If your claim to feminism
Putative feminist puts her putative feminism to work standing up for men again.
If your claim to feminism includes telling feminist women not to focus on women but instead to focus on men who claim to be women, your feminism is moronic and you should feel like a damn fool.
But instead, putative feminist feels confident and clever enough to keep right on telling feminist women to focus on men who claim to be women.
Ahhhh that’s nice isn’t it? It’s not the man’s fault for getting naked in a women’s changing room, it’s the teenage girl’s fault for perceiving that a man is next to her and naked. The man has every right to get his dick out, the girl has no right to notice that he’s done so. He’s not intruding and perving, she is.
But how does anyone know who is which?
The determined stupidity is hard to believe. The determined transfer of feminism from women to men who call themselves women is enraging.
Predators wear name tags saying “Hi, my name is Mark, I’m a predator.” Don’t they? As opposed to transwomen, who wear name tages saying: “Maureen. Safe. She/her.” Easy peasy.
What if I only spend 80% of my free time telling transwomen they’re men? (I can’t bring myself to call it harassing.)
How about 75%? 50% 20%?
At what point does my feminism become “bad”? Is it just one time? Of course, since I’m not on Twitter, obviously I couldn’t do this, but I do need to know just in case.
And what if I “misgender” a trans woman in real life, not on Twitter at all? Is that enough for bad feminism? Or does it need to be 90% of the time on that, too?
Honestly, most rad fems have better things to do than spend all their free time on Twitter engaging with trans and their allies. Most of them engage when there is a reason, like someone saying stupid shit, or someone trying to force us to allow male bodies in our spaces.
Sort of like religion, again. The topic is nearly always brought up by the religious – what god do you believe in? Where do you go to church? Are you a Christian? Are you born again? When we finally get annoyed with the constant barrage of questions and can no longer be polite, we tell them the truth. I don’t believe in any gods, I haven’t been to church since my mother stopped dragging me, I am not a Christian, and born again is meaningless. I was born fine the first time. Then we are accused of always being aggressive. (I know some atheists are, but even when they are not, they are the ones blamed for the resulting row. It’s always assumed they started it.)
Just another commonality with religion.
… defending the rights of women and girls against those who present some of the most significant current threats to those rights….
How does Laurie Penny know this hypothetical person is a predator? Erections can happen involuntarily.* Maybe the woman with a penis was simply daydreaming about her lesbian lover?
Mind your own business, kid.
* I think I’ve actually read this apologia somewhere. But anyway it’s the next logical step. The point is that the female child’s discomfort is unimportant vis-à-vis the penis-person’s identity feelings.
Seven years ago the people willing to die on this hill couldn’t say enough about Schrodinger’s Rapist.
GW
Actually, predators in female spaces do carry around identifiers: e.g., gentleman sausage.
Nullius, that sausage is no gentleman.
[…] read Glosswitch’s take on Laurie Penny’s fatuous claims this morning (this morning my time, Hellfire West Coast […]
And the chef’s no Julia Child.
So Laurie Penny is another ‘feminist’ that has never heard of the problems of predation summarised as ‘Schrodinger’s rapist’.
@5: Maybe they “tuck it” until they’re ready. (And no, I don’t know the mechanics of this, and probably don’t want to, but I remember the article where they interviewed Caitlyn Jenner, and he said that the reason he got his penis hacked off is that ‘”it was becoming too much of an inconvenience to have to tuck it every morning” or something like that.)