It seems there are now some significant internal disputes (did someone say heresy?) taking place among the woke folks.
National Review recently reported on violent clashes that had transpired between trans activists and feminists:
Trans activists disrupted a protest to preserve women’s spaces at New York City Hall on Monday morning, threatening the assembled feminists and scuffling with police.
“Females are not a gender identity, get it through your damn heads,” a feminist protester said into a microphone behind the wall of police.
“Bio sex is real and immutable. That is now a criminalized statement. Did you know that there is a law on the books in New York City where you can be fined $250,000 for misgendering? It was passed by deBlasio and it has yet to be repealed,” Karen Davis, an African-American woman who joined the rally in support of defending women’s spaces, told National Review. She has a Youtube channel, You’re Kidding, Right?, that she calls an “exercise in sanity” amid today’s “Gender Fracas.”
In 2015, the New York Commission on Human Rights released a new set of guidelines, applying to employers and landlords, banning “misgendering,” or addressing a person with the wrong pronouns. It also barred preventing people from using bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity as well as gender-specific specific dress codes. Penalties range from up to $125,000 for ordinary violations to up to $250,000 for “willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.”
It was only a matter of time before these conflicts erupted. It was inevitable.
The reason for this is that trans activism revolves around “gender fluidity,” while feminists still believe in “gender essentialism” in the sense that they believe that what it means to be a “woman” is defined by a fixed set of factors.
And this is the reason why, historically, many radical feminists have crusaded against trans rights.
Trans Activism as Male Conspiracy
There’s an entire sub-group of radical feminists that class themselves as TERF or “trans-exclusionary radical feminists.”
In brief, they argue that trans activism is some kind of male conspiracy designed to perpetuate discriminatory gender dynamics in favor of male power and authority.
Feminist lesbian “theologian” Mary Daly, who passed away in 2010, wrote a book in 1978 called Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, where she wrote the following:
Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent not only in religious myth, but in its offspring, phallocratic technology. The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophilic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.
But perhaps the most sustained attack from a feminist against trans activism came from Mary Daly’s doctoral student, Janice Raymond.
She wrote a book in 1979 called The Transsexual Empire. This book serves as a deconstruction of trans activism from the perspective of feminism, delegitimizing the entire psychiatric and medical discourse surrounding it, and it also portrays it as perpetuating “gender stereotypes.”
(After all, when a man “feels” like he’s a woman, or vice-versa, he or she still subscribes to the traditional image of what a man or a woman is—for instance “acting girlish” or “being macho.”)
Thomas Szasz was someone who dedicated his whole life towards fighting against mainstream psychiatry and the narratives pertaining to “mental illness.” Within a 1979-article for The New York Times, he summarizes the message of the book and its main ideas as follows:
Clearly, not all desires are authenticated in our society as diseases. Why the desire for a change in sex roles is so authenticated is analyzed with great sensitivity and skill by Janice Raymond in “The Transsexual Empire.” Arguing that “medicine and psychology … function as secular religions in the area of transsexualism,” she demonstrates that this “condition” is now accepted as a disease because advances in the technology of sex‐conversion surgery have made certain alterations in the human genitals possible and because such operations reiterate and reinforce traditional patriarchal sex‐role expectations and stereotypes. Ostensibly, the “transsexers” (from psychologists to urologists) are curing a disease; actually, they engage in the religious and political shaping and controling of “masculine” and “feminine” behavior. Miss Raymond’s development and documentation of this thesis is flawless. Her book Is an important achievement.
In fact, we could easily argue that this feminist position regarding trans activism was the norm until the rise of the so-called “third-wave feminism” of the 90s, when Judith Butler normalized “gender fluidity” within the feminist discourse.
Here are a couple of examples:
- Australia-born Germaine Greer, one of the main public figures of the so-called “second-wave of feminism,” has been accused of transphobia.
- Julie Bindel, one of the UK’s most active radical feminists, has also taken an active position against trans activism within numerous publications. This is because her goal is to see the end of the very notion of gender, while trans activists obviously maintain it, even if they deem it to be “fluid,” subjective or whatever else.
We can thus see that the differences and grievances that exist between these two combatting factions of wokism are inescapable, and there’s a very high likelihood of civil war breaking out in Wokistan.