#Glosswitch

[there-are-4-lights]

[taylor14firefly]

By Victoria Smith 6 August, 2024 [excerpt] "Greater male upper body strength is a sensitive topic for feminists. Just mentioning it can feel like an admission of female physical inferiority, a confirmation of gender stereotypes, or a needless revealing of one’s own hand (why let the enemy know he has the advantage?). It is of course none of these things. Men are better at running and punching people; women are better at creating new humans and surviving to a very old age. None of this says anything much about our personalities, intellects or personal desires. Nevertheless, sometimes the fact that it is far easier for members of one sex to kill members of the other with their bare hands is socially and politically salient.  Right now there are two athletes in the female boxing category in Paris who are alleged to have XY chromosomes. Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting were both disqualified from world championships last year for failing sex eligibility tests (neither pursued an appeal). Rather than insist that both have gone through the same puberty as those of us with XX chromosomes, the International Olympic Committee is defending their current inclusion on the somewhat flimsy grounds that their passports say “female”.  Whatever the truth, I would argue that this debate has exposed something deeply disturbing about attitudes towards male strength and female susceptibility to violence. Namely, far too many people seem to believe — or at least pretend to believe — that female physical vulnerability is a posture, a choice, a prissy performance of femininity. Even if it transpires that Khelif and Yu-ting do not have DSDs and are biologically female, the very fact that this view is so widespread should worry us all.  Many of those seeking to defend Khelif and Yu-ting’s inclusion have wilfully conflated concerns about female safety with prejudice regarding the boxers’ supposedly unfeminine appearance. The Labour MP Zarah Sultana has declared they are under attack for not conforming “to conventional standards of femininity”. In an article for the Independent, Kat Brown claims that being 6’1” and having her “dad’s jawline” would put her in the firing line, too, due to not being “your classic example of 1950s femininity”. These are ludicrous arguments. Not one female boxer can be described as gender conforming (the clue is in “being a female boxer”, something the Olympics did not even allow until 2012). The red flag isn’t hair length or jawlines; it’s those failed eligibility tests.  [...] Whether or not Khelif has XY chromosomes, it is not whiny or manipulative to note that it matters — in the boxing ring, on the street, in enclosed spaces — whether or not someone does. This is an issue that goes way beyond sports. Women and girls are not subjected to an unprecedented degree of male violence because we are too busy policing the boundaries of heteronormative patriarchy to fight back. We don’t identify with being weak; we don’t love it really. There is no connection — none whatsoever — between not being able to hit as hard as a man and being gender conforming. 

In wake of the Olympics boxing controversy, I wanted to bring attention to writer Victoria Smith (aka Glosswitch). She is, arguably, one of the most mainstream voices on radical feminism--feminism on the basis of liberating women from sex-based oppression--particularly in the UK. So much that's called "radical feminist" or attributed to it is flat out slander or projection, and if anyone wants to get a sense of what any "radical feminist" believes, Victoria Smith is a good starting point.

[pillarsalt]

[esosarah]

Finally, I've finished the 12 feminist / gender critical / women's rights portraits! Yes, it feels like it's been forever.

Anyway, Victoria Smith (glosswitch), Sonia Sodha, Shay Woulahan, Hannah Berrelli, Magdalen Berns, Dr. Emma Hilton, Kate Harris, Bev Jackson, Jo Phoenix, Eliza Mondegreen, Suzanne Moore, and Hilary Cass.

[she-is-ovarit]

"Cis priivlege" is used because "female privilege" didn't work too well for incels and MRAs.

[radfemblack]

I love her.

[radhyena]

This article is amazing, but it really actually shed light on something I was always aware of but didn’t really have the awareness to really word, and it’s that radfems are never taken seriously and that is very intentional. In the article, Smith talks about how she considered gender critical ideas for years before ever coming out, and I think most radical feminists would say the same. This isn’t some small thing for us, we didn’t just stumble across JKR and fall for a cult tactic like they say.

But if they acknowledge that then they’d have to acknowledge that we actually have a side. This is a conversation on WOMANHOOD and men are given more of a voice because people just don’t think women could have actually thought critically about it.

It’s the same way our choices are always tied back to men. We don’t have our own free thoughts or opinions, we just want to get a reaction out of men.

This really gets me because a few months ago I had someone actually challenge me on gender critical beliefs, and I smacked down every point they made because I’ve spent actual time researching and studying whereas they didn’t. But the way they approached me was “I know you’re confused. I know you fell down a rabbit hole of hate” even though they couldn’t argue a single point effectively.

And after I shut him down? He couldn’t even admit he was wrong, just said “well you should let people be happy”

Women are not taken seriously and that is so intentional.

[and-then-there-were-n0ne]

At first I wasn’t particularly inclined to watch Matt Walsh’s documentary What is a Woman? I know the answer to that one already. Everybody does.

A woman is someone who isn’t allowed a final say on what a woman is. Pretending not to know this — that defining “woman” is incredibly complex and bewildering — is an age-old tactic deployed by non-women, usually in order to excuse treating us badly.

Are women fully human? Do they have souls? What do women want? Far greater men than the host of The Matt Walsh Show — Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Sigmund Freud — have tried and failed to answer these questions (they could always have asked an actual woman, but first they’d have had to establish whether women can think, and then they’d have been back to square one).

As Matt himself says at the start of his film, “I like to make sense of things. Making sense of females is a whole other matter”, noting that “even astrophysicist Stephen Hawking” was “completely dumbfounded by women”.

Even astrophysicist Stephen Hawking! Honestly, ladies, if the author of A Brief History of Time hasn’t a clue what the hell we are, what hope do any of us have?

The thankless nature of the task may be why the twenty-first century version of The Woman Question has now been allocated to those somewhat lower down the male intellect hierarchy: Edinburgh fringe comedians, disgraced MPs, right-wing shock jocks, Owen Jones and Billy Bragg.

The proposal that a woman is anyone who defines themselves as a woman — and that no woman may say anyone isn’t a woman — has led to a particularly unimpressive stage of the debate, one which can only be described as the Summa Theologica meets incels r us.

On the bright side, it’s clear the men are bloody loving it. If you’re left-wing, it’s your chance to put those TERFs in their place after years of having to “do feminism” as part of the right-side-of-history package deal. If you’re right-wing, it’s your opportunity to own all those feminists who suggested female bodies weren’t inferior and that pink, fluffy ladybrains were a myth. As Walsh declares of his film, “the movie makes utter fools of educated elite liberals”. I’m guessing that’s the point.

I confess to having known very little about Matt Walsh up till now. “I’m a husband, I’m a father of four, I host a talk show, I give speeches, I write books,” he tells us by way of introduction. Hey, that sounds nice! Alas, a quick perusal of his twitter account shows that he’s the kind of renaissance man who tweets things like “feminism is an ugly and bitter ideology” and “rapists love abortion. It helps them cover up their crime”.

He’s also the kind of man who, should feminists show themselves to insufficiently appreciative of his recent woman-defining efforts, tells us we would “rather be a victim than win the fight” and that we “just want to sit on the sidelines and whine”. He’s been, like, getting death threats due to his challenge to contemporary gender mores! Would you risk that, eh, feminists? What’s anyone ever done to you, JK Rowling, you massive coward?

I first wrote about the problematic nature of a gender identity-based definition of women over eight years ago. Other women, such as Julie Bindel, were sounding the alarm far earlier, and with little support. I know we’re supposed to be eternally grateful to Matt for stepping into the breach. What a gent! As the Onion once put it, Man Finally Put In Charge of Struggling Feminist Movement (admittedly it’s a man who thinks feminism is an ugly and bitter ideology but hey, we can’t have everything).

In any case, I gave in and watched Matt’s film, just on the off-chance I’d missed something (more fool me; I read Gender Trouble on that basis, and look where that’s got me). There was little in What is a woman? that I didn’t already know from the work of feminists themselves, but that’s no reason to discount it. What’s wrong with alerting the normies to the excesses of trans activism too?

Perhaps the most difficult thing about conveying the absurdities of extreme trans activism to anyone who hasn’t yet encountered it, is that you either sound as though you’re making it up (usually in order to “stoke moral panic”) or the person to whom you’re talking concludes you must have missed some essential point (it would indeed be horrific if teenage girls were having their breasts removed due to social contagion and “progressive” institutions were cheering it on, therefore it can’t be happening. There must be something else afoot).

One of the great things about Walsh’s film is that he shows, first, that harmful things are indeed taking place, and second, that there is no hidden meaning behind them. The therapists, surgeons, academics and politicians to whom he speaks don’t suddenly pull back the curtain and reveal, yes, this is the reason why it isn’t total bollocks to claim that no one really knows what sex anyone is. That moment never comes (and believe me, I’d have loved it if it had. Being a Known TERF is a pain in the arse).

Instead they say things like “a chicken has an assigned gender” and that the word truth is “condescending and rude”. Ha! Aren’t liberals ridiculous? At one point Matt interviews someone who identifies as a wolf (or some other animal. I got bored and went to the kitchen for a biscuit at that point). What’s striking is that you sense his interviewees know on some level that they’re bullshitting. That’s why a number of them end the interview early, citing Walsh’s alleged bad faith as the reason why.

There are some genuinely moving sections to the film, such as the interviews with female athletes cheated out of prizes by the inclusion of males in the girls’ categories. The contribution from Scott Newgent, a trans man deeply concerned about the impact of medical transition on young females, was incredibly engaging. I could have watched a whole film on Newgent alone, as someone clearly driven by both personal trauma and compassion for others.

So why, overall, did the film leave a bad taste? Am I just an “ugly and bitter” feminist, peeved that a man has come along and claimed a number of feminist observations as his own? Am I a purist, unwilling to accept any support from anyone whose views don’t align precisely with mine?

I don’t think so. The problem for me is that Walsh never acknowledges the role his own rigid beliefs play in creating and perpetuating the current situation.

He finds countless people convinced that the only way to avoid imposing harmful social norms on individuals on the basis of their sexed bodies, is to pretend we can’t define said bodies or impute any social meaning to them at all. Yet he does nothing to suggest one shouldn’t impose said norms, or that his own pink/blue fantasies of girlhood and boyhood might be leading those who don’t conform to feel they are somehow “wrong”.

“Give my son a BB gun and that’s just about all the emotional support he needs,” he muses over a children’s party scene, all boys in blue jeans, all girls pink princesses. “My daughter on the other hand … I’ve heard people say that there are no differences between male and female. Those people are idiots.”

Hmm. I have three children, all biologically male, all of whom have played with dolls houses and worn dresses. Two of them have Frozen-style long blonde hair and I’ve never bought any of them a toy gun (nor have any of them asked for one).

According to Walsh’s own gender ideology, I’m on the slippery slope towards the erasure of any stable definition of “male” and “female” at all. This is the mirror image of the absurdities of trans activism. Both Walsh and the people he interviews conflate sex difference denialism with the rejection of gender stereotypes. He thinks we should suffer the stereotypes; they think we should suffer the surgery. Feminists believe we shouldn’t suffer either.

There’s a particularly grim scene where Walsh attends a Women’s March, and delights in harassing female protestors who don’t want to give a precise definition of the word “woman”. Much as this reticence frustrates me, too, I know where it comes from. The polarised politics of the day has told these women they must choose between denying their sex and accepting an anti-choice, conservative vision of what it means to be an adult human female. It’s a vision Matt Walsh shares.

These women are caught between two forms of misogyny but to Walsh, it’s all “own the libs” fun and games. This man is not on our side, nor will he win over the women he lazily misrepresents as not knowing what’s good for them.

At the end of the film, Matt returns home from his gender odyssey to his waiting Penelope. She is, of course, in the kitchen, and happens to be struggling with a pickle jar.

“What is a woman?” he asks her.

“An adult human female — who needs help opening this!” she responds. Got it, ladies? He’ll defend our right to exist as a sex class, as long as we can all agree it’s the weaker one.

In the end, I’m just so fed up with the machismo. Last year I spoke to one of the founders of Woman’s Place UK, who told me sex-based rights will ultimately be defended best by those in it for “the victory, not the glory”. The people, mainly women, often lesbians and women of colour, who do the dull, behind the scenes work of compiling data and challenging unfair practices one by one. The people who aren’t seeking to reimpose other, equally oppressive beliefs about sex and gender.

It may be that What is a Woman? helps, by showing some still on the fence that the problem is real. Others, it may push in the other direction. Either way, women themselves won’t be thanked for their own hard work and significant risks.

After all, that’s just what being a woman is.

[moonstonetombstone]

[faxxmachine]

I would encourage you all to subscribe to Glosswitch’s newsletter The OK Karen, if you have not already.

From today’s newsletter:

There are men like Biden who benefit, to a degree unknowingly, from the fact that women never have the choice of voting for someone who represents their interests entirely. With them, there is always the hope that one day, they will understand how unjust it is to be able to rely on the support of a group not because you’re not hurting them, but because you’re hurting them less than the other guy. Then there are sexist arseholes who delight in the fact that for women, politics remains Hobson’s Choice, who make no effort whatsoever to hide the fact that left-wing men can set up their own protection racket, using right-wing men as the ultimate threat. “Nice abortion rights / maternity leave / child benefit you’ve got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it. Now hand over the hardcore porn!”

Men have always done this. Left-wing men point at right-wing men, right-wing men point at men in other countries (“see how they treat ‘their’ women! You lot have nothing to complain about!”). It happens on a smaller scale within communities and families. We side with the men who give us the least shit and who can blame them for noticing this? This very siding, borne of necessity, is then used to deflect all accusations of sexism. The left-wing man will say “it’s only old crones who think I’m sexist; all my younger female mates agree with me“. Just as the right-wing husband will say “it’s only the feminists who call this abuse; my missus loves it”. All the while, these men know, deep down, that “their” women are not necessarily endorsing their viewpoints. They are trying to suffer the least harm, because no harm at all is never an option.

[pillarsalt]

[joannerowlingfans]

It is so strange that JKR is being classified as “right-wing” for what she wrote. 

This isn’t a right-wing versus left-wing issue and I don’t think it ever was. It’s a sexism issue and it’s coming from all kinds of political stances.

If anyone truly thinks JKR is right-wing, they are fundamentally misunderstanding her political views. 

Being against sexist stereotypes is hardly a fundamentally right-wing position.

[wonderaesth]

[there-are-4-lights]

I'm listening to it now and the chapter "Legacy" is so fascinating, the way it talks about women"s community, role models, alienation, consciousness raising. The theme of misunderstanding between transitioning women and women who don't transition, is talked about side-by-side with discussions about generational legacy. It immediately made me wonder if Victoria Smith (@glosswitch, Hags author) has read it? Can someone who's on twitter ask her?

it would be fascinating to read those 2 books side-by-side, I'd listen to a interview of the 2 authors discussing legacy and engaging with 2nd wave texts!

Many feminists are concerned about the way transgender ideology naturalizes patriarchal views of sex stereotypes, and encourages transition as a way of attempting to escape misogyny. In this brave and thoughtful book, Max Robinson goes beyond the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of the transition she underwent and takes us through the processes that led her, first, to transition in an attempt to get relief from her distress, and then to detransition, as she discovered feminist thought and community. The author makes a case for a world in which all medical interventions for the purpose of assimilation are open to criticism. This book is a far-reaching discussion of women’s struggles to survive under patriarchy, which draws upon a legacy of radical and lesbian feminist ideas to arrive at its conclusions. Robinson’s bold discussion of both transition and detransition is meant to provoke a much-needed conversation about who benefits from transgender medicine and who has to bear the hidden cost of these interventions.

ebook available on all major sellers! add it to your goodreads! | interviews & more links

[thearbourist]

Moral Panics - More ways to censure Women.

Moral Panics – More ways to censure Women.

Funny how that works…