Stonewall and Section 28 – What’s the Difference? 34 Years

by Angela Garrigan

In 1987 Margaret Thatcher introduced a clause into the Local Government Bill which sought to ban the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality. Lesbian and gay relationships were described as ‘pretend families’. No local authority or school could present same sex relationships or homosexuality in a positive way. This is what her Government chose to do as the lesbian and gay community confronted HIV and AIDS.

We rose up. We fought back. We marched. We held rallies, We demonstrated from one end of the country to the other.

Stonewall UK rode into existence on our coattails as a lobbying group. They were welcomed to the fight.

Clause 27 became Section 28 when the Bill was passed and became law. There were no successful prosecutions under this law though it remained on the statute books until 2003 when the Labour government after being in power for six years, finally got around to repealing it.

Now there is a new ‘section 28’.

Now it is Stonewall UK who are denying same sex attraction. It is Stonewall UK who are saying that same sex relationships are not valid. It is Stonewall UK who are saying that same sex relationships are hateful. It is Stonewall UK who are saying that homosexuality is a medical term.

So, we rise up again and fight the traitor. We will not allow our hard fought gains be taken away by anyone. We will not allow Stonewall UK to pretend that it represents us. It does not.

Stonewall UK should have the courage of their convictions and be honest about who they are.

It’s time to throw the cuckoo out of our nest.

So Many Women Left Behind

The National Women’s Council of Ireland is about to launch its bold new program, No Woman Left Behind.  The plan reflects the NWIC’s ambition of achieving ‘true equality for all women’ and seeks to ‘bring a radical shift to the place of women in Ireland and beyond’.  

The plan appears, on the face of it, to be just the sort of thing the women of Ireland should expect from the NWCI, something we should all welcome and get behind. But the NWCI doesn’t want us all to be involved.  It only wants certain types of women.  It only advocates for certain types of women.

Last year the NWCI signed a letter that labelled gender-critical Irish feminists as transphobic bigots, accused us of being aligned with the far right and, most chillingly, called on our media and our politicians to ‘no longer provide legitimate representation’ for us. https://gcn.ie/irish-lgbtq-community-stand-irishsolidarit-transphobia-trans-day-remembrance/

The beliefs that the NWCI wish to see suppressed are those held by feminists who support the idea that biology is real and that women are oppressed on the basis of our sex.  Any feminist throughout history would recognise that analysis as fundamental to their understanding of how the world is organised and the fact that the NWCI not only rejects this idea now but openly denounces women who espouse it is tantamount to the fact that something has gone very wrong in the National Women’s Council of Ireland.

Our national organization no longer advocates for all women because they have accepted that being a woman is not a matter of biological sex.  They now support the notion that being female is associated with the traits and expectations inherent in a socially constructed ideal of femininity and that any man who aligns with these traits is actually a woman. They support a theory that replaces sex with gender because it is only through the nebulous and ill-defined concept of gender that anatomical males can declare themselves to be women and the NWCI will not stand up to the trans lobby who are pushing this agenda into Irish NGOs, they will not draw a line to protect women and girls. They have jettisoned biological reality and capitulated to the trans lobby without inviting discussion from the women they supposedly represent, the women who will feel the adverse effect of this wholesale adoption of gender theory.

 They have let us all down.

In taking the part of transwomen who are biological males over actual women who refuse to accept gender theory the NWCI are leaving many women behind as they launch into their new initiative.

They leave behind the women who believe that anatomical male adults should not be allowed into the same changing rooms as teenage girls.

They leave behind the women who believe that male sex offenders should not be housed with women prisoners.

They leave behind the lesbians who insist that same-sex attraction is a valid sexuality and refuse to accept males as lesbians.

They leave behind the mothers who believe that their gender non-conforming daughters are being fed a pro-trans agenda on social media and face an uphill battle to find a sensible response to their questions from  Irish agencies.

They leave behind the butch girls who are being told they are actually boys and are being pushed to transition and encouraged to take drugs and mutilate their bodies to appear more male looking.

They leave behind the women who detransition and speak out about the serious problems in the HSE affirmation policy in treating gender-dysphoric youngsters.

They leave behind the sportswomen who believe that male puberty gives men a physical advantage that cannot be undone by taking female hormones.

They leave behind the female patients and older women who wish to have intimate treatment conducted by female carers and nurses.

They leave behind the feminists who point out the problems with have arisen from the Gender Recognition Act of 2015 which allows any man to declare himself to be a woman.

They leave behind any woman who even suggests that we need a national conversation of these issues.

The NWCI has not only left these women behind by refusing to engage with any of their concerns and by calling for them to be silenced in the media and denied political representation but now they are actively engaged in blocking them on NWCI social media accounts.

They say they want to work with women throughout the island of Ireland to achieve their goal of true equality for all women. They say they want to do this in a more inclusive way and they say they want to see a radical shift in the place of women in Ireland. But all of this counts for nothing if it only applies to the women who support their adoption of gender theory over biological reality.  To question that decision is to be left behind.

The new NWCI policy of only working for some women has already led to impotency on issues they should be vocal and decisive about.  They remain silent on the housing of violent sex offenders with the vulnerable women of Limerick Prison.  They are not defending the provision of single -sex toilets in schools which are under threat from the Department of Education despite being aware of the alarming statistics on sexual abuse committed by young boys and the rampant use of porn in schools. They are witnessing the erosion of the word ‘woman’ from legislation aimed at women without comment. They have nothing to say on the massive increase in the percentage of girls fleeing femininity by claiming to be trans.

They have utterly failed to engage with the biggest threat to women’s rights we have seen in decades, the movement to erase the very idea of what a woman is and to replace that idea with something men can claim to be. If we cannot organise as a group of humans who are oppressed because of our sexed bodies then we lose our ability to name our oppression and to fight it. Not only have the NWCI failed to oppose the misogynist movement that seeks to remove our ability to organise as women they have embraced it and become its champion.  In doing so they have relinquished their position as the leading organisation for women in Ireland.

We now need another group to take up the mantle for all Irish women.

The Word We Cannot Say

 Remember when he was used as a universal pronoun? When the male stood for all of mankind? Of course it was to be understood that women were included in he. Though it didn’t quite work that way because when you hear or read ‘he’ you naturally picture a male. The male becomes the standard human in your mind, the boy, the man, the male. The result was a disconnect for many women and girls. I remember reading many a piece discussing what people did or how we reacted to circumstances and happily picturing the scenario, including myself within the cohort under discussion until the inevitable ‘a person does this because he…‘ ‘the child finds that he…’ This was the point where I would have to adjust, to pause and include myslef consciously in the group.

That’s why feminists had a problem with that particular linguistic arrangement and why we insisted on using ‘he or she’ when alluding to human beings. It may seem like a small adjustment but the impact is anything but small.

Now we find ourselves embroiled in another struggle to ensure that the state of being female is actually expressed in our language.

Here in Ireland the move to obliterate the word ‘woman’ from official publications is proceeding apace. We see literature on cervical cancer which addresses its target group with crude biological phrases. We see legislators draft laws on period poverty provision with no reference whatsoever to women or girls. These authorities explain how in talking about ‘people likely to need sanitary protection’ or ‘those with a cervix’ they are actually alluding to women and girls. They just can’t quite bring themselves to use those words.

So we become our bodily functions in the eyes of our health providers and our legislators. We become the parts of us that need intervention. Again, we are linguistically relegated.

Feminists who oppose these linguistic gymnastics to avoid any references to women are told it is necessary in the interests of inclusion. How strange that the very argument we employed to promote the use of ‘he or she’ is now used against us. How strange that just as it becomes commonplace to include us in the lexicon we use to describe humanity we find that linguistic references to us specifically have become problematic.

We are told that the word ‘woman’ itself is the problem. That it is not inclusive enough. It is telling that the simple addition of ‘and’ and then the category which must be included with us is not sufficient. Only one solution can be found to solve the latest problem with representing us in language, that is to ban the use of the word that describes us.

I would bet most Irish politicians you asked would not be able to explain why they choose to pass laws that omit specific references to women. No doubt the ubiquitous cry of ‘inclusion’ would come up but they would be hard-pressed to tell you who exactly has to be included. That is because this is not about inclusion, not in the way it is being peddled to them anyway.

The obliteration of the word ‘women’ in official literature is part of the effort to wrestle that word from its meaning which denotes biological females and use it to describe a feeling of identifying with traits deemed to be feminine. These are feeling that only biological males have. Women do not actually ‘identify’ as women or ‘feel’ like women.

It is a sexist campaign which conflates being a woman with gender stereotypes. The biological males who want to include themselves in the category of ‘woman’ cannot have that word used to address the cohort with the anatomy they themselves lack. So they want it assigned to their idea of what a woman is.
They want ‘woman’ to mean something they can ‘identify’ with.

There is already a word to describe those with male anatomy who wish to be regarded as women, that word is transwoman. The trans denotes the difference between women and those males who wish to be seen as women.

Lately we have heard the relentless cry that ‘trans women are women’. The only way to make this statement true is to depart from the definition of ‘women’ as a word which denotes adult human females and change that definition to mean those who possess the specific traits that transwomen claim to share with us. Notably, these are very often the trappings of femininity which feminists have long fought against.

Once women were not mentioned because learned men dictated that there was no need to refer to us, we were understood to exist. Now the very word that denotes us is being systematically deleted from official publications aimed specifically at us because a cohort of male-bodied people are attempting to
steer it away from any connection with female anatomy.

The officials they lobby don’t ask questions that might be construed as awkward. They just go along with the nonsense they are being fed without even thinking about it and they do it because when they look around everybody else is doing it too. This is what policy capture looks like. 

What is not surprising about this situation is the ease with which our policymakers surrender the word ‘woman’. They certainly would not give up the word ‘man’ with anything like the same level of composure. Then again, no such demand is being made of them.

 

 

 

 

 

Intrusion Is Not Inclusion

It seems the spirit of the Bishops is alive and well in Ireland. The liberal leaders who have assumed the mantle of moral leadership happily carry on the twentieth-century crusade against all influence from Britain.  In Ireland, it seems we don’t need ‘outsiders’ telling us what to do.  The current keepers of Irish morality are adept at spotting an idea which has wormed its way into Ireland from the UK because no Irish person could possibly have a thought of their own which runs contrary to that which is sanctioned by the powers that be. Opposition must, therefore, be of foreign origin

The latest in a growing trend of censorship in Ireland comes in the form of a letter signed by the Trans Equality Network Ireland (TENI).  It starts with a litany of how they like to position themselves in the history of the Lesbian Gay and Bisexual struggle for equality.  Culminating in transing a gay leader because it suits their narrative.  The fact that when this man was alive he repeatedly stated that he was male doesn’t deter them. They are so used to just saying stuff and then setting out to make it true that reality is never a factor it seems.

The authors refer to ‘the transgender community’ several times, they even open their letter with that phrase.  Yet they denounce any mention of an LGB community. Indeed the letter is, in part,  a response to the formation of LGB Alliance Ireland, a group which advocates for the interests of same-sex couples. The philosophy of LGB Alliance Ireland is that biology is real and that people are attracted to the physical body of another, not to the idea that a person holds as to which gender they are.  I would imagine LGBAI would not be in a minority in holding this view.

The other groups which have irked TENI to such ire are the recently formed Irish feminist and gender-critical women’s groups. These women also argue that, in the real world, biological sex and not ‘gender’ is the determiner of maleness and femaleness. For TENI biology has no significance whatsoever and they positively seeth when people ‘seek to defend biology’.  They hold that the ‘wider Irish community’ do not support this defence of science despite the fact that they are doing all they can to ensure that this debate never reaches the wider public.

They go on to gloat of having ‘dealt with these pseudo-feminists before’, a reference to the cringeworthy ‘Terfs Out, Brits Out’ letter penned to intimidate a group of feminist from the UK who intended to speak here.  This is where the letter flatters what its adherents like to call ‘feminism’ in Ireland.

  Our feminism is an odd home-grown entity, not part of the international struggle for women’s rights in which women from different countries support and encourage each other, share information and ideas and mourn together as we lose our sisters to the rampant wave of femicide sweeping the globe.

It is worth noting that the brand of ‘feminism’ TENI is supporting here has worked out, all on its own, thank you, that pornography is empowering, that prostitution is a plucky career choice and that surrogacy is a lovely way to help other women.  Clearly, we are not in need of advice or ideas from outside agitators.

Now we get to the heart to the matter.  The letter says this, “We call on media, and politicians to no longer provide legitimate representation for those that share bigoted beliefs, that are aligned with far-right ideologies and seek nothing but harm and division.” This is a clear call to silence those who ‘seek to defend biology’  and an attempt to smear them as far-right plotters against the house of straw that is the prevailing creed among our liberal elite.

The perceived ‘attacks’ on gender adherents cited to encourage our media and politicians to silence people who disagree, are actually the legitimate concerns that anyone should be free to raise given that gender theory is being introduced to our schools, our HSE clinicians are told to follow a ‘(trans) affirmation approach’ instead of investigating other sources of trauma in troubled youngsters and our young lesbians are being told, in their own communities, that their sexuality must include fully anatomical males.

The letter goes on to claim that the Gender Recognition Act of 2015 which allows for people in Ireland to ‘change sex’ by simple declaration was brought in with the knowledge of the public.  The truth is that most people in Ireland still have no idea that our government decided to abandon the idea that biology determines sex and adopt instead an ill-defined and bizarre theory around gender.  Indeed most politicians at the time likely saw this legislation as the latest necessary move to grant the LGBT community full rights because that was the way it was presented to them. There certainly was no public debate. A public debate would have looked something like the Marriage Equality Referendum, we would all have noticed. Indeed a public debate is the last thing TENI want to see.  Hence the demonising of gender critical feminists.

So far all of the above is par for the course.  Gender extremists are pushing the usual agenda in the usual manner of seeking to bully and silence. It is what comes next that is truly chilling.  The other signatories.

This call for gender-critical Irish people to be silenced and to have political representation stripped from them was signed by Amnesty Ireland, the National Women’s Council of Ireland and BeLong To, in addition to other major groups and well- know liberals. This is what we should all be worried about.  How can Amnesty possibly justify advocating for the right of people to speak out against the prevailing orthodoxy in other countries and at the same not only denounce gender-critical women in Ireland but call for political representation and free speech to be denied them?

How can the NWCI call for feminists to be silenced because they do not agree with a theory which advocates for fully anatomical males to enter all and any female-only spaces including prisons and refuges and changing rooms? We currently have two violent male-bodied sex offenders housed in a women’s prison and we have seen images of women in changing rooms being posted on the internet by Irish men. Yet the NWCI would rather silence the women who bring these issues to the fore than engage with their concerns.

How can the Irish media ignore such a blunder on the part of Amnesty and the NWCI? This should be a major story in the Irish media but they are ignoring it.  The only articles I have so far seen about it come from abroad.

The truth is that a well funded organised lobby has hijacked the idea of social justice, twisted it so that  ‘intrusion’ means ‘inclusion’ and used the new lie to influence Government, political parties, NGOs, national organisations, media, etc who are so eager to adopt anything that seems popular that they rely solely on a few chosen groups to steer them into the prevailing trend.

The notion that sex is determined, not in the womb but in the thoughts of an individual at some point in their development is not one that I adhere to.  Like many other Irish people, I believe that sex is determined by biology.  I have a right to say this out loud.  LGB people have a right to defend same-sex relationships and feminist have a right to oppose a theory which attacks the very basis of feminism. 

Supporting the rights of women and same-sex attracted people is not anti-trans and framing it as such is disingenuous and purposefully misleading, as is the repeated claim that criticism of gender theory is not native to this country.   Such accusations are the part of the process where groups are denounced before their rights are taken away and we have seen where that leads all too often.

The plain truth is that the rights of women and same-sex people are infringed by gender theory as espoused by TENI.  That is not to say that trans people should not have rights, of course they should but the organisations that represent them should not be allowed to frame any discussion of their goals as hatred. Especially as their aims not only impact on the rights of other groups but demand that those other groups alter their perception of themselves, disregard long-standing protections and change their sexuality.

TENI  evoke the rhetoric of social justice and place their movement at the centre of all recent progress in Ireland but the fact remains that they have shown no regard for the rights of women and LGB people who question them. Seeking instead to silence them and then claim widespread support in these sectors all the while cheered on by people who should know better.

No group should be afforded the power to silence those who disagree with them. Those groups and individuals who have the privilege of a wide public platform from which to air their views should be ashamed of using it to silence those who have no such luxury.  We should be done with all that but it turns out that we haven’t defeated the hierarchy we have only replaced it. New doctrine, same tactics.

You can read the letter here. https://gcn.ie/irish-lgbtq-community-stand-irishsolidarit-transphobia-trans-day-remembrance/

HSE Seeks to Erase Women

The HSE has replaced all references to women on literature explaining its Cervical Check Service.  This is mind-bogglingly offensive considering the disastrous manner in which it handled the cervical screening fiasco which cost the lives of twenty women and altered so many more.  Women have been writing to the HSE, TDs and the Minister for Health, Stephen Donnelly to let them know how angry we are.

These are some addresses, if you want to do the same.  ministersoffice@health.gov.ie    yoursay@hse.ie     info@cervicalcheck.ie   If you want to copy in your TD use this formula: first name then a . then last name followed immediately by @oireachtas.ie as in stephen.donnelly@orieachtas.ie

The HSE are claiming that they sought opinion on this before making the change and that they were met with a very positive response.  I bet they were, from a TENI orchestrated campaign in all likelihood. This is mission creep by the trans lobbyists.  It is a weak response in any case as it is not up to the HSE to canvass to see who wants to delete the word woman and with it any notion of an actual sex class of people.

This is what I sent to all three and I copied in my TDs.  I am awaiting replies.

“I am appalled at the latest scandal the HSE has visited upon women.  I refer to the decision to replace the word “women” with the absurd phrase “people with cervixes” on literature pertaining to its Cervical Check service.  For a health authority to use body parts to refer to patients is demeaning and highly insulting. In the wake of the notorious cervical smear fiasco in which the HSE utterly failed to meet any decent standard of regard for the women it failed time and again, it is simply unbelievable that this latest indignity has been sanctioned.

Is this what HSE Chief Executive, Paul Reid, meant when he said that the HSE was “developing a culture of putting women first” in the wake of that debacle? Are we now to see pregnant women who have been proscribed Valporate referred to as “womb havers” as the HSE confronts that particular outrage?

I think the women of Ireland deserve to know exactly how this latest offence came about and I would like to have answeres to the following questions regarding the manner in which this travesty developed.

Who decided that the HSE would no longer use the word “women” on its literature?

Who decided on the new wording?

Were any other groups consulted or involved in the unfolding of this massive blunder?

If so, which one/ones?

When does the HSE plan to undo this insult to the female population of Ireland?

I note that there is no change to any of the HSE publications on prostate cancer.  Men remain “men” on all relevant literature.  How do you justify reducing women to body parts while still affording men the dignity of recognising their humanity?

I await your answers.”

 

Self-id for Irish Children

This is copy of a letter I sent to the Minister for Education last year.  I have had no response.

Dear Minister McHugh,

I am alarmed at the assertions and conclusions contained in the recently published report, Exploring Genders Identity  and Gender Norms in Primary Schools by Dr. Aoife Neary (University of Limerick) and Catherine Cross (TENI). I call on the Minister for Education and Skills to consult widely with parents groups and other interested and informed stakeholders while considering the implications of this report.  Below I have outlined some of the major failings of the report.

1.Understanding the Difference between Sex and Gender

This publication wrongfully defines ‘sex’ as a ‘designation’ given at birth. It equates sex with the act of identifying sex, thus positioning it from the outset as arbitrary. Having dismissed the biological reality of male, female and intersex, the authors assert ‘gender’ as the correct means of establishing whether a child is male or female.

Whereas sex is commonly defined in terms of biological function, gender is understood as a social construction as in this example from Collins Dictionary  –

Gender is the state of being male or female in relation to the social and cultural roles that are considered appropriate for men and women.

The authors of this report do not give us their definition of ‘gender’. They do define ‘gender-identity’ as a person’s deeply-felt identification as male or female… Effectively they have, at the outset, dismissed the physical nature of a person’s sex and replaced it with inner feelings.

Feelings are deeply personal, indefinable, and, especially in children, prone to change. The Glossary of Terms which accompanies the report is a testament to the ever-extending vocabulary needed to keep pace with the feelings that are here being asserted as human conditions. I contend that accepting all of these definitions as presented, while at the same time, jettisoning the physical reality of biology, presents unexplored dangers and the conclusions drawn from such acceptance should not be drafted onto policies aimed at school children.

2. Re-enforcing Gender Stereotypes

A key premise of this study is that the children it highlights were strongly gender non-conforming from the time they could communicate. While ‘gender non-conforming’ is not listed in the Glossary of Terms, ‘Gender Variant’ is described as  People whose gender identity and/or gender expression is different from traditional or stereotypical expectations of how a man or woman ‘should’ appear or behave.  I would argue that this describes many children. It especially describes many girls who are frustrated with the boundaries imposed on them by cultural expectations associated with femininity.  Not conforming to the dictates of gender is hardly a reason to claim a child is the opposite sex.

In recent years there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of girls identifying as trans.  Indeed the subjects of this report bear out that trend citing the experience of almost twice as many children who were born female as those born male.  This international phenomenon is not yet fully understood but it is an area of concern for professionals working in the field and parents alike.

One UK parents’ group put this theory forward.

In the past, there have been some escape routes from the oppressive gender and sex-role stereotypes society applies to females. In the Sixties girls could embrace androgyny, in the Seventies Punk provided a way out. In the Eighties New Romantisism and gender-bending were the alternatives and in the Nineties into the Noughties Goths, Emos and Geeks were the tribes to join. But as popular culture, and in particular youth music culture, has become more hyper-sexualized for girls, escape routes have not only been closed down, but youth culture itself reinforces the sex-role stereotypes oppressive to teenage girls. Porn on smartphones passed around in school is now what they’re up against. [From Adult Males To Teenage Girls – The Movement From Etiology To Ideology]  Full Article

I am concerned that the authors of this report are relying on the societal and cultural constructions of gender performance to assign maleness and femaleness in children.  This approach, perhaps unwittingly, entrenches such stereotypes and reinforces the limitations already placed on our children by outdated sexist ideology.  They state, Highly gendered systems, practices and language in primary schools caused particular difficulties for the children in this study. (Key Finding 6)  While recognizing the existence of a gendered approach in schools their criticism of it stems not from the premise of gender division but from the exclusion of some children from particular gendered activity and language.

They recognize how children are … processing gender identity and are effected by gender norms for very early on. (Summary) They then suggest that children discuss gender in ‘supportive and informed’ spaces. How is ‘gender’ going to be defined for such a discussion and by whom? What ‘gender norms’ will be presented as examples of male and female behavior? How will this conversation be monitored to ensure that children do not feel pressured to claim a ‘gender identity’ which they think best reflects their current flux of feeling?

3 Discussion Must Be Allowed

 

There is a growing number of children and young people who have changed their minds about their gender identity and de-transitioned.  Their voices and those of their parents should be an important contributory factor in this debate.

There is also increasing international concern among parents, including parents of children who are identifying as trans, in relation to the increasing numbers of trans school-age children.  Academics and parents alike are pointing to the social contagion facilitated by online activity among children. One group of parents whose children have claimed to be trans have written.

Three of these factors in determining if a youth will trans-identify can be summarized as the effect of the environment on the youth’s cognitive processes during development. This is exactly as we have experienced; these social factors are the dominant factors, and not biology. Evidence for social contagion is emerging in the literature (Littman, 2018) and is consistent with our experiences. By immersing themselves in trendy transgender-indoctrinating videos recommended when they open YouTube or when their friend groups decide they are transgender together in clusters, they become myopically fixated on transition. Full Text

Already we are seeing a situation in Ireland where our Girl Guides Association has introduced rules based on the recommendations of TENI  and are now accepting children’s claims to be the opposite sex without question.  This has lead to a policy where male-bodied adolescents are allowed to sleep in girls’ quarters without informing the parents of the girls.  There is clearly a huge problem here and parents have a right to know if the safety of their children is being compromised to accommodate the adoption of ill-conceived policies.

We need an open a frank discussion on this topic in Ireland and the voices of those who oppose the rollout of TENI’s recommendations in our schools and institutions should be respected.

I have  no confidence in the ability of the authors or of the organisations cited in the introduction as collaborators, the School of Education at the University of Limerick and the Transgender Equality Network Ireland (TENI), to frame any such discussion among schoolchildren or to train educators or provide source material for our schools while they dismiss concerns such as I have outlined as ‘transphobic’.  They should not be able to use that accusation as a means of silencing those who disagree with their agenda.

4. The Need for Sex-(not ‘gender’) Segregated Spaces.

While I acknowledge the negative impact of gendered stereotypes on our children I also acknowledge and support the segregation of male and female children in some instances, for example, the locker room at school, the changing room at the swimming pool and toilets.

It is at best naive to imagine that a male child on the cusp of adolescence in a state of undress does not present a problem for girls of a similar age in a similar state.  Likewise, teachers should not be forced to supervise children of the opposite sex in their underwear.

Sport is another area where the replacement of sex with ‘gender’ poses problems, especially for girls.

There are sound reasons behind the provision of such sex-segregated space and those reasons cannot be swept aside because of the claims of organisations whose reasoning is based on assertations they are unable to explain beyond ‘feelings’ however deeply felt.

The introduction of policies based on the recommendations of these organisations would have huge implications for our school children.  I believe it is incumbent on you Minister McHugh,  to consult widely on this vital issue and to inform yourself on all aspects of the ongoing international debate concerning the claims of those who are pushing this agenda into our schools. And I believe you should encourage discussion and participation from all quarters.

5. Erasure of Lesbians and Gay Youth

A clear outcome of presenting ‘gender’ as a replacement for the biological category of ‘sex’ is the increasing pressure on our young people to conform to the stereotypes of gender.  In relation to young lesbian and gay people this means being urged to think of themselves as the opposite sex.  For example, if a girl is a ‘tomboy’ and attracted to girls, she is encouraged by trans ideology  to see herself as a boy, thus enforcing heteronormative stereotypes.

There is much more to say on this final point but I will not expand on it at this time as my letter is specific to the TENI Schools Report.

Finally, I would ask that you do not publish my name or email address as speaking up against the trans lobby is a dangerous activity in Ireland.

I look forward to your comments on the above.

Yours sincerely,

Jean Cross,

 Jean Cross  Uncategorized Leave a comment  May 13, 2019 6 MinutesEdit“Letter to the Minister”

Not The Only One

by Angela Garrigan

There has been a lot of talk recently about lesbians. Gentleman Jack, the series about Anne Lister has certainly provoked some of these conversations. Described as the first modern lesbian many were delighted that finally a butch lesbian albeit a 19^th century one whose style may not fit our ideas of what butch is, was finally front and centre in a TV series.  To hear people talk one could be forgiven for thinking that Anne Lister was the only lesbian to ever emerge from our past. No thought has been given to the numerous women that she had sex with. Anne Lister was not alone. She was in the midst of a group of lesbians who lived and loved just like she did. The only difference being is that they were not prolific diarists. Isabella Norcliffe was older than Anne and was a hard drinking, snuff taking,gun toting butch. Not exactly “Jane Austen”. Miss Pickford, another friend of Anne’s was also a butch lesbian who was mentioned in the diaries. Anne saw herself reflected in this woman. There was fascination and curiosity rather than attraction. She was also curious about and went to visit the most famous lesbians of the age, the Ladies of Llangollen. Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby had eloped from Ireland and set up house together in north Wales in 1778. They both wore “masculine” clothing and like Anne Lister, wore only black which was a male preserve.

Anne Lister was sexually attracted to femmes. They were the women who lit her candle. Although she had a sexual relationship with Isabella it fell far short of the pleasure that she enjoyed with Mariana the woman that Isabella introduced to her.

If you scrape the surface there are butch and femme lesbian lives scattered throughout recorded history but they have never been easy to find. There are claims that Joan of Arc was a lesbian and her refusal to stop wearing men’s apparel made it all the more possible for her to be persecuted and killed.There are stories of women donning men’s uniforms to fight in wars from the American war of Independence to World War2.

Fast forward to the early part of the 20^th century. Ireland was fighting for independence from the British. In 1916 the Easter Rising took place in Dublin. Lesbians played their part and took up arms. Kathleen Lynn and her lover Madeleine Ffrench-Mullen. Sheila Grennan and her lover Elizabeth O’Farrell.  Margaret Skinnider who was a sniper and led men in a daring raid against the British.

Moving on to the 1920s, Gladys Bentley cut a sophisticated figure in her top hat and tails. Marguerite Radclyffe-Hall and Una Troubridge made a striking butch/femme couple.Let’s not forget the femme who became one of the most loved gay icons of the last few decades of the 20^th century, Dusty Springfield.

What about the film industry? Well, it’s no surprise that lesbians barely made it into films and when they did it was invariably tragic.  (The Children’s Hour. The Killing of Sister George). In the 1980s Desert Hearts blew everyone away. At last a film where there was, kind of a happy ending. In 1996 Bound was released and to date it is the only one that I have seen that featured a butch/femme couple that did get their happy ever after.

While all this was going on, lesbians have fought tooth and nail for equal rights. That fight has been going on for decades and without the brave lesbians who put themselves out there, Stonewall could never have happened. And talking of Stonewall, I couldn’t end this without including a truly courageous butch, the lesbian who threw the punch that started a revolution, Storme Delarverie.

There are many more unsung butch and femme lesbians who have lived their truth throughout history. It’s not new, it’s not a trend, it’s not a lifestyle or a political theory. We are not aping men or heterosexual “roles”.  It is what we as butch and femme lesbians show to the world. It is our sexuality and our desire. We are here, we have always been here. We will always be here.

 

Anne Lister

 

Sarah Ponsonby & Eleanor Butler The Ladies of Llangollen

Madelaine Ffrench-Mullen & Dr Kathleen Lynn in 1917. Lifelong lovers

 

Elizabeth O’Farrell & Sheila Grennan Lifelong lovers, buried together

Margaret Skinnider

Gladys Bentley

 

Una Troubridge & Marguerite Radclyffe-Hall

 

Dusty Springfield

 

Storme Delarverie

And finally,

just because it’s my favourite scene in the film…

Corky & Violet

Corky : For me, stealing’s always been a lot like sex. Two people who want the same thing: they get in a room, they talk about it. They start to plan. It’s kind of like flirting. It’s kind of like… foreplay, ’cause the more they talk about it, the wetter they get. The only difference is, I can fuck someone I’ve just met. But to steal? I need to know someone like I know myself.

Violet : You think you know me like that?

 

Letter to the Minister

08- 05-2119

Dear Minister McHugh,

I am alarmed at the assertions and conclusions contained in the recently published report, Exploring Genders Identity  and Gender Norms in Primary Schools by Dr. Aoife Neary (University of Limerick) and Catherine Cross (TENI). I call on the Minister for Education and Skills to consult widely with parents groups and other interested and informed stakeholders while considering the implications of this report.  Below I have outlined some of the major failings of the report.

1.Understanding the Difference between Sex and Gender

This publication wrongfully defines ‘sex’ as a ‘designation’ given at birth. It equates sex with the act of identifying sex, thus positioning it from the outset as arbitrary. Having dismissed the biological reality of male, female and intersex, the authors assert ‘gender’ as the correct means of establishing whether a child is male or female.

Whereas sex is commonly defined in terms of biological function, gender is understood as a social construction as in this example from Collins Dictionary  –

Gender is the state of being male or female in relation to the social and cultural roles that are considered appropriate for men and women.

The authors of this report do not give us their definition of ‘gender’. They do define ‘gender-identity’ as a person’s deeply-felt identification as male or female… Effectively they have, at the outset, dismissed the physical nature of a person’s sex and replaced it with inner feelings.

Feelings are deeply personal, indefinable, and, especially in children, prone to change. The Glossary of Terms which accompanies the report is a testament to the ever-extending vocabulary needed to keep pace with the feelings that are here being asserted as human conditions. I contend that accepting all of these definitions as presented, while at the same time, jettisoning the physical reality of biology, presents unexplored dangers and the conclusions drawn from such acceptance should not be drafted onto policies aimed at school children.

2. Re-enforcing Gender Stereotypes

A key premise of this study is that the children it highlights were strongly gender non-conforming from the time they could communicate. While ‘gender non-conforming’ is not listed in the Glossary of Terms, ‘Gender Variant’ is described as  People whose gender identity and/or gender expression is different from traditional or stereotypical expectations of how a man or woman ‘should’ appear or behave.  I would argue that this describes many children. It especially describes many girls who are frustrated with the boundaries imposed on them by cultural expectations associated with femininity.  Not conforming to the dictates of gender is hardly a reason to claim a child is the opposite sex.

In recent years there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of girls identifying as trans.  Indeed the subjects of this report bear out that trend citing the experience of almost twice as many children who were born female as those born male.  This international phenomenon is not yet fully understood but it is an area of concern for professionals working in the field and parents alike.

 One UK parents’ group put this theory forward.

In the past, there have been some escape routes from the oppressive gender and sex-role stereotypes society applies to females. In the Sixties girls could embrace androgyny, in the Seventies Punk provided a way out. In the Eighties New Romantisism and gender-bending were the alternatives and in the Nineties into the Noughties Goths, Emos and Geeks were the tribes to join. But as popular culture, and in particular youth music culture, has become more hyper-sexualized for girls, escape routes have not only been closed down, but youth culture itself reinforces the sex-role stereotypes oppressive to teenage girls. Porn on smartphones passed around in school is now what they’re up against. [From Adult Males To Teenage Girls – The Movement From Etiology To Ideology]  Full Article

I am concerned that the authors of this report are relying on the societal and cultural constructions of gender performance to assign maleness and femaleness in children.  This approach, perhaps unwittingly, entrenches such stereotypes and reinforces the limitations already placed on our children by outdated sexist ideology.  They state, Highly gendered systems, practices and language in primary schools caused particular difficulties for the children in this study. (Key Finding 6)  While recognizing the existence of a gendered approach in schools their criticism of it stems not from the premise of gender division but from the exclusion of some children from particular gendered activity and language.

They recognize how children are … processing gender identity and are effected by gender norms for very early on. (Summary) They then suggest that children discuss gender in ‘supportive and informed’ spaces. How is ‘gender’ going to be defined for such a discussion and by whom? What ‘gender norms’ will be presented as examples of male and female behavior? How will this conversation be monitored to ensure that children do not feel pressured to claim a ‘gender identity’ which they think best reflects their current flux of feeling?

3 Discussion Must Be Allowed

 

There is a growing number of children and young people who have changed their minds about their gender identity and de-transitioned.  Their voices and those of their parents should be an important contributory factor in this debate.

There is also increasing international concern among parents, including parents of children who are identifying as trans, in relation to the increasing numbers of trans school-age children.  Academics and parents alike are pointing to the social contagion facilitated by online activity among children. One group of parents whose children have claimed to be trans have written.

Three of these factors in determining if a youth will trans-identify can be summarized as the effect of the environment on the youth’s cognitive processes during development. This is exactly as we have experienced; these social factors are the dominant factors, and not biology. Evidence for social contagion is emerging in the literature (Littman, 2018) and is consistent with our experiences. By immersing themselves in trendy transgender-indoctrinating videos recommended when they open YouTube or when their friend groups decide they are transgender together in clusters, they become myopically fixated on transition. Full Text

Already we are seeing a situation in Ireland where our Girl Guides Association has introduced rules based on the recommendations of TENI  and are now accepting children’s claims to be the opposite sex without question.  This has lead to a policy where male-bodied adolescents are allowed to sleep in girls’ quarters without informing the parents of the girls.  There is clearly a huge problem here and parents have a right to know if the safety of their children is being compromised to accommodate the adoption of ill-conceived policies.

We need an open a frank discussion on this topic in Ireland and the voices of those who oppose the rollout of TENI’s recommendations in our schools and institutions should be respected.

I have  no confidence in the ability of the authors or of the organisations cited in the introduction as collaborators, the School of Education at the University of Limerick and the Transgender Equality Network Ireland (TENI), to frame any such discussion among schoolchildren or to train educators or provide source material for our schools while they dismiss concerns such as I have outlined as ‘transphobic’.  They should not be able to use that accusation as a means of silencing those who disagree with their agenda.

4. The Need for Sex-(not ‘gender’) Segregated Spaces.

While I acknowledge the negative impact of gendered stereotypes on our children I also acknowledge and support the segregation of male and female children in some instances, for example, the locker room at school, the changing room at the swimming pool and toilets.

It is at best naive to imagine that a male child on the cusp of adolescence in a state of undress does not present a problem for girls of a similar age in a similar state.  Likewise, teachers should not be forced to supervise children of the opposite sex in their underwear.

Sport is another area where the replacement of sex with ‘gender’ poses problems, especially for girls.

There are sound reasons behind the provision of such sex-segregated space and those reasons cannot be swept aside because of the claims of organisations whose reasoning is based on assertations they are unable to explain beyond ‘feelings’ however deeply felt.

The introduction of policies based on the recommendations of these organisations would have huge implications for our school children.  I believe it is incumbent on you Minister McHugh,  to consult widely on this vital issue and to inform yourself on all aspects of the ongoing international debate concerning the claims of those who are pushing this agenda into our schools. And I believe you should encourage discussion and participation from all quarters.

5. Erasure of Lesbians and Gay Youth

A clear outcome of presenting ‘gender’ as a replacement for the biological category of ‘sex’ is the increasing pressure on our young people to conform to the stereotypes of gender.  In relation to young lesbian and gay people this means being urged to think of themselves as the opposite sex.  For example, if a girl is a ‘tomboy’ and attracted to girls, she is encouraged by trans ideology  to see herself as a boy, thus enforcing heteronormative stereotypes.

There is much more to say on this final point but I will not expand on it at this time as my letter is specific to the TENI Schools Report.

Finally, I would ask that you do not publish my name or email address as speaking up against the trans lobby is a dangerous activity in Ireland.

I look forward to your comments on the above.

Yours sincerely,

Jean Cross,

I Don’t Agree With Linda Riley

Some Comments on Linda Riley’s Dismissal of Angela C Wild’s Call to Get the L Out of the LGBT+ Community and of her Research, Lesbians at Ground Zero

 

Wild’s Research, Lesbians at Ground Zero Here

Wild’s  Article in Openly Here

Riley’s  Counter Article in Thomas Reuters Foundation News Here

 

Linda Riley opens her critique of Angela C Wild’s call for lesbians to organise outside of the LGBT+ community by claiming that such a move would contribute to lesbian erasure rather than reverse it.

Riley’s rationale for this is that by ‘opening one’s hearts and minds to a community that has been … vilified and marginalised by much of society,” lesbians will somehow benefit as a group.  This reflects a common call to women to include everyone, every struggle, every injustice in the world in our own cause.  We are not allowed to centre women and because lesbians are women, we are not allowed to centre ourselves, we have to include other groups.

Riley does not explain how ‘opening our hearts’ to this group of ‘vilified’ trans people will help our cause.  She just reprimands us for being mean.

Her next attack is on Wild’s account of a protest she and others took part in last year when they brought banners proclaiming lesbians to be female homosexuals to the front of the Pride march in London.  Many lesbians saw this as a classic tactic in the tradition of abseiling into the House of Lords during the long fight against Section 28.  But not Riley, she wants things done properly, according to the rules.

Riley suggests that Pride was not a wise choice of event at which to stage this protest.  She points out that lots of lesbians are allowed to gather at the DIVA Women’s Stage in Leicester Square and suggestions that we should organise separately could hamper this privilege.  Better to keep our heads down and do as we are told.  She seems to have forgotten how we used to have Lesbian marches and events and festivals and we seemed very capable of having a good time without placing ourselves under the control of organisations and committees that tell us we must include male bodies in lesbianism.

Riley asks if Wild and her colleagues ‘really want lesbians not to enjoy the sort of visibility that, frankly, we never had before?”  What she does not say is that it is the new version of the lesbian community that is celebrated here, the one that includes all the men who want to call themselves lesbians.  We can have a fab day out at Pride, as long as we erase the idea that lesbianism is all about female to female sexuality.

Riley next attacks Wild’s research.  She calls it ‘unconvincing’, saying that 80 respondents were not a useful sample.  My first response to this is amazement that the publisher of a magazine supposedly dedicated to lesbian issues has not the slightest interest in the specific experiences of 80 lesbians.  I have personally read a  Report by TENI (Trans Equality Network Ireland) about the experiences of trans children in Irish schools.  It highlights lots of findings and makes plenty of recommendations.  Was it blasted for not having enough respondents?  No, it was heralded as groundbreaking and now it is being used to try to change government policy.  This report is based on the experiences of 11 children and 7 educators.  We are constantly hearing that more research must be done on the needs and experiences of trans people, that we need a clear picture so we can provide the proper levels of support etc.  I have no problem with that. But I would like the same courtesy extended to lesbians researchers.

What I would have expected from the publisher of a lesbian magazine in relation to Wild’s report is shock and indignation that lesbians are going through such terrible experiences.  I would expect a lesbian magazine to demonstrate some sense of alarm. Then a clear, unequivocal call for more research, perhaps an offer to help fund it.  Perhaps an interview with the author of the report.  Perhaps an offer to use the pages of said magazine to reach even more lesbians.  But not Riley, not DIVA.  From her we get dismissal and ridicule.

Riley has nailed her colours to the mast.  She has thrown her lot in with the men who present themselves as lesbians and demand to be treated as such by lesbians.  She seems to have no problem accepting the definition of ‘lesbian’ to be ‘anyone who says they are’ which is what these men demand.

Now she must defend that position.  She says she has not seen any evidence of anyone being coerced into having sex with a trans woman.  Well, she’s never going to see it if she decides that it just does not exist, no matter how many lesbians say otherwise.  She’s never going to hear about it if she won’t listen to the lesbians who are saying it happened to them.

Concentrating on the issue of rape, which Wild highlights among many instances of harassment and psychological coercion, Riley says this:

‘Of course, there are people of all sexualities and gender identity who do not understand that no means no – mainly straight cis-men – but I see no evidence of any greater incidence of this reprehensible attitude to sex among trans people when compared with men and women across the wider UK population’

Her assertation that it is mainly straight men who are the chief perpetrators of rape is true.  But she fails to acknowledge that trans women follow male rather than female patterns of committing violent crimes. Study Here  A big factor in separating people who commit sexual assault from those who largely do not, is the possession of a penis. Incidentally, rape is not a matter of not understanding that ‘no means no’.  It is about knowing that and doing it anyway. 

Riley has nothing to say about the lesbians in the study who recount their experiences of being ridiculed, isolated,  accused of transphobia and ejected from LGBT organisations for not accepting, or even questioning the trans lesbians are lesbians dogma.  These experiences don’t appear to be worthy of comment.

Riley recounts how she was verbally attacked by lesbians for simply saying that DIVA was trans-inclusive and that she had not seen any evidence of lesbians being forced to have sex with trans women.  She says some of the abuse she was subjected to was obscene.   I  do not condone such treatment of anyone.  I commented on twitter myself at that time and I stuck to the point, as many did, but obviously, some went beyond that, regrettably, in my opinion.

Riley then states ‘If a trans woman says she is a lesbian, nobody has the right to question that self-identity.’ Well, surely lesbians do. Surely the women who find the female body erotic, whose sexuality is based solely on the female form do.  Surely the women who will be expected to open their dating pools to this trans woman do.

Surely the women in Wild’s study who repeatedly recount the difficulties they encounter, the expectations demanded of them, the pressure to accept straight sex as a lesbian encounter, have the right to question that self-identity.

Riley then evokes the age-old chestnut levelled at lesbians, the accusation that ‘they haven’t met the right man yet’.  Somehow this is supposed to equate to lesbians asserting that lesbianism does not include male bodies. I think she is making Wild’s point for her.  Saying that lesbians just haven’t met the right man is saying that female to female sexual fulfilment cannot exist.  That sex has to involve a penis.  What’s the difference between that and Riley’s view there can be no sexuality that includes only the female form, that penises have to be allowed in?

She then trots out the ‘individual choice’ argument.  This is followed by the assertion that trans women are unlikely to want a relationship with ‘transphobes’ anyhow.  So, you can assert your right not to have an intimate relationship with a ‘trans lesbian’ but that makes you a transphobe.  She likens this choice to straight women in the 70’s and 80’s who avoided lesbians for fear of the lesbians pouncing on them.  She says ‘we did not want any sort of intimacy with lesbophobic people who thought like that’.  So, it’s an individual choice but beware the consequences of making it.

Her likening of the experiences of butch women in female public facilities to that of trans women is bizarre.  Overwhelmingly trans women present as ultra feminine.  They reinforce the very gender stereotypes that hinder women who do not conform to those strict presentations. Fighting for the acceptance of a wider range of female expression does not mean fighting for the idea that the female body does not exist.

Riley then asserts that she has never met a trans person who wants to erase or marginalise lesbians.  This statement is meaningless.  It’s not about what trans people want to do, men have always wanted to invade lesbian spaces, it is about what people like her are allowing them to do.  By failing to defend the only sexuality in the world that does not involve a penis.  By capitulating to every demand, every whim of the trans lobby, it is magazines like DIVA and organisations like Stonewall and Pride that are effecting lesbian erasure.

It is individuals like Linda Riley, individuals with a platform, who refuse to listen, who turn away when lesbians recount their experiences, who stigmatise and belittle the women who are fighting to defend our right to a female based sexual orientation, those are the people who are furthering lesbian erasure.

Riley finishes by saying that she expects to be attacked for her article.  Instead of positioning herself as a martyr, why does she not invite discussion, argument, actual discourse, there is plenty of it around but she chooses to ignore or discredit it.

Her final wish is that we all spare a thought for the unfortunate trans women whose lives are blighted by bullying.  Not a jot of sympathy for the 80 lesbians in the study, nothing, it seems, could be further from her mind as she calls again for us women to ‘find some compassion and understanding.’  But only for some.

When lesbians organised against Section 28, we were fighting for our right to assert a sexual orientation centred solely on the female body.  Today that right is under attack again.  This time the threat is coming from the very organisations and publications that purport to speak for us and defend us.  They are redefining who we are, demanding that we change our sexual orientation and pretending there are no consequences to consider, beyond the happiness of other groups.

 

Jean Cross

 

 

 

Feminism, Where the Left Supports the Centre

Radical Feminism recognises that all women are oppressed.  That women exist as a class of humans who are oppressed because they are female.   It presents us with a theory of how the oppression of women is maintained through the operation of the world under patriarchy.

Our modern world was constructed without the influence of women.  We were omitted from the power structures, philosophy, religion, literature, science, human expression and everything else that it took to build our modern societies.  Indeed the very fabric of these institutions was interwoven with misogyny as they propagated, excused, and upheld the domination of men over women as the natural order. We were we not allowed to participate in the building of the world men made for themselves and their sons and consequently, we fare very badly in it.

Women are raped with little legal consequences. Girls and women are forced into prostitution. Women are murdered by men at alarming levels.  Women are beaten at home to the extent that we have to set up safe houses for those who flee. Women occupy the most poorly paid jobs and even in better employment don’t earn the same as men and are passed over for promotion.  When women work outside of the home, they do most of the work at home too.  There are many, many terms to belittle us and the greatest insult a man can subject another man to is to liken him to a woman.

All of this is in the most supposedly progressive countries. In other places women and girls suffer this and more. They are denied education, denied bodily autonomy, denied the freedom to simply go out into the daylight, put under the authority of their fathers and brothers and husbands and sons and prostituted, beaten, raped and murdered on epic scales.

Everywhere we are held to standards of behaviour that do not apply to men. Everywhere girls and boys learn very quickly that being male is better than being female in this world.

Radical feminists do not get hoodwinked or sidelined into thinking that we have achieved equality because our laws say we are equal.  Misogyny cannot be eradicated by edicts and legal proscriptions.  Fifty years after the equal pay legislation in Ireland we still don’t have equal pay.  There is a reason for this and therein lies the truth about the relationship between the sexes.

In modern politics, we see the misogynistic attitude of the Right in their overt efforts to restrict abortion and in their alarming male-centred movement of white supremacy.  It used to be harder to see the anti-woman bias of the Left because they used to say the right things and support our right to choose.  But it is becoming much easier as they increasingly support the pornographers and pimps and traffickers that trade in the bodies and lives of women and girls.

They dress this misogyny in the rhetoric of ‘choice’.  Oddly supporting the hypothetical entrepreneurial aspirations of individual women who might seek to embark on  a career in prostitution and curiously ignoring the multitude of feminist research and analysis of the trade in women’s bodies and the tide of testimony from women and girls who have been bought and sold and raped and beaten by men over and over again.

What they do listen to are the lies of the lobbyist for this trade.  They listen when the men who benefit from selling women set up organisations that purport to represent prostituted women.  They listen to the capitalists when it comes to the bodies of women and children.

They listen too when men claim to be women and they support those men in accessing women’s safe spaces.  They listen to men who call themselves lesbians and they preach that lesbianism is no longer centred on the female body because the men who want to be lesbians say so.  They label lesbians who disagree as ‘transphobic’.

That is how shallow the Left’s commitment to women is. They have ditched us at the first opportunity and they revel in their new version of feminism which allows them to pursue an agenda which favours men.  Now not only do they criticise radical feminists who fight for female only spaces, who fight for sex-based protections, who fight for lesbian’s right to define our own sexuality but they also deny us the right to speak at all.  They no-platform us and call for us to be silenced. They liken us to fascists.

Somehow this treatment is more surprising coming from the Left. But it shouldn’t be.  The Left has always been blinkered when it came to men’s oppression of women. They have no real analysis of it, beyond economic considerations.  And they don’t want to look any further than that because that might bring them face to face with their own misogyny.

When it comes to feminism, the Left is far more likely to support the limited analysis and the timid aims of liberal feminism than it is to support the dynamic, world-changing vision of radical feminism.

From where we stand, as radical feminists, we see the misogyny of the Left as clearly as we see the misogyny of the Right and we feel its impact as sharply.