They can't say anymore that sex isn't being erased and no one is saying that sex and gender are the same. A lawyer who represents the ACLU and is actively participating in cases that will affect our legal system thinks that they are the same and that differentiating the two is "misguided and harmful".

Just eject me from this Earth.

*sigh* https://twitter.com/chasestrangio/status/1357323996547723264?s=19 They can't say anymore that sex isn't being erased and no one is saying that sex and gender are the same. A lawyer who represents the ACLU and is actively participating in cases that will affect our legal system thinks that they are the same and that differentiating the two is "misguided and harmful". Just eject me from this Earth.


If she left it at self-hatred, it would just be depressing to me. But the fact that she is so intent on making all women suffer for her own internalized misogyny just enrages me. She is a dangerous, power-mad tyrant.

But the fact that she is so intent on making all women suffer for her own internalized misogyny just enrages me.

Rule 1 of Narcissism: Obey my will.

Rule 2: Suffer the consequences for failure to comply with Rule 1. <return>

But the fact that she is so intent on making all women suffer for her own internalized misogyny just enrages me.

Amen! It sucks that she hates herself so much that she ruined her body. But we shouldn't have to suffer just because she wants to be Not Like Other Girls

I don't think she's ruined her body. I would agree, however, that she seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to do things to her body that likely have impacted the health and functioning of it.

I'm glad she's finally admitting to holding such a regressive position that puts her in the company of right-wing religious types, who at least own their misogyny and science denial. It definitely fits with her urge to ban books she doesn't like.

She’s a misogynistic, lying little shit, must be a day ending in Y.

[–] [Deleted] 49 points Edited

I realize that this is a cheap shot and one shouldn't judge a book by its cost cover, but still, I'm saying it: I'm looking at a woman who has consciously decided to look like exactly the kind of teenage/early 20s douchebag who steals your cigarettes, thinks Eminem is a role model, and gets your sister drunk and sexually assaults her. That inspires no confidence in the general ethics and validity of her self-serving opinions.

Cheap shot or not, it’s true! I laugh every time I see that stupid face fungus and the woeful hair. She looks like “scraggy, scrawny loser man everyone avoids” is her style aim.

The American Uncivil Liberties Union? 🤔

From what I’ve learned so far, the ACLU has been kind of strange for a long time. It seems to me their famous defence of neo-nazi marchers is a great example. I don’t like neo-nazis or just plain nazis, but do have to reluctantly concede that they have a right to march – and it is better to have them being open about their views rather than sneaking around. But as I understand it, in that case the ACLU also defended their route through a Jewish community, which to my mind has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with terrorizing people, and that is not properly defensible.

Or their defense of porn as "free speech." Uh, no, when you're involving the harm of other people's bodies, that's not "speech" anymore.

Not defensible at all. I've been wondering for a while now about how far they've deviated from defending freedoms to defending elements of chaos.

Also, worth noting that that group of Neo-Nazis wanted to march through Skokie because they were having difficulties gathering in their usual spot in Chicago because they were known for going to the nearby black neighborhood to beat up random black people solely on the basis of their race during their rallies, and it was widely suspected that the group had ties to other anti-black hate crimes/terrorism that were going on in the city. The city had stopped allowing them to demonstrate on the condition that if they wanted to hold a rally there again, they'd need to put up an insurance bond.

So they appealed to the ACLU for legal aid to be allowed to hold rallies again and applied for a permit to demonstrate in a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie where a few thousand Holocaust survivors and their relatives lived (where one in six of the Jewish people who lived there were either a survivor of the Holocaust themselves or a close relative of one).

Of course Skokie denied them, but then the ACLU defended the right of this group of Neo-Nazis to march through a place where a couple thousand Holocaust survivors lived, after they had already shown that they would assault black people just because of their race. And they won the case, but the Neo-Nazis called off the Skokie march.

A good article on the events: https://jewishcurrents.org/the-skokie-march-that-wasnt/

And a (kind of outrageous) quote from the ACLU about the case:

In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the [Neo-Nazis'] right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause.


I unsubscribed from the New Yorker after more than 20 years because they ran that photo of Chase topless a few years back. Why would i want to see this person who I don't know and don't like bare? And why do women who transition always pose for those tragic topless photos?

Dafuk? This is basically "sex and gender are the same, you can't separate gender from bodies, but people need to transition their gender away from their body." These mental gymnastics must be so exhausting, but honestly, if Chase is acknowledging that biology matters (even in this absurd way), it's a short slippery slope to peaking.

[–] [Deleted] 28 points Edited

No one is claiming that sex is the same as gender you bigot. Well, except for this prominent person that does and a bunch of others but hey, no one is saying it!

Oh my god, that made my eyes bleed. Gender is a meaningless concept really, what matters is a person's sex. Gender roles are socially constructed.

I don’t think of it as meaningless in the sense that it’s the mechanism by which male supremacy is enforced. It’s the hierarchy that keeps women down. It is certainly meaningless in the bullshit these people pretend it is, all about feeeeeelings. But that’s a tissue-thin disguise for the same hierarchy as before. And any iteration of it is wholly malevolent.

[–] milanakos216 rudefem 34 points

They make me feel like I'm going crazy sometimes. Like I'll legit question my own sanity. I know I'm not insane. I know biology is real, sex is bimodal, and gender is a social construct. I know these things. But everyday things seem to get more and more bizzare and senseless.

I guess this is what it feels like to be gaslit

Yep. The lunatics are running the asylum and trying to make sane people (particularly sane women) think we’re the mad ones.

It must be exhausting knowing her in real life.

Right? I still can't get past the bit where she can't pay her bills if they're under her previous name.

I actually lol'd when I first read that because I thought it was satirical hyperbole. Then I read more of her writing and posts. I'm morbidly fascinated by her internalized misogyny.

I love this response:

Pretty hot take, and like most you miss the mark. Interesting attempt though. Maybe consider the mind/body dualism a bit before weighing in again, as well as the important distinctions between objective (external) and subjective (internal) observations.

"Your ideas are idiotic, but amusing to read. Before you say any more words in public and embarrass yourself more (and the rest of us, for having read them), you should probably learn the difference between fantasy and reality."

I do miss the time when they did mean the same thing, for completely different reasons than his word salad. The fact that we let it get seperated and have to pretend there is some sort of gendered soul is part of the problem. :/

Although 'gender' can still mean 'sex' as it has many meanings, but also it's sometimes used to mean gender identity and then conflated with sex to confuse people, like this fool. Like... man it's a mess. No wonder everyone is confused, lmao

"We" as feminists helped to separate sex and gender though, in order to full recognize the ways society oppresses women, using tools like gender, and how these things aren't biological or innate.

People believing in a "gendered soul" aren't really separating it from one's sex/body, if they believe it's an innate or natural thing, an essence. There's no evidence that "souls" exist, but our minds are part of our bodies, they are not separate elements from us. That's just a new age queer theory way of merging sex and gender back together, as Chase here seems to believe.

Gender being used for sex is usually due to people too squeamish to say sex, or who worry that immature boys and men will giggle if they see that word and can't grasp it's meaning. It was enshrined in documents more when a US government body started using gender instead of sex in the 80s or 90s.

It's a feature, not a bug. Confusing everyone was ALWAYS the endgame.

No no no, we WANT there to be a distinction. Gender simply means sex role stereotypes. It's a much shorter way of saying it, there's a ton of feminist writing on this.

The fact that people used to use the word "gender" as a polite euphemism for sex in the late 20th century is the whole reason we are having this problem in the first place. I agree that was a simpler time, I miss it too, but it was wrong to be too scared to say the word "sex" when you mean "sex".

[–] yesisaiditxx 20 points Edited

Jesus Christ how convoluted can you possibility get in this endless abstraction to justify ignoring what is REAL, EVIDENT, AND IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE?

The ideology did rest on a distinction at first (which I also find unnecessary, for other reasons obviously) and so feminists said “alright fine, have your gender but leave sex alone” and they couldn’t let that happen so now they’re tacking sex on to what’s socially conditioned?

“There is neither a biological or social binary of sex/gender that can be extricated from power structures and social conditioning”

I promise you if you dropped a girl with a functioning body in the woods and she had only enough food to eat and water to drink, she’d menstruate. And if you dropped a boy with a working penis in the woods miles away, he’d have erections and ejaculate. If they somehow managed to come across each other and felt physical attraction, they’d have sex. Their sex might make a baby. That would all be 100% capable of happening without any social conditioning or power structures in place...frankly it is literally similar to how we got here if you consider evolution.

Yep. Also, the only way for babies to happen is by sperm meeting an egg. There's only one type of person that makes sperm and only one type of person that makes eggs.

Gosh, it's ridiculous this needs to be spelled out

What pisses me off is a lot of this gender woo is presented like it's a universally accepted theory, and if you reject it you're a bigot. But in fact, it's rooted deeply in postmodern queer theory which is an incredibly controversial view to adopt (in short -reality doesn't exist, it's all 'discourse.) Fine, you can believe in this really strange anti-realist theory all you want - but why am I a bigot if I disagree with it?

I always have to wonder—if there is no such thing as objective truth, and everything is just subjective interpretation, why do they care so much that other people agree with their subjective truths?

Exactly! It’s just “discourse” and no discourse is more correct than any other - there’s no such thing as a morally wrong discourse. In fact I remember reading Martha nussbaum who have an example of ripping down a gay pride poster . That could be regarded as subversive and queer discourse of a mainstream ideology. So yeah , gender critical women are just engaging in another discourse and all that TRAS can do in response is try to be subversive. But they don’t. They call us bigots.

They're as regressive and anti science as those on the right who they hate so much (and also mock for being ignorant and bigoted 🙄😒). Pot meet kettle.

Load more (25 comments)