Simple thought of the day:
You cannot have sexual discrimination without the concept of gender.
Gender, short for gender roles, are the perceived behavioural differences between the biological sexes, stuff like ‘women love shopping’ and ‘men read maps’.
Without these arbitrary distinctions attributed to the sexes, discrimination based on biological sex is revealed for what it is: completely unfair. Humans, no matter what their biological sex, cover all human traits and attributes.
Upholding the gender roles and its arbitrary attributions is the sneaky backdoor way of being able to discriminate on the basis of biological sex, otherwise, the discrimination is laid bare.
The second wave were very successful on exposing sexual discrimination for what it was, and although there was analysis of gender roles and how stupid and arbitrary they were, gender was not totally annihilated at that time. Since the second wave, like a virus not completely eliminated, gender has been allowed to fester and grow, and forms the primary backlash to the second wave gains.
The concept of transgender, that gender, some innate mysterious quality transcending biological sex (and yet, at the same time depends on mimicking biological sex in order to ‘align sex and gender’) relies on upholding (perceived) biological sex differences, but calling them ‘gender’ instead. Same shit, different day.
If you get rid of ‘gender’; the concept of gender, that maintains behavioural differences and attributes of the biological sexes; the discrimination on the basis of biological sex becomes obvious, so obvious, you could poke it with a stick.
Tranz theory insists that ‘gender’ is something hard to define and internal to the individual. It is difficult to fight such an invisible bogeyman, particularly when transjacktivists keep moving the goalpost on a daily, almost hourly basis. And that they simultaneously have both sides covered, for instance, M2Ts claim both that “they are exactly the same as FAB women” and also “that they are different to FAB women [on the basis that they are tranzwomen and moar discriminated against]”. So which is it? Identical or different? Can’t be both at the same time.
‘Woman’ the term for an adult biological human female, a term based on biological sex, has now been co-opted as a ‘gender’ term. Because it is now a ‘gender’ term, human males are allowed to occupy Class Woman, effectively erasing the sex-based discrimination that FAB women face (because males are victims too!). That should have meant an end to ‘gender discrimination’ (based on sex discrimination) but it has not. Tranzjacktivists don’t lift a pinkie fighting for women’s rights, only transwomen’s rights, plus gender has been imbibed with this mysterious airy-fairy magickal quality, ‘so hard to define’. The other part of this equation is that FAB women don’t have ‘gender’ under those terms, they are assigned to be ‘cis-gender’ (apparently rilly rilly happy that they get treated like second class citizens). So anti-gender discrimination laws don’t cover FAB women at all, only tranz. Anti-gender discrimination laws also effectively erase biological sex, because it refers to “people” and makes no attempt to fix the problems of the way in which discrimination operates against the specific sex of female (which is actually the application of these gender roles).
Upholding ‘gender’ is a nifty way to continue to discriminate against a group of people on the basis of sex, specifically the female people.
Without ‘gender’, sexual discrimination could not continue as it does. Giving sex (discrimination) the new name of ‘gender’ (discrimination) and then redefining it to mean something different is a derail of what is going on. Just as when women’s studies somehow got renamed as gender studies, then was totally redefined. As usual, ‘women’ (meaning FABs) got relegated into second place yet again.
I read maps and hate shopping, and yet even though I am the opposite in most respects to these so-called ‘gender differences’, I still get discriminated against because of my SEX. Not my ‘gender’. Gender discrimination means jackshit if you are female, because you are always discriminated against on the basis of your sex, not your ‘gender’. It does not matter how many ‘masculine gendered’ talents or attributes you have, you are always regarded as female, and discriminated against as such.
Sex discrimination will always continue as long as ‘gender differences’ remains within the mainstream and the law. In fact, there would be no need to (pretend to) legislate against ‘gender’ discrimination if there was no sexual discrimination at its core.
To fully eradicate sexual discrimination we must fully eradicate the concept of ‘gender’ and ‘gendered behaviours’.
So, tah-tah tranz. Your childhood love of the colour pink and playing with Barbies means absolutely nothing other than a desire to uphold prescribed gendered behaviours assigned to female children. An end to ‘gender’ won’t mean an end to those preferences at all, the stigma of males liking pink and playing with Barbies will be removed – but they won’t be tranz-anything, in fact, more boys will be free to do those things without the fear of surgical or chemical alteration. And yes, all these so-called gender preferences are bullshit, feral children do not follow this love of pink or blue crap.
– – – – –
I have just discovered that GallusMag has kindly transcribed part of the podcast that featured Sheila Jeffreys. Jeffreys of course does a much better job of explaining gender and the connection with discrimination based on biological sex (in fewer words!), as well as covering many of the other issues. This could be why she is a professor, and I am a mere ‘naughty’ blogger 😛