Radical Feminist Demands Chivalry! Wants Men to Help Fight “Transgenderism”

She dismisses the idea of “transitioning.” But that hasn’t stopped radical feminist Kara Dansky from transitioning into a traditionalist, for a moment, and demanding that men “stand up for women and denounce the transgender movement,” as PJ Media puts it. Call it situational chivalry.

As PJ Media reports, “Kara Dansky, a feminist lawyer and spokeswoman for Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), spoke against the so-called ‘Equality Act’ at the Heritage Foundation on Monday, denouncing the transgender and gender identity movement as anti-women and anti-lesbian in particular. Her remarks echoed the London Pride March sign declaring that ‘Transactivism Erases Lesbians.’”

“‘This is a men’s Rights movement…,’ Dansky declared, calling for men to stand up for women and denounce the transgender movement,” the site continued. The Heritage Foundation (HF) was hosting a panel discussion titled “The Inequality of the Equality Act: Concerns from the Left.”

The Equality Act, sponsored by Representative David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) and promoted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), “would add sexual orientation and gender identity to characteristics protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” the Daily Signal tells us.

Presumably, this would enshrine in federal law a standard dictating that a man claiming womanhood must be allowed access to the women’s arena (e.g., bathrooms, locker areas, sporting events). Thus the claim that “‘transgenderism’ erases women”: If anyone can be a woman, the classification “woman” is diluted.

Yet in this internecine battle of sexual-devolutionary special-interest groups — feminists vs. trans-activists — apparent is merely an effort to combat today’s politically correct standards with yesterday’s politically correct standards.

In reality, transgender ideology seeks to erase women and men: The whole idea is that people have “gender” (a psychological designation), that gender should take precedence over “sex” (a biological designation), and that it’s fluid. The ultimate reality, the theory goes, isn’t that you’re a “man” or “woman” but that you reside somewhere on a spectrum.

(Also note that there are plenty of women claiming manhood and access to men’s private spaces.)

Yet since condemning this agenda brings condemnation itself, many seek to frame their opposition fashionably. Oppose transgender “rights,” and you’re a bigot. But oppose the “rights” of a group not in political favor — in this case men — and, it’s hoped, you’ll make headway.

Yet this tactic is more than just a ruse. As PJ Media also reports, “‘Overwhelmingly women have been resisting this,’ Hacsi Horvath, a man who once identified as a woman and underwent surgery, said a few seconds before Dansky’s remark [on men standing up]. ‘And it’s really shocking how many men on the internet are defending the whole trans thing. Straight men are all about the trans, and you have to wonder what the heck is going on.’”

One could quip that, with identity now considered reality, these men supporting “the trans” may not really be men. But Horvath appears confused (and, obviously, not for the first time). While activists are no doubt overrepresented in Internet transgender discussions, I keep my nose to the ground and have observed that very few male Web commenters subscribe to the trans agenda.

In fact, today women are enabling transgenderism far more than men are — by being substantially more likely to vote for the leftists, such as Pelosi and Cicilline, who push the agenda.

It’s called (again, using the term “gender” when “sex” is appropriate) the “gender gap” in voting. In last years’ election, for instance, men broke for the GOP 51 percent to 47 percent whereas women went Democrat 59-40. Note, too, that feminist women support Democrats by far wider margins.

Of course, Dansky and other feminists may protest, saying they’re staunch opponents of transgenderism. But Duke’s First Rule of Politics is relevant here: In a representative republic, you do not get what you want.

You get what you vote for.

Voting for leftists is a package deal — which today includes trans plans, like it or not.

Much of what was said at the HF event is true, such as pointing out that trans-activists persecute those who dare be scientific. “I got kicked off of the Baltimore mayor’s LGBTQ commission — as the only lesbian — simply for stating biological facts,” event attendee and feminist Julia Beck said. “I was found guilty of ‘violence.’”

Then there were the testimonials of frustrated mothers whose children were deemed transgender; their stories were read aloud at the HF event by Jennifer Chavez, a member of WoLF’s board of directors. After relating how her 20-year-old daughter had been on testosterone for a year and was moving toward having a double mastectomy, one mother lamented, “Having watched these adults enable my daughter to do this with no medical science to back it up is a scenario that I never dreamed any parent would have to face, at least not in the U.S.”

The mother is correct. As I’ve explained repeatedly, the diagnostic method for transgenderism is malpractice-suit worthy; it’s not based on medical science but on feelings. “Transgender” is not a scientific designation — it’s a political one.

Thus is it unsurprising that many people who “transition,” as they call it, have regrets. A good example is Australian boy Patrick Mitchell, who at 12 years old was allowed to begin female-hormone “treatment” but two years later changed his mind.

In fact, studies show that upwards of 80 percent of girls and 90 percent of boys who strongly “identify” as the opposite sex naturally outgrow the psychological problem.

But something else left behind here is astonishing. These feminists rail against transgenderism and its proponents’ denial of science, yet appear oblivious to how feminism set the stage for it, having also denied science.

For decades, including during my youth, the dominant feminist theory was “gender neutrality.” It stated that the sexes were the same except for the superficial physical differences; thus, if you raised boys and girls identically, they would be identical except for primary and secondary sexual characteristics.

This theory was politically convenient. After all, if traditional sex roles and barriers keeping women from certain professions (e.g., police, firefighting) were believed to have no basis in biology — in reality — it was easy to justify overturning them.

To this end feminists made outrageous claims, such as that if women had always enjoyed the same sporting opportunities, they’d equal men in athletics. Then there was the story feminist author Camille Paglia, a confessed lesbian, told about how feminists would corner her on college campuses in the ’70s, swear that hormones didn’t exist and that, even if they did, they couldn’t possibly influence behavior.

So here’s the feminist-transgender (d)evolution: Feminists insisted the sexes were the same except for the superficial physical differences.

Then trans-activists came along and simply promulgated a corollary: If you change the superficial physical differences, the sexes will be the same, period.

So the feminists began the process of trying to “erase” distinctions between the sexes, calling most of them social constructs. Then trans-activists took the next step and sought to erase the sexes altogether.

There absolutely is a straight line between the two movements. Trans-activists do deny biological science — but the feminists did it first.

Then there’s the irony of feminists — who made famous the line “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” — calling on men for help with the trans plans. This wasn’t lost on the commenters under the PJ Media article, either, with one quipping, “A militant, lesbian, man-hating … feminist wants real men to ‘stand up for women’. Now that’s funny. I thought masculinity was toxic.”

For decades, feminists traded in misandry, impugning men and telling lies (e.g., on the intersex wage gap, domestic violence, etc.) designed to demonize them. To the point, they also cast chivalry as demeaning, and even holding a door for the wrong woman could bring a tongue lashing. But now they want some knights in shining armor — to rent, not buy.

So are the feminists just proving an old stereotype? After all, they do say, “It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind.”


This article was originally published at The New American

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: