Pregnant ‘people’ and toasters

toaster-1

Hi. I identify as a toaster. And I am pregnant. It is very personist to insist that only ‘persons’ can get pregnant.

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?!

toaster-2

A fully-inclusive jendahqueer toaster, check out them bagels!

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.

 

Footnote:
The correct pronouns for self-identified toasters are:
Ters, Tors, Mushroom.

15 thoughts on “Pregnant ‘people’ and toasters

  1. Miep

    Ran into a quote the other day about how you can have your own opinion but you don’t get to have your own facts. Sooner or later I am going to stop responding to all this pomo foolishness other than just saying that over and over and over again.

    Liked by 9 people

    Reply
    1. DaveSquirrel

      I cannot help but think, twenty is the new twelve

      Clearly, they have no deductive reasoning, but somehow believe they are totally right. The internutz rarely forgets, will be rather embarrassing for them in 10-15 year’s time. I have actually had the odd YW (half) apologise to me, after realising the stupidity of following the twanz cult.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply
  2. Kitty Barber

    But how about a nice cuppa tea and a piece of toast now? Stop worrying your little head about all this. The trans-women will take care of us if we are nice to them. Honestly, they will. Really.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply
  3. Hecuba

    Pertinent question which sex benefits when women waste their time pontificating on how to describe DIY abortions? No guesses it isn’t biologically born females it is – oh yes of course – it is men, especially those men who claim they can magically morph into females and these self-same men claim their bodies have magically created female reproductive organs. So those males who can magically create female reproductive organs are the ones this female writer is so focused on not upsetting. Because as we women know upsetting the menz makes them very angry and when menz become angry they always threaten us women with male sexual violence and all too commonly enact their threats of male sexual violence against us women.

    Absolutely right Feminism is about Womens’ Liberation from Male Domination/Oppression – see that wasn’t so difficult was it to define. So logically this means Feminism not about ‘pandering to the menz; worrying about menz’ pseudo fragile feelings or even blindly accepting mens’ lies that they can magically morph into females!’ Biological males are biological males – no ifs and no buts!

    Re: pseudo review of Herland – critic was clearly repeating mens’ lies because apparently only when dead white mens’ literature is critiqued, the reviewer is expected to blithely accept that whatever the great and good dead white men wrote, it cannot be questioned or criticised because these males were writing in a different era when apparently different societal standards applied. So on no account must the reviewer (especially a feminist reviewer) analyse/challenge what these dead white men wrote!

    However living and dead female writers can and must be subjected to minute scrutiny and criticism because apparently these dead female writers unlike those dead white male writers, are not accorded that old male trope – ‘it was a different era/time/society – so we must take into account these facts and not engage in revisionism!’

    No guesses this female reviewer is aping mens’ lies because she claims biological males are female and prostituted women are ‘sex workers’ – rather than women and girls men have systematically sexually preyed on and forced into their mens’ global pimp industry. Female writer proves she is aping men when she poses that centuries old male question ‘What is a woman?’ Dead White Men have pontificated on this question for centuries and still men don’t know what is a woman? Well given men continue to believe default human species is male – always has been and according to men always will be so therefore what passes for ‘human experiences’ is always the male lived experiences. So this is why men pontificate on ‘what is woman’ because they refuse to recognise males are not the default human species and mens’ lived experiences are not the default generic ones! Women according to men – are other – which means women aren’t human because our sex isn’t male!

    Another male lie this female writer repeats is mens’ old, old misogynistic one which is their claim that previous Feminist Waves were all created and run by those mythical ‘white middle-class women!’

    Next time this female writer deigns to write any article which mentions feminism she should ensure she has undertaken extensive research on Herstory and I mean actually read Feminist Herstory, (because not all Feminist Herstorians’ books and essays have been successfully consigned to the trash can by those women-hating men who claim their his tory is the only definitive and true one!)

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply
  4. gaydude50

    “Feminism is about actual females; not men, not men dressed up as women, not puppies, and not toasters.”
    Please don’t tell me you aren’t really a squirrel. I’m shattered. 😦

    Is this the new post modern literary criticism? How depressing. No historic context; in fact no functional knowledge of history nevermind feminism. And they are teaching this crap in schools.

    Remember: Ladybrain = science!!
    But Penises are meaningless as long as you have the lady feels.
    And jendah is what you want it to be, as long as you are with the program and you know it means high heels, short skirts and frilly blouses.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. morag99

      “Is this the new post modern literary criticism? How depressing. No historic context; in fact no functional knowledge of history nevermind feminism. And they are teaching this crap in schools.”

      Exactly, gaydude50. Trying to read that crap was not just depressing; it made me feel as if I couldn’t breathe. Such poor, dishonest, disrespectful treatment of a piece of historic women’s literature. I can’t stand it. They treat older literature the same way they treat “older” (over 35? 40?) people: with arrogance and smugness, as if the world were invented a couple of years ago. No knowledge of, or imagination for, a context other than their own. That, after all, requires sensitivity, empathy and a certain amount of intellectual labour — i.e., that’s normally how literature is studied and critiqued. It’s not done that way anymore, I guess!

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply
      1. gaydude50

        Critical thought has been replaced with linguistic masturbation. No surprise the MtTs are into masturbation!!

        The depressing part is really the women who are buying into this crap.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. Black Metal Valkyrie

        I think its bullshit to say that ageism works both ways as it is often talked about in the malestream. If anything the young have privilege such as the two young men that raped Rehtaeh Parsons while she was passed out. They filmed it and spread it around school to humiliate her. She was a victim of sexist harassment being called a slut by her peers. The boys had privilege because of their age to rape with no consequence.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. sellmaeth

    “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!”

    You’re right, but I can understand the reviewer. It is hard to think outside of the patriarchy box when one is surrounded by it. After all, the malestream media do their best to convince us that unwanted pregnancies are like a force of nature, something that just happens to women, not something that men do to women.
    (I would still be pro-choice even in this perfect world without mandatory PIV, because there can always be medical emergencies. But abortions would be something like getting your appendix removed – a medical necessity, not a social one.)

    On the other hand, the question what would happen to prostitutes in a land without men is really, really stupid. (Also, is it just me or did the reviewer imply that “prostitute” is something you are born as … like the colour of your skin, or being male? If prostitutes were born as such, then of course they would be poor and jobless in Herland, but … arrgh, that’s so stupid!)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  6. petuniacat00

    So Daviniasquirrel, did you ever read Herland? It’s really fun. And are you still doing this blog? It’s nice. I only found it at the time of the horse race being so golfphobic. I want more! 🧀🚀🐿😋😍🏌

    Like

    Reply

Leave a rilly rilly twanzphobic reply, go on, dares ya!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s