What could have been an otherwise excellent article on DIY abortion, degenerated about half way along:
As soon as I could, I rounded up my closest friends for a knowledge-sharing session at home in Austin. I made modifications of my own to the training documents: I edited the gendered language in the instructions as much as possible, to better accommodate trans and genderqueer folks who don’t identify as women but who might need abortions.
Hate to give the impromptu biology lesson here, but only female humans can become pregnant. The ‘twanzwomen’ (M2Ts) cannot become pregnant, although many of them still possess the equipment to impregnate a human female. In the scramble to enact the pronoun/inclusiveness protocols, it could have been the one time that twanz supporters actually focused on F2Ts as the specific group of twanz, instead of always including them under the generic ‘twanz’ label—no one seems to have any problem in focusing on M2Ts (including the M2Ts themselves).
As for the ‘jendahqueers’, it would be actually impossible to list all the preferred pronouns of this endless category of special snowflakes, who seem to have nothing better to do than come up with snowflake pronouns.
And what about those ‘pregnant persons’ who might identify as toasters? Did you give them a thought, even once?!
It is completely irrelevant how someone ‘identifies’ (their ‘jendah’), when we are talking about reproductive biology. This is the pesky little detail that gives the whole jendah game away, doesn’t it?
I am suprised the author did not go into a tirade and declare the WHO ‘twanzphobic assholes’, for understanding the reality of human dimorphic reproduction—only human females are able to become pregnant, gestate a foetus, give birth, and perhaps require abortions.
She went on with:
After we grasped the basics of the protocols, we practiced repeating them and role-playing how to share them with others using non-instructive language—a task that seemed kind of embarrassing at first, but I nagged my friends through it. Before long, we had our scripts down pat.
Showing clearly, that her friends had more working braincells than to blindly follow ridiculous and unnecessary pronoun protocols on an already functional document.
Well guess what? Feminism is about the rights of females. If some females want to opt out of that with ‘jendah roles’ and jendahqueerness, so be it, but it does not change the fact that most of the world’s population don’t think they are jendahqueer toasters. And by opting out, they no longer have solidarity with those left behind in Category Woman and Category Female, so obscuring the majority, to pander to the few opt-outers, is bloody ridiculous to say the least.
That is why all this new-fangled bullshit is not feminism. Feminism is about actual females; not men, not men dressed up as women, not puppies, and not toasters. If you want to focus on all that other crap, fine, but it is not feminism. Better call it ‘inclusiveism’. Or stupid pronounism, or something.
The above author is not the only one to completely fuck up articles in the name of inclusivity, but this next one adds not-thinking-things-through, and then descends into all-about-her-ism.
It is a book review, for a book published one hundred years ago, about a female-only society, called ‘Herland’, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. The reviewer’s first half was actual review, and the book sounds interesting.
But it goes rapidly downhill at this point:
Being a product of its time, Herland is also excruciatingly antiquated – rife with gender essentialism, white supremacy and anti-abortion rhetoric.
She goes on with an insulated viewpoint:
…consumed by her writing, Gilman eventually sent her daughter away to be raised by her ex-husband, she was labeled an “unnatural” mother. With that in mind, Herland’s depersonalisation of motherhood – which becomes, instead, a collective effort, a sort of ambient magical gift, a religion – feels somewhere between atonement and rationalisation.
Solitary mothering is actually the unnatural (and modern day) form. Intergenerational and collective mothering was far more successful, until patriarchy got hold of it. So it turns out, the reviewer’s own view, is biased by patriarchical thinking (this makes me want to read the book more!).
Nor is populating your book entirely with white people, except for a few vague references to jungle “savages”
Homogenuous single-race societies were really the most widespread, until colonialisation, so it is a post-colonial viewpoint by the reviewer. Yeah ok, ‘jungle savages’ does sound bad—but it could refer to mixed (male/female) or dudely encampments nearby, and ‘savages’ would be entirely appropriate. The ‘savages’ could well have been from the same race as the Herlanders. Won’t know the context that Gilman means until I have read it.
She goes on with dumb:
…nor is promoting the idea that womanhood is an anatomical designation instead of an innate personal one; nor is meeting the line “you surely do not destroy the unborn!” with a look of “ghastly horror”. So what is the utility of Herland, as a feminist text with so many decidedly un-feminist ideas?
Again, this reviewer’s world view is coloured by patriarchy, because in a world without mandatory PIV, there is then a situation of no unwanted pregnancies, and no need for abortion. Think outside the box, little girl!
What is a “woman”? Who gets to be one? Who gets to decide who “counts”? In our quest for equality, should feminists strive for the right to embody even the toxic aspects of masculinity, or should we focus on dismantling it before reaching for equality at all? Why should women who have traditionally been underserved or exploited by mainstream feminism (women of colour, trans women, sex workers) have that label foisted upon them?
Stupid pomo raises its ugly head. If you have to ask the question “What is a woman?”, then politely I will say you have no business calling yourself a feminist. The twanzwomen would not be in Herland, being male, dress-ups don’t count (remember, the mention of ‘gender neutral clothing’? yeah, well M2Ts doing that would most obviously look like dudes!). And in more shortsightedness by the reviewer, there would be no ‘sex workers’ aka prostituted women, because… no dudes/johns! duh!
And repeating the old anti-feminist trope about previous waves of feminism, well just plain anti-feminist. The trope is that previous waves were “all middle class white women”, which is utter crap. I guess then the Matchstick Girls were all wearing pearls? Or what about the ILGWU? Not a pearl-clutcher among them. It is about time the 20-somethings that call themselves feminists, worry less about pronouns, and learn more about Herstory and from feminist sources, not swallow the anti-feminist twanz Kool Aid rhetoric.
The correct pronouns for self-identified toasters are:
Ters, Tors, Mushroom.