So, on the subject of bonkers hyperbolic pretzeling over the Bell judgement, Grace 'destroy books I don't like & make inappropriate jokes about sterilising teenage girls' Lavery has some thoughts.

Tell me why my feminism is wrong Grace.

Oh goodie. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/15/uk-transphobia-transgender-court-ruling-puberty-blockers/

Well, if anyone thought the Bell judgment was going to make TRAs reconsider making massively overblown claims with no evidence backed up with nothing but a thick wadge of emotional blackmail.... HAHAHA, no one thought that.

A high court in the UK made a delimited judgment about teenager's ability to consent to puberty blockers. This puts all trans people everywhere in the world at risk.

Because if any human anywhere has any thoughts that deviate in any way from the rote line dictated by

the trans rights movement, this puts all trans people everywhere in mortal danger.

Let's be honest Grace. It doesn't put trans people at risk. It puts trans ideology at risk. Because trans ideology depends on the idea of innate gender identity, and the trans child is the

necessary material evidence of the ontology of gender identity.

That is, children are being medicalised to provide evidence to underwrite adults identities.

Nothing to see here.

Always a good move to kick off an essay lecturing women on how you are a better feminist than them by accusing them of being 'illogical.'

Defo establishes you're 'not an MRA credentials' right of the bat.

Followed up with liberal application of 'CRUEL NASTY WIMMINS'

Novel.

We gonna discuss any of the reasons given for why the court concluded that under 16s couldn't consent to an experimental treatment with very poor clinical evidence and possible long-term effects on fertility, sexual function, cognition, bone-density?

Yeah well, except that almost all children put on puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones, and being on puberty blockers stops the natural cognitive and emotional development which leads to dysphoria resolving in many cases where kids are not medicalised.

Transperbole the second.

1. It's not a juridical 'attack.' It's a judgement. About minor's capacity to consent to an experimental medical treatment.

2. It's not an attack on the whole 'LGBT' community.

3. It's not an attack on the trans community. Unless you consider the

well-being and safety of all trans people depends on minors being given experimental medical treatments.

If you need the existence of trans children to underwrite your identity and it feels like an existential threat for that to be challenged, that's a you problem.

Can I get a 100-quid for every time the high priests/priestesses of 'queer everything normativity is bad subjugated knowledges rah' dismiss us by calling us 'marginal.'

I thought the margins was where the challenge to hegemony comes from? Oh, just not when it's bitches right?

'Patriarchy and the impact of male violence on women doesn't matter because some of them have money' Part 789,098

'We are more vulnerable than those bitches, insert sketchy stats, so fuck their rights give us everything we demand and if you don't...' Part 1,987,265

*Descends into gibberish to get around the blatantly obvious assertion that female ppl exist, have been oppressed on the basis of being female, and have certain political interests that follow from that*

You wouldn't be denying the existence of female people as a class now?

So this is a cool little rhetorical slight of hand.

GCs are at odds with mainstream liberal feminism (true, which means that your 'we're so rad smash the status quo' BS is in fact supported by all the corporate and institutional feminist power and that might tell us something)

and GCs are at odds with *one aspect of one of the founders of radical feminism*.

Yes, Shulie thought that patriarchy arises *directly* from the sex difference and that the only option for women's liberation was to remove the sex difference and make babies in pods.

It wasn't her greatest thought.

It may surprise you to know that a great number of us pretty much ignored that thought, right from the start, because it's, all respect Shulie, I love ya, fucking *bonkers.*

There's a lot of stuff we can say here, about the inability of people to think difference without hierarchy, and how that relates to the difference between 'equality' and 'difference' feminisms.

Radical feminism is simply the belief that sex-based oppression underlies all other

systems of domination.

Some radical feminists are equality feminists, some, many in fact, are difference feminists.

I would wager that the one of the things that links together feminists opposing trans ideology, is that we understand that 'equality' =/= 'sameness.'

And that, furthermore, descending from the Beauvoirian line, we understand that thinking women's liberation in terms of sameness just reproduces the patriarchal structure dominated by the male default.

But please, explain my feminism to me again.

When are you going to grasp that we are precisely *not* regulating 'personhood' or 'identity.'

Women being female is not an 'identity.' It's a material reality. And my 'personhood' is not defined by my being female. THAT IS THE POINT.

All we are doing is asserting that women exist as a sex class in law, and we do not consent to being redefined as a gender class. Which precisely *would* define our 'personhood' on the basis of some patriarchal idea of what being female *means.*

Notice how we slip here from 'this one thing that Shulie said which most radfems ignored' to 'this is what all radical feminists have historically thought so they are not being consistent with their own tradition which of course I know better than them stupid women.'

No, it doesn't.

Any woman who grasps that patriarchy functions by male default/othering women from position of male default/patriarchal projection defining women, can grasp, at a glance, that trans ideology is patriarchy on crack.

And we don't need to read Raymond to get that.

That is, any woman who has read the Second Sex, or whose feminism is informed by the Beauvoirian/difference feminist thought, is going to spot what is happening here a mile fucking off.

The bottom line is, you have the assimilating equality feminist 'let's conform to the male-

default' ppl on your side.

We have the 'fuck this entire system structured around male needs and projections and start over' people on ours.

If you were even slightly honest, you would remember that when hooks named 'white feminism,' she was talking about the first group.

Now we get the 'she said we are being appropriating the evil bitch' classic.

Funny how in contemporary discourse appropriation of an oppressed class is high-treason. Apart from when women say they are being appropriated. Then they're just nasty cows.

"Yes we said that female people don't exist.

No we're not erasing you."

"Yes, I can't think the relation of nature and culture, biology and history, or necessary and sufficient conditions.

This is evidence of my intellectual sophistication."

Then there's a lot of pretzeling bullshit designed to obscure the fact that there is ample evidence that puberty blockers don't work as a pause button but who cares, we're just going to keep saying it.

Once upon a time people of pretty much all political inclinations recognised that destroying people's fertility was a human rights violation, now it's just a 'conservative social project' to care about it.

I guess Grace is okay with the horrors of what ICE has been up to then???

Blah blah right wing conservative Christians blah blah Trump Nazis blah blah.

Hysterical irrational crazy bitches amirite PART FIVE AND A HALF THOUSAND YEARS OF THIS SHIT.

You're right. It's chimerical. Because it is entirely made up by you and your endless fucking projections.

Did I mention projection?

'Trans women are women'
'Trans men are men'
'Non-binary is valid'
'No debate'
'Trans rights are human rights'
'Sex is a spectrum'
'Bio-essentialism!'
'Colonialism invented the gender binary'

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Jokers.

Wouldn't do to get through this without slipping in the imputation that they're all genocidal fucking Nazis based on the wilful misreading of that one quote from Raymond now would it?

We're a sex.

It's not complicated.

All the batshit efforts at complicating are yours, and no one would be talking about 'large immobile gametes' had a load of nutbags not tried to convince everyone that no one could identify a female person or tree or a fucking mountain.

No, it's like trying to define a tree by having a trunk and branches and leaves.

And how many times Grace, female people and trees *exist*, their definitions are not *why* they exist, and they will carry on existing regardless. Because not your god mind thank you very much.

Here it is....

'Mu-huh-huh, natural kinds don't exist, only hoi polloi who have not my massive and irrefutable intellectual sophistication think that, silly naive little people, the concept of *construction* is just too much for their limited pedestrian brains to grasp. It

couldn't be that they actually understand better than me that human concepts arise out of the constant interaction between humans and the material world, or see all too clearly that thinking that I make the world with my mind is just another idealist patriarchal

fucking god complex, and the essence of the whole damn problem here. It couldn't be that women who have spent their lives examining male logic and culture from, gasp, the *margins*, actually see it far more clearly than me, and know what male identification looks like from a mile

off. Or that by all the alleged rhetoric of progressive politics, when they say this is a pile of patriarchal idealist bullshit the size of a fucking planet I am actually supposed to listen to them, rather than sneering, dismissing, calling them hysterical and fevered, imputing

genocidal motives, pretending they're socially conservative, and positing them as a bunch of irrational naive unsophisticated little ignoramuses that just need to have their own thought explained to them by some far wiser and more enlightened."

Plus ca fucking change Grace.