all pornography is inherently immoral and exclusively or primarily about humiliation of women? Do you think it's impossible that any porn ever created was basically two (or more) people of sound mind and meaningful free will choosing to have sex for the viewing enjoyment of others?
Thank you!
Yeah, I think that type of porn can occur.
I do however think that the vast vast majority of porn is more concerned with themes of humiliation than of sex. There is a conspicuous asymmetry in what occurs in porn. There is no porn where a man must go down on twenty women, for example, or where a woman gets oral from twenty men, or where men get smeared with women's secretions. The inverse are dominance scenarios, not simply sex variations.
I am not inclined to use the word "immoral" in relation to porn, for what it's worth.
Thanks for clarifying! I think I probably see it mostly the same as you. It bothers me, because I really like porn of the variety I described ["two (or more) people of sound mind and meaningful free will choosing to have sex for the viewing enjoyment of others"], and it is so rare. I believe sex between consenting adults is fine and I reject what I'll call for simplicity's sake puritanism. I don't feel bad about enjoying watching other people have sex. In theory porn is fine, but yeah, in practice it's mostly disgusting, terrible stuff. Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful writing.