Emperor's New Clothes. Gender ideology & Rebranding the Privileged as the Marginalized

Co written with Lucia C.

I have always loved "gender non-conformity" that is, men who dared to be feminine and women who choose not to be.

The idea that women should be "feminine" or sweet or artsy....or anything else, is a "gender" stereotype. The idea that men should like sports and be macho, or that they should not wear dresses, are gender stereotypes. I reject the idea that we should be forced to adhere to gender stereotypes associated with our sexes.

Given that I support gender non-conformity and breaking stereotypes, you might think I would be happy about today's "gender trend. "Gender Identity ideology allows everyone to say what they are and demand that others respect that. What's not to like? Right?

But I am not happy with gender ideology, because it does not offer what it promises (freedom from gender stereotypes), and it also does significant harm.

Today, gender ideologues offer us a slickly packaged academic theory that is marketed to us with flags, new identity labels, and talk of diversity and acceptance. However, the diversity they are promoting, that is the concept of "gender identity," is superficial,  illusory, and parasitic. Not only do these new labels NOT release us from stereotypes associated with our sexes, it makes those stereotypes our self- defining factor. Instead of having males and females who can dress anyway they want, we have an ideology that alternative claims that the sexes don't exist or matter (depending on who you talk to) and fighting to replace them in law with subjective, changeable, undefinable labels.

One might think that I would be excited to see someone call themselves "non-binary," breaking masculine and feminine presentation stereotypes. I am not, however. For most while I applaud their willingness to abandon stereotypical presentation, I reject the idea that it is good or productive to name how someone "presents."  Of course, we can't stop people from taking fad labels. There were Goths and EMOs in the 80s, after all. The difference with today's trend, however is that it is not just a new label. It is a label that is being used to hide, deny or erase sex in language and law. Neo-identities that allow you to claim to be "genderless," have an "x" on your passport instead of M or F, or entitle you to demand that others to refer to you as they, zir or ze, are harmless and are not about freedom of expression. They are about undermining sex based rights that women are entitled to based on our special needs. 

Aesthetics and personal subjective feelings are NOT a valid way to organize sports, spaces, or sex based advocacy, and sexes are. Allowing people to claim to be neither male or female or to allow them to demand entry to opposite sexed spaces/right effectively eliminates the protections they were designed for. That is the fundamental goal behind gender ideology. It is not, as they claim, a way to make thing better for transsexuals or people with rare intersex disorders. In fact transsexuals , along with women, gays and lesbians, rely on the concept of sexes for recognition of their special needs for advocacy. Intersex conditons (VSDs or DSDs are sex specific and have nothing to do with the arguments for gender that they are used as props in.)

Activists who want to push this ideology generally think they are doing something innovative and progressive. They have been told by academia, media, and peers, that they are doing something profoundly good. However, attempts to discuss the drawbacks of this system are suppressed at all costs. Adherents of gender ideology  are coached to deny that sexes matter, to mention intersex disorders often, and to call anyone who talks about sex-based classes "TERFS," or transphobic to shut them up. Today we have hordes of young "woke" academic class kids calling  women who talk about their bodies "reductionist" and lesbians are being called "vagina fetishists."  People should be very concerned about BOTH the name calling and the attempt to stifle debate by employing this tactic. 

The reason why gender ideolgues want to prevent us from talking about their ideology is because it falls apart upon examination. Discussion of sex versus gender shows that sex is meaningful and important, and that we can gender-bend WITHIN our sexes without denying those classes or calling for unisex langauge and spaces. Gender, by contrast, is subjective, fluid, and not a valid or useful way to organize anything.

The reason that gender ideology is being pushed so hard, -by the media, by academia, by so called human rights activists, - is because it is being marketed well by the people who profit from it.  These profiteers do NOT make money from the reasonable view that we can break stereotypes without denying our sexes, without pharma, without fad labels. They profit from rebranding masculine girls as "genderqueer" or transman, needing special help to be themselves. They make money from selling feminine and gay males the idea that they are better off seeing themselves as women than as valid male diversity. These interests have worked hard to tie "gender identities" to the struggles of gays and lesbians, shoehorning letters like TQ+ onto their advocacy groups, or lumping them together as "SOGIs" (sexual orientations + gender identities.)  They have taken, and squandered the goodwill and the funding raised by LGB people to promote an agenda that re-brands people as being more marginalized than they are. Often, the people rebranding are the most privileged people among us, not needing any advocacy at all, seeking only to feel special. They are infiltrating and hijacking the advocacy of people who actually need advocacy, and using those demographics' organizations and funding for frivolous and harmful purposes.

To be clear, I support people wearing who they want and loving who they want. 

However, I don't support the ideolguical erasure of sex based words, rights, sports, or advocacy. I do not support the rebranding of aesthetics or presentation differences as identities that can others must affirm or consider the opposite sex. I don't support the take-over of women's and LGB organizations that deny that sexes are unique identifiers in law that can be replaced with new, subjective labels.

The gender lobby pretends that if you reject these ideological tenets, you MUST be against trans people or gender non-conformity. This is a false choice and a false dichotomy, for we can support GNC without denying sexes exist or matter and without recognizing conceptual identities in their place. Please look beyond the shiny, happy "progressive and inclusive" label and see how the solutions being offered by this ideology are in fact anything but.


A quick disclaimer:

This article mainly explores the harms to women and LGB orgs by erasing sexes in language and law and by promoting gender ideology. At this time, I will not speak much about "transmen," and their impact on men. Males depend less on sex based advocacy for basic freedoms and safety. Rebranding females as males is not without problems, but it poses less risk of physical harm to men or erasure of male rights or sports.  I support men objecting to this if they choose, but the more compelling reasons to object to gender ideology are because of the harm it does to women. There is a reason why women want and need same sex sports, spaces, and advocacy in a way that is destroyed by trans-activism, a way that is not true for males. 

Here is an outline of the discussion.

A. Women are a sex, not a "gender." What does that mean??

i) The myth that talking about biology is "reductionist" or bio-essentialism

ii) "Cisgendered" is sexist label coined by my oppressor.

B. Why we segregate by sexes, not gender.

C: The costs of Denying sex based words, identity and rights

D. Costs to  Women's orgs , Lesbians, and LGB orgs and advocacy

E: Welcome to the Backlash

F Going forward


A. Women are a sex, not a "gender." Do you know what that means??

Sex or Gender

When most of us reject the slogan 'trans-women" are women, we are not engaged in hate. We are rejecting the idea that womanhood is a gender identity, something being promoted recently by academia and popular culture. We are rejecting the erasure of our sex class as distinct from males.

There is confusion over the words sex and gender, because sometimes we, in society,  have interchanged  or misused them. Sexes refer to males and females. It became popular in the 60s to refer to sexes  incorrectly as "genders" so that prudish people would not have to say the word "sex" which can also refer to the word for the act of coitus. Unfortunately, this misuse/interchange is common, and we often see government forms that ask you to specify your gender when they really mean your sex. There are reasons why your sex might be important, but little to no reason why your subjective gender feelings might be.

The word "gender" refers to how we express our personality and aesthetic choices, often using stereotypes associated with our sexes. Wearing a dress and having long hair may be seen as being stereotypical female. Enjoying football might be considered a "male" thing. Those aspects of identity are called gender expression. Are they innate? Are they linked to sexes? Obviously, not totally. Men can wear dresses and women can enjoy football. It's possible that SOME of these preferences are wired into our brains and correlate to our sexes, but the extent of this and the causes of this are under debate. 

Does the word "woman" refer to females, or does it refer to femininity?

Gender ideologues WANT the word woman to refer as a gender identity that includes anyone feminine. This is problematic for a few reasons. First, if you think about it, you will see that we there is no reason to classify people by levels of femininity.  Second, there IS a reason to classify people as being female or not. 

The words "women" and "girls" are already being used for an important purpose: to  identify females members of the human species. The word WOMEN refers to adult female members of human species, and  "girls" is used to  identify juvenile female humans. By comparison, the word for adult female horses is mare, and the word for juvenile female horses is filly. Importantly, when you castrate a male horse (a stallion) it does not "become" a mare, it becomes a gelding. This is important, as male humans who have sex surgeries are NOT women, they are modified males. Being a transsexual makes you a transsexual, not literally the opposite sex. 

Let me say that again for those in the back: altered males and feminine males are not women. They may be valid as their own class, transsexuals, but they are not women, girls, females. Using the words girl and women create the illusion that they have something in common with us, and they do not.

We NEED words for adult human males and females, and we DON'T need words for feminine people, masculine people, androgynous people or other for "genders." Of course, we sometimes coin words for genders, such as the words "butch" or "femme" in the lesbian community. It is important to note however, that  those gender labels were NOT designed to be used to deny, erase or replace the sexes in language and law the way neo-gender identities are. Nobody who claims to be a butch lesbian uses that to demand use of special pronouns, or an X on their passport that lets them claim to be non-women. That is why these labels are not harmful the way gender identity labels are. Gender identity labels are being used to erase sex based rights and policy as if they meant something.

 When we change the word WOMAN from referring to human females to referring to human feminine people, we no longer have words for our sex based class. When we include men in the word woman, then "women's sports" become sports for feminine people instead of for females. Women's marches and rights become divorced from our specific female needs and advocacy. 

Today's gender ideology is being promoted by men's rights organizations and other interests who WANT us to not be able to talk about women as a sex based class that differ from males. You will notice that there are many angry males among the social justice voices who call themselves intersectional feminists that are loudest about declaring that "transwomen are women." Whether they are consciously aware of it or not, they are promoting their own self-interest. There are many many ways that they benefit from this, but they don't talk about or promote those benefits directly, they instead make the public face of their campaign appear to be about inclusion and diversity. What they are really doing is erasing us as a distinct, sex based class that differs from males and can talk about/organize for our needs as a sex without including them.

The Myth of Bio-essentialism and Reductionism 

Gender ideologues like to claim that women who know they are part of a sex-based class are reductionist. That is, they claim that we see ourselves as "walking vaginas", walking wombs, or that we imply that women who have had hysterectomies are not women. Sometimes they claim that we think that intersex women or black women aren't women. Of course, any adult female is a woman, and any male, of any gender is not. Women of any ethnicity are women, but males are not women, a class they are excluded from by definition. Our sex class IS defined by sex, and there is nothing reductive about having words and political organization on this basis.

No woman claims she is only her body, but we all know that female experiences shaped us. We were denied the vote and our own sports because of our sex. We were kept at home with the kids and confined to domestic labour because of our sex.  IF we were sterile, we were cast aside for it, a fate that differs from that of sterile males. Hysterectomies were prescribed for us when we didn't need them, because women's medical needs were ignored by the establishment for years. Importantly, women with intersex conditions are also women. Some gender ideologues try to pretend that these rare chromosomal disorders mean that sexes are not real or binary, but these  are a class of developmental conditions that fall WITHIN the sexes. Rare genetic conditions does not change the reality that most people are clearly male or female and that more that 99.9 percent of us know what bathroom to use. These medical conditions do NOT change the reality of female oppression or needs for our own advocacy, and they are NOT a justification for classifying people by neo-genders.

Which argument is reductionist: the one that we are a biological group facing specific political realities related to our  condition, or that we are a group defined by femininity or feelings? 

It is sexist, and "convenient" that men who want to be us call our bodies irrelevant, given that they don't know about or care about our sex based class struggles. They show themselves to not only not be us, but not to identify WITH us.

There was a time when transsexuals, usually severely dysphoric homosexual males, were accepted by many women. I will admit to being one of them. While I DO see them as a arguably a special class of males, different from the fad neo-gender identities, it is important to stress that they are not women. Pretending they are hurts both them and us.  Wouldn't it be better to support them in seeing themselves as valid, but feminine men than affirming the delusion that their femininity makes them women? Think what we could accomplish if we diverted all of the male efforts behind enforcing "trans women are women" to instead enforcing the acceptance of all male diversity in the male class and spaces. The need to rebrand feminine and gay men as "women" is sexist to both male and female classes and in a way erases diversity in the rebranding process. It is also motivated by a kind of homophobia (as Juno displays below).

 Surely we can do better than this?


An important note on the use of the word CIS

The words "cis" and "cisgendered" are not harmless identifiers, as the gender lobby would have you beleive. They are words meant to redefine us from a sex based class to a gender class in which there are male and female sub-classes of "women." This is an ideological sleight of hand which erases us as a sex based class and makes us a unisex group in one swift, barely noticeable action, but with severe consequences for law.

This is based on a false comparison to cis and trans molecules (or sometimes cis/trans land masses), which are members of the same class but differ in one small aspect (usually direction). 

This false analogy is meant it to appear natural and scientific to see ourselves as a gender class with two subcategories when in fact we are different classes. It makes it appear appear that women and feminine men are two sides of the same coin, and are equal subclasses of the same group, when they are not. The truth as explained above is that we are a biological and political class defined by sex and if there are any subcategories of womanhood, they must all be female. Males constitute their own class and feminine males and other male diversity are members of THAT class, not of our class.

Sometimes gender ideologues claim that cis means your identity "matches" your sex. They are teaching kids that if they like femininity or things associated with girls, then identity is on the girl side of the spectrum. If your tastes don't "match" your body, you might be trans and need pharma for life. This idea is based on another subjective claim that most of us reject, and which is harmful and regressive. Our gender expression neither matches NOR mismatches our body or sex.

Teaching kids this does NOT free them to be themselves, in fact, it can "coach" them to feel a mismatch that isn't really there. This is called gender dysphoria and/or body dysmorphia.

To be clear, feelings  of dysphoria and dysmorphia are real and serious. But having these feelings makes someone dysphoric, not trans. Many people grow out of them or manage them without rejecting their sex. However, gender ideolgues use these feelings to make the argument that kids are not "cis" and that they are "born in the wrong body." This leads to harmful medical intervention that kids simply don't need. Kids are neither cis nor non-cis, they are simply themselves.

Another problem is with the cis/trans analogy is that it creates a NEW binary while gender ideolgues try to claim that they are destroying the binary. The two claims are contradictory.

On the one hand they are claiming that we are all trans (or "genderqueer") or cis, while also claiming that we are all part of a gender continuum. The truth is that in terms of "gender" expression, we ARE  all on a continuum and we need no label to quantify our levels of masculinity, femininity or androgyny. Kids should simply be told they are male or female but can wear what they want regardless of that sex: doing this should normalize diversity within the sex classes and reduce any feeling of "mismatch."

B. Why segregate anything by sexes at all? 

Some of the push behind gender ideology is the claim, especially by men, that having sex segregated sports, spaces, and advocacy is in itself sexist. Why bother make any distinction between males and females? Would it erase sexism all together if we denied or ignored our sexes? 

No. The sexes matter and even when we try to hide them, the females end up facing sexism. 

 In order to talk about  sexism, we have to talk about the sexes. Women who TRY to identify out of our sex based oppression, by claiming to be trans or non-binary, still end up facing oppression. We can see that in different ways trans"women" (males) and trans"men" (females) are treated. The former are lauded as being brave and beautiful and are given awards like woman of the year. The latter are recognized only for giving birth while calling themselves men.

Women cannot identify out of our sex based oppression in India, where we may be burned alive when our husband dies, or in Africa when our genitals are cut to keep us "clean" and "tight" for men. The girls who are kidnapped and made sex slaves by Boko Haram cannot "identify" out of being girls to escape. That is the reality of being female. In the western world we are paid less and less likely to get a job because employers fear we will need time off for childcare. Calling oneself "non-binary" does not make a woman less likely to face sexism, it just makes it harder for us to talk about it as it happens collectively to women of all "gender expressions," when we pretend they are not of our class by giving them a different name.

Importantly, some gender ideolgues claim that feminine men face female oppression, for being feminine. I would argue that the pain and sexism that non-masculine men face for being feminine or gay is oppression. However, it is  male oppression, not  "womanhood." While it is valid, it must be dealt with by addressing male gender role expectations. Rebranding them as women, a class whose other issues they don't share, in fact hides the sexism they face within their own class.

Think about it. calling feminine men "women" is sexist and harmful to both classes. First it appropriates womanhood for people ho are not part of that demographic, pretending they belong based on "femininity." Secondly, it pretends that feminine males are not valid members of the male class, of manhood, further reducing the normal diversity that belongs in that class. That is sexism that harms everyone.

C: The Costs of Erasing Sex based words, Identity and Rights

Gender activists like to repeat the idea that it costs nothing to "be nice," and support people's choice of pronouns and self-declared gender identity. However when we pretend that we have genders instead of sexes, everything becomes "unisex," and that hurts women's sex based rights, sports and activism. To be clear, that is one of their goals, and it is not a "nice" goal either.

The case for sports should be obvious. We have sports for female physiology and not for feminine genders. This excludes anyone born male. Gender ideolgues like to mention the fact that very rare chromosomal conditions (intersex or DSDs) can make a competitor fall outside of typical female sports capabilities. However, using this as a justification for having sports by "gender identity" instead of sex is disingenuous.  The impact of rare DSD in sports is small and is a situation which does not relate to, or get fixed by, the concept of "self-identification" into sports by gender at all. 

Bathrooms, change rooms, and women's shelters are segregated by sexes for important reasons. There is a WORLD TOILET DAY which talks about how women and girls worldwide benefit from having our own bathrooms. Unisex spaces are statistically more unsafe than sex based spaces., and "transwomen" offend sexually and violently at the rate of other males, not of women, even after they "transition."  To be clear, no one says that all trans people are predatory, we simply say that males of all genders present a higher risk to females, and thus they belong in male spaces. And it DOES happen that trans"women" sexually offend in women's bathrooms. There really is not reason to change sex based spaces to gendered based ones, except to affirm male feelings.


Women who have been raped or who have faced domestic abuse, may be triggered by male bodies in their spaces, regardless of the ethics of that trans person. Likewise, Muslims and orthodox Jews who observe prohibitions on begin along with male bodies depend on our sex segregated system. Female spaces exist for these women, and there is no reason to prioritize male need for affirmation over their sex-based rights.

The real question is WHY men are pushing to have feminine men removed from their spaces. Gender ideolgues claim that it is for their safety, but this is a widely repeated fallacy. Feminine males are by in large SAFE in western bathrooms. There are no known reports of them being attacked in the western world, as trans activists often claim. David Bowie used public bathrooms in London while wearing dresses, as early as 1969. And Trans"woman" Hope Lye was noted for taking photos of himself in men's restrooms in conservative Shrewsbury England to show that it is safe. He says he has only had problems with other trans activists attacking him, never a regular male.  

Why should women we have to defend and justify sex-segregated spaces? Why should we include feminine males in our advocacy rather than lobby other men to accept their own feminine brothers? It is sexist that WOMEN are being told that their concerns and feelings simply don't matter, or "aren't real concerns" because people pushing this ideology WANT that to be true.

It's a lie.

D: Other Costs To Women, Lesbians and LGB orgs

Replacing the sexes in language and law has numerous other harms for women, women's orgs and other advocacy based on sexes and sexual orientation. These harms are not incidental, they are intended by the people who promote this ideology behind the scenes.

Allowing men to rebrand as women has allowed them to take over Women's organizations and marches, to promote interests that harm women. 

- Below, trans activist Munroe Bergdorf telling women to NOT talk about women's issues at a women's march because it "excludes"  him. Talking about femininity issues instead of female issues is what happens when we let males run our activism. I would argue the reason female issues exclude him is because he needs to be excluded. He is NOT a member of out advocacy class and his interests (including denying and minimizing female issues) conflict with ours.

Men like MB above claim that women  are privileged because our sex "matches" our body. According to them we are are so privileged that we should give our feminist activism and orgs to men who claim that that their "gender" does not match their body. 

There is NO cis privilege or female privilege. We are raped, shamed, cast aside, denied the vote, denied jobs, and murdered as infants for being female.

We have a need for female only activism.

IF feminine and dysphoric men need their own activism, they can build it,  but our needs and interests differ and conflict.

-All women's panels and shortlists, and other positions like women's officers are now being "manned" by literally, men. Again, they don't represent our voices or interests.

-Disputes in Girl Guides about including (and centering) feminine male children in activities created to get girls away from stereotypes about being feminine.  Male children who claim to be girls are sharing tents with girls without that being disclosed to the parents of the girls involved. This teaches girls that their feelings and boundaries come second to those of males, even in their own "girls" organizations.

-In Vancouver, UVic Women's Center was taken over and is now called ThirdSpace for gender fluid people. For those who claim there is no cost to women in the gender agenda, this  is a  direct example of women's resources being converted for non-women's use. 

-Gay and lesbian orgs have been sold out to heterosexuals who don't understand or tolerate same-sex attraction. Men claiming to be lesbians are taking over lesbian activism and promoting the idea that lesbians who reject "girldick" are bigots. If you think this is rare, you are wrong. Planned Parenthood in Toronto funded a workshop for men calling themselves "queer women" who felt like victims for not being able to get into lesbian underpants. This hardship and "discrimination" is called the "Cotton ceiling" by men who feel entitled to lesbian acceptance.

No lesbian should fear going to LGB events or orgs because of pressure to have penis-on-vagina sex. They are leaving in droves, in a movement called GET THE L OUT.  To think that lesbians are being removed from PRIDE events for carrying signs that state the obvious: lesbians don't do penis. It happened at Swansea this year.

- The TQ++ of the "LGBTQ+" and SOGI (sexual orientation+gender identities) movements claim to be about being inclusive, but people should be asking if it is useful to "include" people in a demographics' advocacy organizations when they do not belong to that demographic. More and more letters are being added to the LGB acronym, starting with the T for trans and q for queer. Queer does not, as most people think, refer to homosexual. It refers to "genderqueer, "  and includes anyone who claims to be gender non-conforming in any way. This can -and does- include men who claim to be marginalized people for having blue hair or men who wear nail polish. These people generally have no dysphoria, no transition, and demand to be called They, them, Ze, Zir or Fae. 

The extra letters and the neo-pronouns are linguistic and ideolguical ways to tie non-marginalized groups and rebranding groups to legitimate human rights advocacy. What happens when they do so is that these entitled, non-marginalized groups take over the organizations for unintended uses, some of which conflict with the advocacy needs to the real minority who created them. At this time, LGB orgs are being brought into disrepute by these entitled fetishists and fad-sters, alienation people with their demands for special attention and concessions they don't need or deserve. Even transsexuals who bother to have surgery are becoming alarmed at the '"transgenders" that are increasingly speaking for them without having had therapy, dysphoria or "transition," of any kinds.

LGB orgs allow this because the T( the widening umbrella of T which included non-medicalized and non-dysphorics who "self-identify" as trans) in LGBT brings in huge money and social status. Stonewall in UK, and other orgs that were originally set up for same-sex advocacy have ignored and minimized the needs of lesbians being oppressed in their own ranks. It is interesting that these male "lesbians" with their penises spend so much time pursuing real lesbians with vaginas and calling them bigots for rejecting them, rather than sleep with each other. The reason why they do this is because they are largely heterosexual males who, like the lesbians they call bigots, want to date vaginas. It is bullshit, driven by money, politics, and male interests.

Let's be clear. The purpose of neo-identities like non-binary is not to promote gender non-conformity or androgyny. We can and have had stellar examples of androgynous people who didn't claim to be non-men, non-women or genderqueer because of it. The purpose of this identity is to allow straight people to re-brand as marginalized people who belong in the LGBT. The purpose is to exponentially increase the number of people who can feel like they are a part of a movement that benefits from erasing sex in language and law. 

E. Welcome to the Backlash

I was brought into activism after being oppressed by trans activism that minimized my identity and sex based rights. I saw lesbians being told by men that they were the "cis" oppressor, and I saw people pretending that they were advocating for the "downtrodden" by  promoting the idea that privileged white men with blue hair were special identities. I will not affirm people as being a sex they are not, nor using gender instead of sexes in language and law. I will not use language that pretends that gender identities are something other people should recognize with special words.

Today's trans movement is NOT the movement of sane transsexuals who want acceptance and safety, as it was when I was in college. Today's trans movement is driven by gender ideolgues who seeks to redefine womanhood as a gender so that men, with penises, can claim to be the marginalized class. They are making demands that minimize and hurt the sex based identity and rights of others, which matter.

This movement is a highly privileged juggernaut, diverting resources from women, gays, lesbians and transsexual who need them, and using those resources for flags and parades for rich kids who want to engage in identity play.

All of this entitlement and privilege is beginning to show. People are beginning to push back. While I am glad that a correction will occur, I expect it to be messy, and I expect good people to get hurt, regrettably. LGB orgs are already feeling it, as anti-LGB sentient is on the rise. Much of the anger being directed at these groups is not anti-gay bigotry, but rage against the entitlement of this ideology. 

F. What do I propose, going forward?

Gender ideology is a fad that is crumbling under its own contradictions, but to be clear, it is well funded and requires constant resistance. 

For  those asking me how they can help, I suggest first and foremost that they reject demands to comply with language changes. If you are being asked to put your pronouns in your bio at work or on twitter, say no. Your pronouns, like all of our pronouns, are sex based and usually are obvious. The intention of asking you to declare them is to create the illusion that they can and should be optional. While I once understood making the concession of a preferred pronoun to a post-op transsexual, we are no longer simply talking about that. We are now talking about affirming the lie that we should all identify and classify each other by subjective gender choices. 

Other things you can do:

-Refuse to support organizations who call women "uterus havers" or "people who give birth." Vehemently oppose being called a "cis" woman or cisgendered.

-Write to news organizations (or publicly condemn on platforms like twitter) when they refer to a male criminal as a "transgender woman."

-Reject organizations that tie LGB rights and advocacy to QT++ or other demographics. Reject the term SOGI for the same reason. Sexual orientations are real, gender identities are idoelgical concepts. 

-Support trans labels that make it clear that people have not changed sexes. We can call trans"women" trans-identified-males or transsexual males.

-Support kids who want to be gender non-conforming without taking on a gender label. These labels can be fun to construct and create flags for, but they do not represent a child's identity or level of conformity. They also may induce dysphoria by suggesting to kids that their "interests" might mismatch with their body.

-Tell your parties, THE DEMOCRATS, LABOUR and LIBERALS that this ideology is sexist, homophobic, and that their support of it is going to cost them YOUR support. Even if you are bluffing, talk about other options and/or a protest vote with a different party.

Myself, I will continue to speak out against gender ideology, telling people that we can wear  without claiming that it changes identity or sex in a way that law needs to accommodate.

I will point out that rebranding is NOT social justice, and those who use it to pretend they are engaging in good work are in fact doing harm. I will point out that while these people used their time and energy to  promoting Sam's Smith right to be not be called HE, women, they are diverting attention, time, and funding from real issues, from real women, LGB people, and the poor. I'd also point out that the money that is being diverted from Canadian Health, UK'S NHS and U.S medical insurance to pay for mastectomies on healthy breasts and fake vaginas that don't work, is less money for real health care needs. You may not be aware of this cost, but it comes from your tax payer dollars and it goes to surgeons who don't need it.

I will continue to educate people on the fact that denying the sexes does not break the "gender binary" ...promoting gender non-conformity within the sexes does. I will highlight the dangers of fetishizing new gender identities and labels, which instead of freeing us from conformity makes new boxes  to fit into, creates new binaries and rivalries. 

I will decline to use language that co-opts or minimizes  womanhood or implies that we don't have sexes, that includes terms like cis and neo-pronouns like ze, zir, or they. Asking this of me is an act of gross entitlement and I will point that out to the people who demand it of me. I will continue to call the mostly "affluent" and academic class kids who call this progressive what they are: hypocrites who focus on presentation and newly created micro-classes instead of working on solving real social problems.

I will continue to support lesbians right to self-define and date only members of the same sex, which means no penises are included, no matter how they "identify." Penis on vagina sex is never homo-sexual, and lesbians by definition are same sex attracted. Anyone saying otherwise should be called out on this.

I will continue to question the agenda of having heterosexuals rebrand as "queer" and take over same-sex advocacy orgs like PRIDE and LGBT. I will condemn women's organizations like Planned Parenthood for abandoning sex based advocacy to divert funding to unrelated, fad workshops for men calling themselves "queer" women. 

I will call out and fight organizations, universities, political parties (yes, the Liberals in Canada, the Democrats in the US and Labour in the UK),  that push sexist and homophobic gender ideology as a replacement for sex based identity and rights. I will question their motives for doing this, as well as the harmful impact it has to sex based rights.


The lies of gender ideology are enormous, alarming, and not about inclusion and diversity. We can all wear what we want without pretending that is changes sex or erases sex for other people. Gender ideologues want to erase the sexes in language and law for nefarious reasons. Don't accept the contradictions or silencing tactics. Resist it and do your best to help other people resist it.

This is not just about semantics, it's about women's sex based rights, we fought for the right to create our own sports, spaces and advocacy from scratch when we were denied them by society.  We cannot make progress by denying that women's reality and oppression relate to the sexes, and that is exactly what happens when we engage in erasing the sexes with subjective genders in language and law. In so far as we see dysphorics or other groups as being oppressed or in need of help, we can help them, but we cannot do so by rebranding them as us when they aren't.


pics and screenshots to think about

Below: breaking stereotypes is progressive. Gender ideology is NOT progressive

Below: we can support feminine and dysphoric males being themselves without lies. We have been doing so for years

Below: internalized homophobia isn't progressive. gay men are not defective men who are better off seeing themselves as women. This is in fact what IRAN does, it makes LGB transition to be fake straights.

Below, trans activists using LGBT orgs and influence to tell people they are bigots if they are not bisexual.

Below, Stonewall pays a man with a penis to teach school children about being a lesbian. How is a straight man claiming to be a lesbian progressive and inclusive when he erases the words, experiences and jobs of an oppressed class.

Below: gay men face less pressure to include women in their sexuality, but it is becoming more common now. I see catfishing under the guise of gender identity. 

Below, the reason why genderism is being promoted at all turns by all media, orgs and politicians? It's profitable and the people making money from it buy influence to sell it constantly as being progressive. 

below: kids are being sold the lie that they should identify with femininity or masculinity and that they should medicalize for life if they aren't a match.

below: When did we decide that people get to determine what marginalized classes they are a part of, even when they aren't part of that demographic.

Straight people aren't queer, men aren't women, white people aren't black, nobody is more "non-binary" than anyone else. 


In order to sell the lie that people have been "trans" for centuries, gender activists have been erasing real diversity, within the sexes. People who break stereotypes within their sex are nothing other than people of their sex who break stereotypes. Erasing historic men and women by transing them for ideological purposes is abhorrent. 

Below: if you are centering males and neo-pronouns in your "Feminist" activism, you might want to think twice about your priorities.

By becoming a patron, you'll instantly unlock access to 3 exclusive posts
By becoming a patron, you'll instantly unlock access to 3 exclusive posts