Admin

Problematique: Hi Folxs

SATIRE

This column will be calling it out. There’s so much folx need to educate ourselves about and DO BETTER. From cis privilege to white privilege, whether it’s how to decolonise, how to handle the pronoun illiterates, this column will be an inclusive space, for ALL GENDERS and ALL IDENTITIES. It is exhausting having to do the emotional work but hey the world is full of normies being problematique.

Not all women have uteruses. Not all people with uteruses are women. Some men have uteruses, get over it

by Remy Bee
they/them, demigender, queer, white priv.

First up, a big cheer for our bestie MP and favourite uterus-bearer Golriz Ghahraman showing how it’s done. Golriz made a really, really horrible mistake recently when she said “Women’s rights are human rights”. She quickly realised that what she had done was deeply triggering to trans women. Words matter and words can be literal violence. She checked herself and retweeted “*people with uteruses. “

That just sounds so much better.

“People with uteruses’ rights are human rights” is not hard to say. To be clear, it’s ok to say:
👏,👏👏 👏,👏👏👏,👏👏👏,👏👏 TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN 👏,👏👏 👏,👏👏👏,👏👏👏,👏👏
because trans women are literally women. But it’s not okay to speak about women if it’s about periods, birthing, or chest feeding.

That’s why it was also so cool to see Fertility Support NZ ensuring it is an inclusive space by calling out a cis uterus-bearer for non-inclusive language.

If you think you can come in to an inclusive, fertility support group and use exclusive terms like women, sorry, no.

DO BETTER.

Lady, you are CANCELLED.

14 comments

  1. Except, inasmuch as Golriz has a mind, I think transmen were what she had in mind by “people with uteruses”. Who knows? Evidence is just so hard to come by.

    Like

  2. Just inhumane, I cannot believe what I read sometimes. If you cannot handle people sensitively do not run support groups open to the public with all the variables of humans.

    Like

  3. “Transwomen are literally women”.
    Perhaps the author would like to become the first person in history to provide a rational biological ontological or indeed Marxist explanation as to why this is so.
    All the evidence I have seen is to the contrary.
    Clapping hands and bald assertions with no factual basis whatsoever cannot disguise the fact that transwomen are men.

    Like

    • Lewis, Please educate yourself. Clapping hands are valid. CAPS LOCKS is affirming. Your narrative is literal violence.

      Like

    • Lewis, please educate yourself. Facts are a social construct by white cismen to defend their cis and white privileges against the FLINTs of this world and really just a patriarchal conspiracy, and evidence is even more so and quite literally. It is literally an invention to literally enslave people and to literally commit literal genocide so as to keep people from empowering themselves for true liberation. Literally.

      Like

    • Ouch… I blanched just reading this, no need to watch the films apparently made about it. Ouch… It would be interesting to hear or see Queer Theorists or folks from Gender Studies explain how this fits into their little narrative that biological sex is a social construct white folks came up with to oppress the rest of the world – who, of course, had no idea that there was such a thing as biological sex.

      Like

    • Where is all this coming from?
      I was thinking of Dion Fortune as I interpret talking of the active and receptive principles. That is obvious on the physical level but she suggests on the emotional level the polarity would be reversed with the physical female more active emotionally than the male.
      Then I thought to look her up, and I came across this about magic trying to disable German strategy in the Battle of Britain.

      https://godsandradicals.org/2015/07/27/the-magical-battle-of-britain/comment-page-1/

      That in turn led me to Corbett Report’s investigation of WW1 conspiracy:

      “The British government soon recognized that control of the economy was not enough; the war at home meant control of information itself. At the outbreak of war, they set up the War Propaganda Bureau at Wellington House. The bureau’s initial purpose was to persuade America to enter the war, but that mandate soon expanded to shape and mold public opinion in favour of the war effort and of the government itself.

      On September 2, 1914, the head of the War Propaganda Bureau invited twenty-five of Britain’s most influential authors to a top secret meeting. Among those present at the meeting: G. K. Chesterton, Ford Madox Ford, Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling, Arthur Conan Doyle, Arnold Bennett and H. G. Wells. Not revealed until decades after the war ended, many of those present agreed to write propaganda material promoting the government’s position on the war, which the government would get commercial printing houses, including Oxford University Press, to publish as seemingly independent works.

      Under the secret agreement, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote To Arms! John Masefield wrote Gallipoli and The Old Front Line. Mary Humphrey Ward wrote England’s Effort and Towards the Goal. Rudyard Kipling wrote The New Army in Training. G. K. Chesterton wrote The Barbarism of Berlin. In total, the Bureau published over 1,160 propaganda pamphlets over the course of the war.”
      https://www.corbettreport.com/wwi/

      I tried to post that on the Gods and Radicals page with a question as to whether writers may have been also directed in WW2. (Thinking of Dion Fortune’s magic.) But they have not approved it so I am wondering more strongly about government ploys with agendas, whether they be related to profiting from war or whatever about the gender thing.

      Like

  6. Since a comment I have just done has given back the message “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” I’ll try again without URLs.

    Where is all this coming from?
    I was thinking of Dion Fortune as I interpret talking of the active and receptive principles. That is obvious on the physical level but she suggests on the emotional level the polarity would be reversed with the physical female more active emotionally than the male.
    Then I thought to look her up, and I came across this about magic trying to disable German strategy in the Battle of Britain.

    godsandradicals the-magical-battle-of-britain

    That in turn led me to Corbett Report’s investigation of WWI conspiracy:

    “The British government soon recognized that control of the economy was not enough; the war at home meant control of information itself. At the outbreak of war, they set up the War Propaganda Bureau at Wellington House. The bureau’s initial purpose was to persuade America to enter the war, but that mandate soon expanded to shape and mold public opinion in favour of the war effort and of the government itself.

    On September 2, 1914, the head of the War Propaganda Bureau invited twenty-five of Britain’s most influential authors to a top secret meeting. Among those present at the meeting: G. K. Chesterton, Ford Madox Ford, Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling, Arthur Conan Doyle, Arnold Bennett and H. G. Wells. Not revealed until decades after the war ended, many of those present agreed to write propaganda material promoting the government’s position on the war, which the government would get commercial printing houses, including Oxford University Press, to publish as seemingly independent works.

    Under the secret agreement, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote To Arms! John Masefield wrote Gallipoli and The Old Front Line. Mary Humphrey Ward wrote England’s Effort and Towards the Goal. Rudyard Kipling wrote The New Army in Training. G. K. Chesterton wrote The Barbarism of Berlin. In total, the Bureau published over 1,160 propaganda pamphlets over the course of the war.”

    I tried to post that on the Gods and Radicals page with a question as to whether writers may have been also directed in WW2. (Thinking of Dion Fortune’s magic.) But they have not approved it so I am wondering more strongly about government ploys with agendas, whether they be related to profiting from war or whatever about the gender thing. Or maybe it’s just URLs there, too.

    Like

Comments are closed.