17

13 comments

[–] Hollyhock [OP] 16 points (+16|-0)

Read some of the comments, all but one which are heartening. Let's hope they stay up:

If not, I've added a few great comments below:

"Not so fast there- hold your confetti and the presentation that this ideology is feminism. Not all feminists agree that the colonisation of women’s issues and spaces by biologically male bodies is progressive.

The anti-woman movement has stealthily removed women’s words that define us as female (e.g we are now vulva owners, uterus-havers or pregnant people who chest feed) so as not to offend the transitioned who are not biologically female. We are losing the safety of women-only spaces. Women, not men, are expected to be inclusive of biological females who reject the female label, as they remain … women. (Yeh, my head hurts too.)

Gender critical feminists are far more numerous than those who have been ideologically captured by this nonsense."

"Let’s make women visible before making them invisible"

"If feminism is for anyone, how do we create change that is specifically for women and girls? How do we legislate for women and girls? How do we protect women and girls? Art can represent all kinds of ideas and philosophy, and I wish these artists well, but they are not representing women and girls, which is who feminism is for. If feminism for everyone, what is the name of the movement for women and girls?"

"The majority of those populations together don't consider themselves women. If you lump them in with women, you're effectively deciding that humanity consists of two types of people: men, and non-men.

Failing to acknowledge that women have unique needs, experiences and hardships based on the anatomy and physiology of their sex is bad enough. Reclassifying women as "non-men" is a step a couple thousands years back in time, when people such as the ancient Greeks expressly believed women were small, defective deviations from the male default."

"It's heartening to see that men aping female stereotypes are gaining traction in the art world. XX Women are represented in less that 2% of art exhibited in museums, but now they'll be much more represented by these transwomen, so bravely depicted in this article. It's also good to see that feminism, formerly focused on the sex-based rights of women, will now broaden to include men who identify as women.

It's selfish and hateful for genetic women to only focus on the human rights of other genetic women. It's about time they included men into the fold, who are stunning, brave, and more oppressed that any other woman could ever imagine. Thank you for sharing their stories."

[–] YarHarFiddleDeeDee 11 points (+11|-0) Edited

The comments section on any gender woo-y or idpol-y NYT article are very illuminating. The "Times Pick" and "Readers' Pick" comments are almost always diametrically opposed.

Their readership -- largely educated, white, liberal, and affluent -- are exactly who you'd expect to go all in for this stuff and yet the comments show that they largely do not like it at all, and find it exhausting at best, dangerous at worst. I really do think we are a silent, but overwhelming, majority when it comes to these issues.

I will grudgingly give NYT credit, comments are screened before they're posted and as far as I can tell they don't take down ones that are critical.

Edit: Absolutely cackling that this comment made it through:

"It's heartening to see that men aping female stereotypes are gaining traction in the art world. XX Women are represented in less that 2% of art exhibited in museums, but now they'll be much more represented by these transwomen, so bravely depicted in this article. It's also good to see that feminism, formerly focused on the sex-based rights of women, will now broaden to include men who identify as women.

"It's selfish and hateful for genetic women to only focus on the human rights of other genetic women. It's about time they included men into the fold, who are stunning, brave, and more oppressed that any other woman could ever imagine. Thank you for sharing their stories."

[–] Failed_Furniture 11 points (+11|-0) Edited

Admittedly, I had to skim this piece because it's painful and I don't buy what they're saying. But, how is gender simultaneously some inborn trait that requires medical intervention so that people don't kill themselves, but at the same time it's also some magical and edgy artistic jambaroo? These things could not be more different. Yet, we're supposed to take it all seriously and let our laws and language and healthcare be completely turned upside down because of it?

I know that I'm not saying anything the women here haven't already said a million times over. I just can't think of any other subject that I've read about and tried to better understand basically daily for the at least five years for it to only make less and less sense.

[–] Hollyhock [OP] 7 points (+7|-0)

It's why we're all here shaking our heads. You're absolutely right, it makes less and less sense the more you hear about it.

[–] Unruly_Rose 11 points (+11|-0)

I only made it to the names of the first four people pictured at the top, and saw that the man masquerading as a woman decided to call himself "Vaginal Davis". VAGINAL DAVIS! What the hell... this is not an expansion of feminism.

[–] ProxyMusic 5 points (+5|-0)
[–] Unruly_Rose 8 points (+8|-0)

This didn't make me feel better, lol. It bothers me that he's being called she/her when every picture is of him looking like a regular guy, but I don't support him being called a woman even when he's wearing makeup and a dress, so here we are.

[–] ProxyMusic 5 points (+5|-0) Edited

I agree. He's just a drag performer who usually looks like a normal man. But he has the nerve to call himself "Vaginal" as his legal name, to demand he be called she/her; and the NYT calls hims a woman. Says he has a DSD. Which might or might not be true. But a male with genital anomalies isn't female. He's a drag artist, not a woman.

[–] hedy 4 points (+4|-0)

You mean Speculum Smith and Endometrial Lining Jones are not legitimate feminist artists either?

[–] estina 1 points (+1|-0)

Okay I really think there are GC folks at NYT editorial board at this point. Promoting this shit to the effect of mass peaking the readership.