Nope. Sorry. With all due respect, Kat, "men in women's prisons" is NOT "mission accomplished". It's merely the next small battle, or skirmish in a much, much bigger & longer war. The "evil twins" end goals are Transhuman Technocracy. Jennifer Bilek nailed it to the floor in here "Trans-, Trans- Trans-" book. You should know the one I mean....
To further clarify, sometimes, sex & gender are SAME. And, sometimes, sex & gender are DIFFERENT. Depends on speaker, context, & intent. But THEIR intent is to control by & through confusion. Confused people are easier to control, as THEY see it. And THEY are usually correct.
Lastly, sometimes, "same" and "different" are different, but sometimes the same. Sometimes same means same. But sometimes same means different. See what I mean? Get what I'm saying?
Reading your words here, almost feels like I'm reading my own thoughts put down in words. THANK-YOU!, and PLEASE, KEEP UP the GOOD WORK....
The nearest goal is confusion, the men in women's prisons, and then the ultimate goal overall is a total dismantling of the sex binary in technology and reproduction.
I was thinking that the short-term goal within everyday life, in prison and especially pedophilia normalization, was of utmost importance to the ideologues, but eventually it is the things that Martin Rothblatt talks about extensively. Complete dissociation from body and sex.
It does absolutely no good to stop using the word gender when gender ideologues continue to use it in any way they want. That's like riding a bike to a grocery store a few blocks away to reduce your own personal gas usage a tiny little bit, while still commuting to work in a car and while billions of other people in the world pollute by burning fossil fuels. It's a feel-good, ineffective strategy. So is the whole idea of abolishing gender.
Democratic-led states funnel millions of dollars to organizations that promote gender-based policies. Oregon, for instance, is using tax money to sue the Trump administration so that the state can continue to put male people in female prisons. CA's Governor Newsom stated how unfair it is that transgirls are in female sport, yet he won't block mails from the female category, and of course CA puts men and female prisons still. Other Dem-led dates are just as bad.
You can choose to not use the word gender anymore but your local college will continue to allocate tax money to promote the interests of people with special genders. Your tax money pays for gender equity programs at universities. Your local high school teaches children that someone's gender is far more important than his or her sex. Tax money is spent training those teachers and providing materials to pervert the minds of children.
If a few substack readers choose not to use the word gender anymore, have you fixed the problem?
I think we need to do more than just stop using that word. You'll never make everyone else stop using it. We need a more proactive approach such as defining the word in federal law.
Someone like Glenna Goldis is working on a lawsuit against WPATH as a member of the FTC. She’s going to ask in the lawsuit—”define gender, what are you talking about?”
They won’t be able to answer. That will be a factor. This is why the language affects lawsuits.
If you read the recent SCOTUS West Virginia v. BPJ, the language was a big issue, a huge change from 2020. On the winning side, some justices even avoided the term “transgender” and didn’t use wrong pronouns. That was accomplished by discussions like this over years.
In school, if professors are using the term “gender” all a student has to do is ask “what’s gender—explain” and there is no answer, that has an effect.
I didn’t say this is the only thing to do on the planet. I’m saying this is what I see in everyday life, this is my view, and this is how change can start in everyday language. The post is thinking through that, and it was aimed towards readers who see it and want to read about it.
I didn’t say I would solve everything with my one Substack post. Who would even suggest that? I said everything starts with language. This is one way to effect a change in everyday life.
We're on the same page. Language is key to change. That's how transgenderists gained so much ground so quickly - by demanding and enforcing language usage.
The only difference between my perspective and that of many radfems is that I think the call to "abolish gender" is a feel-good waste of time. What we need to do is to find gender in federal law in a way that does not disrupt sex-based protections and rights.
Let's talk offline or at least outside of the comments.
Funny, "just drop it" is what you'll often hear from gender apologists when you try to talk to them about the practical ramifications of believing in gender as a real thing, independent of sex. Because they know that their opinion is essentially submitting to the men who want to abuse language to paint themselves as victims, so their only recourse is to accuse anyone challenging them of ill-defined 'bigotry' or of somehow offending them. Well sorry, if people want to behave like that then they should be prepared for people to lose respect for them
"Gender" used to be the polite way of avoiding referring to "sex": eg in the 1950s when the term "sex appeal" for women's fashion was rather daring, and "sexy" would have been unthinkable.
But the 1960s changed all that: with the advent of The Pill and sexual liberation--to a degree--for women. I was a 1970s so-called "second wave" feminist: when the language of "women's liberation" (I worked on Spare Rib magazine) started to make a distinction between the terms "gender" and "sex". "Gender" was now understood by feminists to denote cultural constructs like sex-role stereotypes, as distinct from "sex" which was straightforwardly biological.
It was part of the battle to reclaim women's capacities and rights to be and do far more, eg in the field of employment, too often restricted by narrow "gendered" notions ie by sex role stereotypes--but not by biology itself.
Looking at the divisions of society by assumptions about gender / sex role stereotypes is what gave the name "gender studies" to what started out more narrowly as "women's studies": because it begged the question of looking at the organisation of society as a whole.
But transgenderism and the gender cult sprang from entirely different origins: from male academic sexologists like Havelock Ellis, Alfred Kinsey, Magnus Hirschfeld, John Money, Harry Benjamin etc whose inheritance of patriarchal arrogance and misogyny still permeate transactivist attitudes today.
Look at the Substack of researcher Donovan Cleckley on “Sexology’s Fathers: the forgotten roots of the Transgender Phenomenon”.
Yes--their invention of the term "gender identity" seems to have formed the pivotal lurch into what has burgeoned into the current general insanity, based on male sexual fetishes and male hatred of their own bodies: still ready to topple into readymade patriarchal and misogynist notions of "femininity" and sex role stereotypes.
So far as I'm concerned, it's impossible to have a "gender identity" as a woman, because it's been stolen from us by fetishistic men. Whose imitation of hyper-sexualised "womanhood" is hardly more horrific to many girls than the commoditised reality that drives them too to seek mutilation in denial of their own sexed bodies.
So we might as well ditch the whole disastrous idea--and the word--altogether, and start again. But it still helps to know where it came from, and how it's been used and abused.
Donovan Cleckley does a great job of this: both tracing its origin and development via arrogant and misogynist male sexologists, and injecting a counter-critique from contemporary feminists.
Having been a second wave feminist myself, I wouldn't say feminists were trying to destroy the idea of "gender" itself.
Rather it was to make clear that "gender" was not equivalent to biological sex--though sometimes used as a polite substitute eg "gender pay gap" instead of "sex pay gap".
That "gender" implied (and still implies) sex role stereotypes; and that it was therefore a social construct which also varies across cultures.
It remains useful to refer to "gendered" roles: which implies a social assumption that one sex or the other typically fills them, for good or bad reasons.
Whereas referring to "sexed" roles doesn't carry any implication beyond the biological--so its usefulness is limited.
When you say "designed to uphold violent patriarchy" what does that mean?
Who is using violent patriarchy when somebody says there are 100 genders? Who is upholding a patriarchy when I say there are 3 genders in German? What is a social construct about that? Do you understand that people will hear that and think about "gender expression"? What's violent about that?
What is "gender affirming care" then? What is "gender confirmation" surgery in that case? What is "gender dysphoria"? What is "gender identity"?
And if sex is a biological reality, how on earth can words have a sex? Now we've come full circle--sex is different from gender, but they're also interchangeable.
You pulled a Harry Benjamin. This is my point--it's just become too confusing. Words can't have a sex. Just use the accurate term in place of "gender."
That way we won't go around in circles over nonsense, which is what the point of the word has become.
One of the reasons I’m so fascinated by these issues is that I grew up in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The spirit of the times was such that we had long hair, dressed like hippies, played music, wrote songs and lyrics, and were ‘artistic’ in every conceivable way. Personally, I’ve never been interested in engines, sports, mopeds or cars – I haven’t even got a driving licence. But I’m a man, and I’ve never given it a second thought. OK, I might not fit the stereotype of what a ‘normal’ man is, but I’ve never cared, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else. I’m heterosexual and comfortable with who I am (I met the love of my life when I was still a teenager, and we’re still together).
We’re all different – isn’t that just the way it is, and always has been?
If "trans" didn't based everything on stereotypes, it honestly wouldn't exist.
If we let everyone accept themselves and reality, there would be no need for blockers, hormones, plastic surgery.
Men who don't care about cars like you, women who want to have short hair, men who don't like sports, women who do like sports--if we let people just have personalities, this would be over.
But now boys who like dolls and girls who don't like makeup think they're literally the opposite sex. And that's the issue because they think that's a "gender identity" when they can't even define it logically.
Well if I’m saying that “gender” has no application to humans, then what am I criticizing?
Using the term at all opens the door, so all of the other terms will follow. If it’s applicable here, it can be applicable anywhere, so here comes “gender expression” or “gender identity” or “gender distress.”
You can use it if you prefer, but “sex realist” can work for that too. I like TERF specifically. I know not everyone does.
I’m saying the word is too confusing and causes too many problems to have a logical discussion—I think that’s being proven correct here.
Because it has no real application, people can make it mean whatever they want, and nobody knows what anyone is really talking about. Hence, men will end up in women’s prisons.
Can you see that happening? If you mean sexist stereotypes, use that term very clearly. Nobody can build an identity on that. Normal people will see that.
See the difference? I think I explained it fairly clearly in the post.
Brilliant dissection / deconstruction of it!!! 😍👏👏👏
And yup. I officially ditched this manipulative, deliberately deceitful word, that activists use to muddy the water SOLELY for the sake of confusing people, several years ago now. At the same time as I also ditched all their OTHER equally manipulative phrases, and fake pronouns!! Some came a bit before others, but it all happened within a very SMALL time span, really. Further amplified and sped up by just how WONDERFUL and freeing it was, to almost literally FEEL all of the remaining scales fall away, one by one, and fully reclaiming my WHOLE entire mind from the gaslighting!!! Best thing ever. For people who think I am maybe exaggerating, in terms of the level of difference that it made: you should try it! Then you will instantly see what I mean! I did not realize it, either, before I did it. Sort of like how it is if you have walked around carrying a BIG sack of deadweight on your back for years! And then at some point, it just became your new normal, and you forgot that you were even carrying it! But.. it is still such a MASSIVE relief to finally get rid of that thing!! Or the feeling of getting glasses, and finally having SHARP, clear vision, for the first time in years. Even though you used to think your former vision was perfectly fine, because again, it had become your expected baseline!! Except it still wasn’t. Which you realized once your vision was finally optimized / corrected.
Anyway… I have, for the most part, not missed the word “gender” at ALL! And it has been super easy to let go of it, and instead find other clear language, to replace it with!! With the only exception being TWO oft-used phrases that were slightly harder. Those two being: 1. «gender roles». 2. «gender non-conformity». Those were the hardest ones to replace, by far. But it was still perfectly doable!! As for what I replaced them with, personally..? That would be: 1. “sex role stereotypes» / «sexist stereotypes». (Or occasionally slightly different versions thereof.) 2. «sex role stereotype non-conformity». And then once it has been established that that is indeed the kind of non-conformity that we are talking about..? I simply use «non-conformity», going forward, as that is a lot simpler and less clunky.
..Just my own strategies. Do recommend, though! They have certainly worked for me, at least. 🙂 EDIT: I also still talk about “gender ideology”, but that is just a reference to what these people believe in. Similarly to how someone can be an atheist, and still talk about other people believing in a god.
I don't use the term "gender ideology" because it's just too confusing, like I said. It takes so many forms that the term doesn't mean anything, so I refer to specifically what it meant at the time.
Is it child sterilization? Is it men in women's prisons or sports? Is it just pure misogyny?
That's how I view. There is no real ideology here. For most it's just making corporate profits, so I want to be more specific.
Yeah, great point!! I originally meant to post that first comment as a response to THIS comment, but oh well. I shall try thinking of that more, and what is the SPECIFIC area that we are discussing, because you make a really good point with that, too. 👍
Been doing this for quite a while: sex role stereotypes, sex realist, sex pay gap, sex observed at birth, etc.
Still refer to "the gender cult" and "gender ideology" though--so perhaps it's time to switch to "sex-reality-denial cult" and "sex-reality-denial ideology": and having just made those up, they look a bit clumsy but possibly worth trying...
And I do like "gender cult" as an expressive association of words, with both religious and negative loading. They tend to invite objections: the perfect opportunity to point out the cult-like nature of sexed reality denial.
"Gender cult" can work in some instances. The problem is when you open the door to using the word, people become more comfortable with it, so they think "gender identity" or "gender expression" or "gender norms" mean something too.
I view it from the perspective that people are easily confused by words because they are. I saw a poll once that said people thought a "trans woman" was an actual female with some type of genetic issue, like Rett Syndrome. So saying the most clear term is in my view just the best way to approach it.
I understand what you mean by saying "gender cult" though--it is cultish behavior of this ghoulish agenda. I call it a mutilation cult sometimes because that it what they are doing to people, both children and adults.
Completely valid perspective!! For what it’s worth, you are THE most hardline on language of all the TERFs I have ever encountered, and I thoroughly respect you for it!! That is a big part of why I enjoy this blog so much. 🙂 I also really like “sex denialism”, and I guess it would be possible to start talking about “sex denial ideology” more! I think I shall try to do that. At least when I remember it, and am aware of it. 👍
I agree there can be problems however one uses the term "gender". I always use "trans-identified male" or TiM (and TiF) and never "trans woman"--where apparently "transwoman" is the insulting version, because "woman" is not a distinct term enabling easier expropriation of "womanhood" itself.
And I find it really confusing when even outfits like Sex Matters use the term "trans identified men": because when "men" is taken, as in "trans men", who are SM actually referring to?
And I could only figure it out from house style: to suppose SM is trying to reclaim everyday language, but unfortunately at the expense of clarity. So it's something of a can't-win situation--or, at least, a minefield.
I like “men pretending to be women”, “male woman pretenders”, and the other way around when it is about women who pretend to be men. Also, sex mimics! Male sex mimics, and female sex mimics. That works great. Plus someone recently started using “gender liars”, which I first saw in a different TERF space, and I really liked it. So I adopted it!! 😜 Do see Kat’s point as well, though. About: maybe it would confuse normies, who don’t understand what “gender” is supposed to mean, to begin with! I think I shall keep using it exclusively with other TERFs.
I like it. Sex denial cult is enough, I think. Sex denial ideology. Which is what they really are doing. Trying to shove sex in the sense of conceived and born reality, under the rug.
Yes--I’ll be trying “sex denial cult” and “sex denial ideology” too, thanks!
Also been thinking: “gender cult” and “gender ideology” are actually misnomers: for what should really be “gender identity cult” and “gender identity ideology”.
Take out “identity”--from “gender identity” as the central lie of the whole “trans” phenomenon--and what’s left is just further demonisation, by linking it with “cult” and “ideology”, of a formerly useful word “gender”.
I have always refused to use this this bonkers terminology. Once you accede to their language, you've already lost the argument. In fact, it means there IS no argument. Don't let the "trans" cult dictate the terms of the debate.
Beautifully put - I look forward with pleasure to a second reading later on today.
Orwell made the point (of course) about language being used to elucidate or to obfuscate: one might argue that he made a career of it. The problem with his clear-headed statement of the case is that he’s cited so frequently that many people have a hardwired, reflexive eye-roll triggered by the mention of his name. That, to me, is foolish: he made a good argument. More foolish, however, would be to assume there’s nothing further to add.
The point (to which I’ve taken a roundabout route) is that I think you add a great deal to the discussion, both specifically on the topic of “gender”, and more broadly in terms of the employment of language. Thank you for that.
Thanks for your comment, and thanks for reading. It all starts with the words.
Orwell made some excellent points about language. So much of it starts there, as he saw way back when. What would he think about "trans woman" vs "woman" vs "nonbinary" vs "trans man." Complete nonsense.
I re-read 1984 not too long ago. It has much more poignancy when you think about it in this context.
In the not too distant future, someone will write a history of the tortured word “gender. It might even be me, when I finally get around to retiring. I already have a tentative title - “A short history of “gender”: from grammar to child abuse.” It really is a giant circular pile of horses*hit. The problem that the genderistas have is that in their world view, “gender” must be something that we each “have,” and something that we can each “change,” and hence can become “trans-gender.” We are inconsistently told that gender is something “separate from sex.” But what is that strange thing, that no one was really even talking about before the 1960s? Sometimes we are led to believe that it refers to stereotypes - a social construct. But that doesn’t fit the bill for today’s genderistas. Because a stereotype isn’t something that I “have” and can “change.” But then when we see prominent genderistas who have “transitioned,” all they have to offer is cosplaying of “gender stereotypes.” Bud Light boy “Dylan Mulvaney” is my favorite example. He simply cosplays 1950s stereotypes of femininity. So gross. It’s funny that the feminist movement spent decades trying to undo those stereotypes. Only to be defeated by men in dresses starting around COVID times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you received threats of violence amongst the drivel. The whole trans enterprise is built on top of the pure nonsense of the word “gender”. We are not supposed to ask these questions or notice these obvious truths. It really makes one wonder who or what is behind this enterprise.
Yes, of course, these people are extremely violent. I haven't been attacked personally, but I've heard/seen threats. The screaming of activists can get very frenzied.
Everyone has their own theory of gender, but everyone in “gender studies” has to learn hers. Everything is put through the postmodern cuisinart. Can you imagine if political science students only studied Marx, or Adam Smith, or Bertrand Russell?
OMG. “Andrea” Long Chu. He sure said the quiet part out loud, didn’t he?
Right. It would have to be self-published, and then I would be canceled and someone else would write the authorized biography. Shannon was friends with Diane Middlebrook, who wrote the biographies of Anne Sexton and “Billy” Tipton, so I’m surprised someone hasn’t done it already. If anyone should have a publisher, it’s you. You are such a good writer; I admire you so much. Thanks for chatting with me!
YEEEESH Andrew "Andrea" is among the worst. He literally flat-out admitted that his pornography problem led him to claim to be "trans" and then won a Pulitzer Prize for it. Those used to be considered something prestigious.
If you self-publish, I would definitely read the story since it sounds interesting, but if you live or work in an area where you might be cancelled for writing about it, that would be an individual choice for you to make.
Thanks so much for the kind words, and I appreciate your comments!
I can get access. I was thinking of writing his/her story from a nonideological perspective, and was wondering if you had any ideas of where I could submit it. Besides Substack. I came up in old-school publishing. ☺️
Publishing right now is so pro the "trans" cult that it would be great if it would publish something by an author who would just admit that sex is binary and immutable.
Big sellers like "Mad Honey" is what they push, as well books by Torrey Peters, Andrew "Andrea" Long Chu, memoirs by Bruce Jenner, Ellen Page, etc.
Amazon has a self-publishing program, and there are programs to make your own books, so it would be a Kindle to purchase from Amazon, which is the largest online platform, if you would be interested in something like that.
If everyone has their own theory about something nobody can even define, what on earth is even being studied in "gender studies" is my question. It doesn't even mean anything.
This is what used to be called "women's studies," but to study women means you have to define women but there's only one definition which doesn't include men in dresses, so they changed it to this to make it even more confusing--and here we are.
One big word game and nobody knows what the hell is going on!
Political science studies in North Korea are like this--just one perspective.
Imagine if in a "gender studies" class at UC Berkeley, a TERF said she doesn't accept any of this. She would be thrown out.
No, just a local folk music school. Everyone was asked to give their name and pronouns and their favorite singers. So I just left out the pronouns. She said, and your pronouns? I said, whatever. After the class she said to me that they were a safe space for all 2slbgtqia* people. I said, great! She refunded my fee and blocked me on social! 🤣 I see young women with binders and mastectomies and testosterone stubble and voices every day here. It’s sad. I want to adopt them.
If you wanted to pursue a legal case against it, you would probably win in court for discrimination based on your beliefs and freedom of speech. I mean if you found a lawyer willing to fight for the cause, which depending on your jurisdiction, might be difficult. Not to win tons of money, but to make a point. You should have had the right to participate.
The young women on testosterone are suffering, I see them around too. I have sympathy for them, unlike the obviously fetishistic cross-dressing males
It’s awful. What a decision to make at 19. BTW, I actually worked with a MtF person in Palo Alto for years in the early 90s. Very nice, interesting person. Obviously male, although no one else seemed to notice (and this was a pharma company. We worked with MD/PhDs). She was one of the original SRS patients at Stanford. Her name was Shannon Moffat and she left all her papers to the University of Wyoming. I was thinking about writing about her from the perspective of someone who was sympathetic but doesn’t think people can change sex. I wouldn’t seek permission to quote as they obviously wouldn’t approve of me, but most of the money quotes are in the university press release anyway. Do you have any advice on where I could submit this? I don’t want to bother unless I have somewhere to publish. I don’t have your energy! Thanks. Claire
what began as a theory and self reported psych issue ends in legal regimes that rob womens right to safe spaces and robs the right of kids and other vulnerable people to evidenced based heath care. what happened in between was the pharm industry teamed with wpath fetishists to manufacture a dsm which not based on any evidence to allow for billing and allowed rich fetishists to enact a well financed PR and lobby campaign. rich fetishists and mens rights activists took over all LGB groups.
yes, i view gender ideology as a religion because theres no evidence of any of their claims. for many, belief in the bogus claims of gender activism is simply a political stance. dont like trump? then you must agree that men should be allowed in womens spaces.
gender policies were enacted without scrutiny of any of their claims. but more and more people are revisiting these claims and seeing they dont check out. for example, gov systematic reviews determined "low quality evidence" of youth gender interventions. thats another way of saying gender ID and gender meds dont help.
regarding women's rights, i seldom see anyone challenging the claims made that allowed gender activists to rob womens rights.
- "trans" ID people are unsafe? nope. theyre one of the safest groups. claims to the contrary are based on self reports that dont match offical records.
- gender affirming policies help dysphoric people? nope. theres no evidence affirming anyones opposite sex ID has any benefit.
- gender ID is immutable or innate? no. gender ID is a choice. theres 1000 reasons why people chose to ID as opposite sex. many were scammed into it via false claims of benefit. most stop taking gender meds eventually. german insurance records found by year 4, half stop taking gender meds. US military says by year 4, 30% detrans. its likely by year 10 most ID again as their birth sex
I understand what you mean when you say it's like a religion bc there is no proof for it.
Here's how I see the problem--under the First Amendment in the US, people have the right to practice a religion.
Does a man have a religious right to plastic surgery or to use the women's restrooms? Bc if it's a religion then he would.
It can be cultish, but I view it more like lobotomies. Nobody has a right to a lobotomy, and only doctors do those. The medical industry doesn't run religions. It runs a business.
That's how I see it.
Bu your point about "gender ID" stands bc if it's immutable, why do so many stop claiming it? Nobody can stop being a sex, so what's the point?
I have been emailing my legislators because "gender identity" and "gender expression" are in my state's law, and the law also states that "Sex is gender" without ever defining "gender".
Here's what I've been sending in case it's helpful for anyone else who might want to write to their representatives (adjust per your own State's laws, of course). Note that I've yet to receive a response.
Dear Senator/Representative ________,
I am writing to ask you to clarify how ___STATE___ lawmakers believe the state's statutory definitions of sex, gender, gender identity, and gender expression can be logically and consistently applied in law.
I have become increasingly concerned that ___STATE___ law uses these terms in ways that are circular, undefined, or internally contradictory. These are not merely semantic concerns. These definitions form the foundation for laws and policies affecting women's and girls' rights, privacy, safety, sports, prisons, healthcare, and access to sex-segregated spaces.
For example, ___ LAW___ states that "'Sex' means gender," but the statute does not define "gender." The same section refers to "sex assigned to that person at birth," while ___STATE___ law elsewhere relies on gender identity and expression in determining how a person is legally treated. In addition, we all know that sex is not "assigned at birth" but rather observed either at birth or well before birth with ultrasound.
I would therefore appreciate substantive answers to the following questions:
What is the legal definition of "gender" in ___STATE___ State? If "sex means gender," as __LAW__ states, what precisely does "gender" mean in that context?
Is gender the same thing as sex, gender identity, or something else? If gender is different from sex, how can the law define sex as gender? If gender is the same as sex, how can a person have a gender identity that is "both, neither, or in-between"?
What does ___STATE___ law mean by "sex"? Human beings are sexually reproducing mammals, and biological sex has a clear reproductive function. If ___STATE___ law considers sex to be something other than a binary biological classification, what are the additional sexes recognized by law, what reproductive role do they play, and is ___STATE___ State making the remarkable claim that humans are not mammals, or are different from all other mammals on Earth?
What is meant by "internal sense" in the statutory definition of gender identity? ___STATE___ law defines gender identity as "a person's internal sense of being male, female, both, neither, or in-between." What exactly is this "internal sense"? Is it a scientifically measurable characteristic? Is there an objective means of determining it? If not, why is a person's self-report sufficient to establish it for purposes of law?
How can gender identity be both distinct from sex and effectively determine a person's legal sex classification? If gender identity is different from sex, why does a person's gender identity allow the person to change their legal sex marker? Conversely, if gender identity is equivalent to sex, how can someone be "both," "neither," or "in-between" sexes?
Why does ___STATE___ law define gender expression in terms of appearance, behavior, clothing, voice, and body characteristics? How is this distinction from "traditional" masculine and feminine characteristics not simply a repackaging of the very sex stereotypes that women have spent decades challenging? A woman should be able to have any appearance, clothing, voice, or behavior without that changing her sex or implying that she has a different gender identity or no gender identity at all.
My concern is that these definitions are not sufficiently precise to serve as the basis for legislation. If the terms are undefined, circular, or mutually contradictory, how can lawmakers, courts, agencies, schools, employers, and citizens consistently determine what the law actually requires?
I am asking you, as a legislator responsible for creating and amending ___STATE___ law, to provide a substantive response to these questions.
If you believe the definitions are logically coherent, please explain how you reconcile the following propositions:
"Sex" means "gender."
"Gender" is not defined.
Gender identity is an "internal sense" that may be male, female, both, neither, or in-between.
Gender identity is apparently distinct from biological sex.
Yet gender identity can determine a person's legal sex classification.
I would also like to know whether you believe ___STATE___'s current statutory definitions are adequate for the purpose of making sound public policy. If you do, please explain the reasoning behind that conclusion. If you do not, will you support legislation that provides clear, objective, and internally consistent definitions?
I am not asking for a statement of political values or a general statement about inclusion. I am asking a straightforward question about the definitions on which ___STATE___ law is built: What do these words actually mean, and how can the state make coherent laws if the underlying terms are undefined or contradictory?
Just got back a reply, and I have further replied!
Their reply to me:
Thank you for reaching out again to share your concerns regarding legal definitions of sex and gender identity, as well as the privacy and safety of women and children in intimate spaces. We appreciate the seriousness with which you approach this issue and your desire for a substantive, honest dialogue rather than a generic statement.
The incident you referenced at the swim meet is has received a lot of attention on social media. Only people who were there know for sure what really happened and what was exaggerated to get attention and sow divisions. It is undeniably true that every individual deserves to feel safe, secure, and respected in public facilities.
In considering the questions you raised, the goal of lawmakers is to look at the full scope of public safety, data, and the competing needs of all community members.
First, it is important to emphasize that public safety is never considered compromised or secondary under __STATE__ law. Behavior such as voyeurism, exhibitionism, lewd conduct, or sexual misconduct remains strictly illegal and punishable under the state criminal code, regardless of a person’s stated gender identity or the space in which it occurs. Law enforcement and facility managers retain full authority to intervene, remove, and prosecute anyone engaging in predatory or inappropriate behavior.
Comprehensive data—including independent archival reviews of sexual assault complaints by organizations such as the National Policing Institute—demonstrates that systematic safety violations or predatory behavior by individuals utilizing facilities aligned with their gender identity are extraordinarily rare.
When evaluating policies governing sex-segregated spaces, lawmakers must balance the privacy and safety concerns of women with the very real safety risks faced by transgender individuals.
Data shows that transgender women face exceptionally high rates of verbal harassment, physical assault, and violence when forced to use male-designated facilities like showers and locker rooms. Forcing a transgender woman into a men’s intimate space does not eliminate the safety risk; rather, it shifts a severe safety vulnerability onto a deeply marginalized population. The challenge before us is to find a path forward that protects everyone, rather than trading the safety of one group for another.
Rather than barring transgender individuals from public life or removing hard-won protections, many facilities are successfully implementing structural solutions that increase privacy for everyone:
Enhanced Privacy Architecture: Facilities are increasingly moving toward single-occupancy changing stalls, floor-to-ceiling doors, and private shower curtains within communal spaces. This allows any individual who desires extra privacy to secure it without segregating or exposing others.
Universal Single-Use Facilities: Expanding the availability of gender-neutral, single-occupancy restrooms and changing spaces provides a safe, private alternative for families, individuals with caregivers, or anyone uncomfortable in a communal setting.
Clear Facility Conduct Codes: Ensuring that all facilities explicitly post and enforce codes of conduct regarding behavior—focusing on actions rather than identities—helps staff respond swiftly to any legitimate disruption.
Your point regarding the need for clarity, consistency, and a thorough consideration of foreseeable consequences in our legal definitions is well taken. Coherent policy requires rigorous examination, and your feedback is a vital part of that legislative process.
Please be assured that protecting the privacy, dignity, and safety of women and children remains a core priority.
Thank you again for your time, your perspective, and your commitment to thoughtful conversation.
Thank you for your response. I truly appreciate you taking the time to reply, but unfortunately it does not answer the questions I raised about either the law or the evidence underlying the policies you describe.
In fact, several of the assertions in your response raise additional questions.
1. Evidence concerning men who identify as women and sex-segregated facilities
You state that:
“Data shows that transgender women face exceptionally high rates of verbal harassment, physical assault, and violence when forced to use male-designated facilities like showers and locker rooms.”
Can you please provide the specific data and sources supporting this statement?
I have not seen evidence demonstrating that men who identify as women face exceptionally high rates of violence specifically as a result of being required to use facilities corresponding to their biological sex. I would genuinely like to see the evidence you are relying upon, particularly because this is being presented as a justification for public policy.
You also state that “comprehensive data” demonstrates that safety violations or predatory behavior by individuals using facilities aligned with their "gender identity" (which is??) are “extraordinarily rare,” citing the National Policing Institute.
Again, please provide the specific study or studies you are referring to. What population was studied? What facilities were examined? What period of time was covered? How was “predatory behavior” defined, and how was it identified or measured?
These are important empirical claims, and I don't think they should simply be asserted without providing the underlying evidence.
2. I am not proposing to “bar transgender individuals from public life.”
You characterize the alternative to your preferred policy as:
“barring transgender individuals from public life or removing hard-won protections”
I am not suggesting either of those things.
I am asking whether __STATE__ should continue to recognize the importance of single-sex spaces and define and enforce those spaces according to biological sex.
People who identify as transgender should not be discriminated against in employment, housing, or other areas where discrimination is prohibited. That is not the issue I am raising.
The issue is whether the hard-won protections women and girls have for privacy, dignity, bodily boundaries, and safety in intimate and vulnerable settings should remain meaningful.
A women's locker room is not a “public life” issue. Neither is a rape shelter, a prison cell, a changing room, or a communal shower. These are precisely the circumstances in which sex segregation has historically served an important safeguarding function.
3. The proposed structural solutions do not address the underlying problem.
You suggest:
floor-to-ceiling doors;
private shower curtains;
universal single-use facilities; and
conduct codes.
These may be useful accommodations in some circumstances, but they do not answer the fundamental question I raised.
For example, floor-to-ceiling doors can create safeguarding problems of their own. If someone collapses or is otherwise incapacitated inside a fully enclosed stall, staff may not be able to see that person or respond quickly.
Private shower curtains do not solve the problem of allowing males into spaces that were established specifically to provide women and girls with privacy from males. Nor do they address the fact that many women simply do not want to undress or shower in the presence of males, regardless of whether those males are behaving appropriately.
This is not merely a theoretical concern. Research commissioned by Sex Matters in the UK has found substantial public support for maintaining sex-separated facilities, and women have expressed strong preferences for single-sex changing and showering facilities rather than mixed-sex arrangements.
“Segregation” is not inherently a bad thing. Sex segregation in particular circumstances is an important safeguard that allows women and girls to have privacy from males. We should be careful about treating the word itself as though it describes something inherently unjust.
4. Conduct rules do not solve the problem of sex mixing.
You suggest that facilities should focus on behavior rather than identity and enforce codes of conduct.
Of course inappropriate behavior should be prohibited and punished. But that does not address the issue I am raising.
A man does not have to be a voyeur, exhibitionist, or sexual predator for a woman to reasonably object to his presence while she is undressed.
The question is not simply whether someone is behaving badly. The question is whether a space designated for women is actually a single-sex space if males are permitted to enter it based on self-identification.
We cannot know which individual men may be predators. That is precisely one reason sex-based safeguarding rules exist: they establish boundaries in advance rather than requiring women and staff to determine whether an individual male has sufficiently bad intentions to warrant exclusion.
A clear rule that women's intimate spaces are for females provides women with a predictable boundary and gives staff a straightforward rule to enforce. Replacing that with an assessment of an individual's identity or behavior places the burden on women to object and on staff to determine whether an individual male's presence is sufficiently concerning.
That is not equivalent protection.
5. What about women in particularly vulnerable circumstances?
Your proposed solutions also do not address settings such as rape crisis shelters, domestic violence shelters, prisons, and other environments in which women may be especially vulnerable to males.
For example, __STATE__ has policies under which male prisoners who identify as transgender may be housed in women's prisons. This is particularly troubling because incarcerated women cannot simply leave, choose another facility, or remove themselves from an uncomfortable situation.
I am aware of women incarcerated in __STATE__ who have expressed fear and distress about being housed with male prisoners. Their concerns should not be dismissed as prejudice or treated as though they are simply asking to exclude someone from “public life.”
These are precisely the circumstances in which sex-based safeguarding matters most.
Most importantly, I still have not received an answer to my original legal questions.
My initial letter asked about the definitions underlying these policies. In particular, I asked how __STATE__ can make coherent policy when:
RCW 49.60.040 says that “sex” means “gender,” without defining “gender”;
__STATE__ law also refers to “sex assigned at birth”;
“gender identity” is defined in terms of an individual's “internal sense” of being male, female, both, neither, or in-between; and
gender identity can nevertheless have legal consequences that effectively determine a person's treatment according to sex.
Your response says that “coherent policy requires rigorous examination,” which I appreciate. But I am asking you to engage in precisely that examination.
What does “gender” mean in __STATE__ law? What does “sex” mean? How are they related? What is the legal meaning of an “internal sense” of being male, female, both, neither, or in-between? And how can these concepts provide an objective and predictable basis for laws governing sex-segregated spaces?
I am not asking for a statement of values or a general assurance that everyone deserves to feel safe and respected. I agree with that principle.
I am asking for the evidence and the legal reasoning behind the policies you support.
If you can provide the specific sources for the claims about "transgender" safety that you cited, as well as a substantive response to the statutory-definition questions in my original letter, I would genuinely appreciate it.
Thank you again for responding, and I hope we can continue this conversation at the level of evidence and law rather than general statements about competing needs.
"Data shows that transgender women face exceptionally high rates of verbal harassment, physical assault, and violence when forced to use male-designated facilities like showers and locker rooms. Forcing a transgender woman into a men’s intimate space does not eliminate the safety risk; rather, it shifts a severe safety vulnerability onto a deeply marginalized population."
They hit every ridiculous lie right here.
Men are violent so men in dresses have to be let into women's spaces.
You asked for the sources, so I wonder what they'll send. Some study funded by the Pritzkers or something about how cross-dressers are the biggest victims of all time.
My brain hurts after reading this but thank you.
That's the point lol!
Now everyone's confused and nobody knows what we're talking about. So men are in women's prisons. Mission accomplished.
You're welcome.
Nope. Sorry. With all due respect, Kat, "men in women's prisons" is NOT "mission accomplished". It's merely the next small battle, or skirmish in a much, much bigger & longer war. The "evil twins" end goals are Transhuman Technocracy. Jennifer Bilek nailed it to the floor in here "Trans-, Trans- Trans-" book. You should know the one I mean....
To further clarify, sometimes, sex & gender are SAME. And, sometimes, sex & gender are DIFFERENT. Depends on speaker, context, & intent. But THEIR intent is to control by & through confusion. Confused people are easier to control, as THEY see it. And THEY are usually correct.
Lastly, sometimes, "same" and "different" are different, but sometimes the same. Sometimes same means same. But sometimes same means different. See what I mean? Get what I'm saying?
Reading your words here, almost feels like I'm reading my own thoughts put down in words. THANK-YOU!, and PLEASE, KEEP UP the GOOD WORK....
Yes, I understand what you're saying.
The nearest goal is confusion, the men in women's prisons, and then the ultimate goal overall is a total dismantling of the sex binary in technology and reproduction.
I was thinking that the short-term goal within everyday life, in prison and especially pedophilia normalization, was of utmost importance to the ideologues, but eventually it is the things that Martin Rothblatt talks about extensively. Complete dissociation from body and sex.
It does absolutely no good to stop using the word gender when gender ideologues continue to use it in any way they want. That's like riding a bike to a grocery store a few blocks away to reduce your own personal gas usage a tiny little bit, while still commuting to work in a car and while billions of other people in the world pollute by burning fossil fuels. It's a feel-good, ineffective strategy. So is the whole idea of abolishing gender.
Democratic-led states funnel millions of dollars to organizations that promote gender-based policies. Oregon, for instance, is using tax money to sue the Trump administration so that the state can continue to put male people in female prisons. CA's Governor Newsom stated how unfair it is that transgirls are in female sport, yet he won't block mails from the female category, and of course CA puts men and female prisons still. Other Dem-led dates are just as bad.
You can choose to not use the word gender anymore but your local college will continue to allocate tax money to promote the interests of people with special genders. Your tax money pays for gender equity programs at universities. Your local high school teaches children that someone's gender is far more important than his or her sex. Tax money is spent training those teachers and providing materials to pervert the minds of children.
If a few substack readers choose not to use the word gender anymore, have you fixed the problem?
I think we need to do more than just stop using that word. You'll never make everyone else stop using it. We need a more proactive approach such as defining the word in federal law.
I’m talking about everyday language.
Someone like Glenna Goldis is working on a lawsuit against WPATH as a member of the FTC. She’s going to ask in the lawsuit—”define gender, what are you talking about?”
They won’t be able to answer. That will be a factor. This is why the language affects lawsuits.
If you read the recent SCOTUS West Virginia v. BPJ, the language was a big issue, a huge change from 2020. On the winning side, some justices even avoided the term “transgender” and didn’t use wrong pronouns. That was accomplished by discussions like this over years.
In school, if professors are using the term “gender” all a student has to do is ask “what’s gender—explain” and there is no answer, that has an effect.
I didn’t say this is the only thing to do on the planet. I’m saying this is what I see in everyday life, this is my view, and this is how change can start in everyday language. The post is thinking through that, and it was aimed towards readers who see it and want to read about it.
I didn’t say I would solve everything with my one Substack post. Who would even suggest that? I said everything starts with language. This is one way to effect a change in everyday life.
We're on the same page. Language is key to change. That's how transgenderists gained so much ground so quickly - by demanding and enforcing language usage.
The only difference between my perspective and that of many radfems is that I think the call to "abolish gender" is a feel-good waste of time. What we need to do is to find gender in federal law in a way that does not disrupt sex-based protections and rights.
Let's talk offline or at least outside of the comments.
Funny, "just drop it" is what you'll often hear from gender apologists when you try to talk to them about the practical ramifications of believing in gender as a real thing, independent of sex. Because they know that their opinion is essentially submitting to the men who want to abuse language to paint themselves as victims, so their only recourse is to accuse anyone challenging them of ill-defined 'bigotry' or of somehow offending them. Well sorry, if people want to behave like that then they should be prepared for people to lose respect for them
That's why they act like it's a genocide when men are told to stay out of women's bathrooms
"Gender" used to be the polite way of avoiding referring to "sex": eg in the 1950s when the term "sex appeal" for women's fashion was rather daring, and "sexy" would have been unthinkable.
But the 1960s changed all that: with the advent of The Pill and sexual liberation--to a degree--for women. I was a 1970s so-called "second wave" feminist: when the language of "women's liberation" (I worked on Spare Rib magazine) started to make a distinction between the terms "gender" and "sex". "Gender" was now understood by feminists to denote cultural constructs like sex-role stereotypes, as distinct from "sex" which was straightforwardly biological.
It was part of the battle to reclaim women's capacities and rights to be and do far more, eg in the field of employment, too often restricted by narrow "gendered" notions ie by sex role stereotypes--but not by biology itself.
Looking at the divisions of society by assumptions about gender / sex role stereotypes is what gave the name "gender studies" to what started out more narrowly as "women's studies": because it begged the question of looking at the organisation of society as a whole.
But transgenderism and the gender cult sprang from entirely different origins: from male academic sexologists like Havelock Ellis, Alfred Kinsey, Magnus Hirschfeld, John Money, Harry Benjamin etc whose inheritance of patriarchal arrogance and misogyny still permeate transactivist attitudes today.
Look at the Substack of researcher Donovan Cleckley on “Sexology’s Fathers: the forgotten roots of the Transgender Phenomenon”.
Yes, if gender was at one point a polite euphemism for sex, it's become so widely misused that it's just too confusing altogether.
GENDER IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM SEX cannot coexist with ACTUALLY THEY'RE THE SAME.
It's just gone too far, and the whole thing has to go.
Male academics like Oliven and Money ruined the word so thoroughly we have to delete it.
Yes--their invention of the term "gender identity" seems to have formed the pivotal lurch into what has burgeoned into the current general insanity, based on male sexual fetishes and male hatred of their own bodies: still ready to topple into readymade patriarchal and misogynist notions of "femininity" and sex role stereotypes.
So far as I'm concerned, it's impossible to have a "gender identity" as a woman, because it's been stolen from us by fetishistic men. Whose imitation of hyper-sexualised "womanhood" is hardly more horrific to many girls than the commoditised reality that drives them too to seek mutilation in denial of their own sexed bodies.
So we might as well ditch the whole disastrous idea--and the word--altogether, and start again. But it still helps to know where it came from, and how it's been used and abused.
Donovan Cleckley does a great job of this: both tracing its origin and development via arrogant and misogynist male sexologists, and injecting a counter-critique from contemporary feminists.
Having been a second wave feminist myself, I wouldn't say feminists were trying to destroy the idea of "gender" itself.
Rather it was to make clear that "gender" was not equivalent to biological sex--though sometimes used as a polite substitute eg "gender pay gap" instead of "sex pay gap".
That "gender" implied (and still implies) sex role stereotypes; and that it was therefore a social construct which also varies across cultures.
It remains useful to refer to "gendered" roles: which implies a social assumption that one sex or the other typically fills them, for good or bad reasons.
Whereas referring to "sexed" roles doesn't carry any implication beyond the biological--so its usefulness is limited.
What do you mean by GENDER here?
Stereotypes? THEN SAY SO.
This is my point.
Then you'd abolish things like female-only spaces, sports etc
When you say "designed to uphold violent patriarchy" what does that mean?
Who is using violent patriarchy when somebody says there are 100 genders? Who is upholding a patriarchy when I say there are 3 genders in German? What is a social construct about that? Do you understand that people will hear that and think about "gender expression"? What's violent about that?
What is "gender affirming care" then? What is "gender confirmation" surgery in that case? What is "gender dysphoria"? What is "gender identity"?
And if sex is a biological reality, how on earth can words have a sex? Now we've come full circle--sex is different from gender, but they're also interchangeable.
You pulled a Harry Benjamin. This is my point--it's just become too confusing. Words can't have a sex. Just use the accurate term in place of "gender."
That way we won't go around in circles over nonsense, which is what the point of the word has become.
Thanks Kat, you're great. A thought from me:
One of the reasons I’m so fascinated by these issues is that I grew up in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The spirit of the times was such that we had long hair, dressed like hippies, played music, wrote songs and lyrics, and were ‘artistic’ in every conceivable way. Personally, I’ve never been interested in engines, sports, mopeds or cars – I haven’t even got a driving licence. But I’m a man, and I’ve never given it a second thought. OK, I might not fit the stereotype of what a ‘normal’ man is, but I’ve never cared, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else. I’m heterosexual and comfortable with who I am (I met the love of my life when I was still a teenager, and we’re still together).
We’re all different – isn’t that just the way it is, and always has been?
If "trans" didn't based everything on stereotypes, it honestly wouldn't exist.
If we let everyone accept themselves and reality, there would be no need for blockers, hormones, plastic surgery.
Men who don't care about cars like you, women who want to have short hair, men who don't like sports, women who do like sports--if we let people just have personalities, this would be over.
But now boys who like dolls and girls who don't like makeup think they're literally the opposite sex. And that's the issue because they think that's a "gender identity" when they can't even define it logically.
It seems like you mean gender is hair and clothing here.
What's violent about that? It would make more sense to say hair and clothing. That way everyone knows what you're talking about.
That's my original point.
❤️
It seems that "gender" means hair and clothing here.
I think the reason "gender" caught on is that in some contexts, saying "sex" implies sexuality when one means sex-class.
Nevertheless, I feel as you do and I am stopping the use of that term. It's been used against us and against common sense.
Yes, I think some people think it sounds naughty, like we're referencing intercourse. We aren't. It's biological sex--female and male.
That's on them for reading something into the term nobody really means.
When you say what you really mean instead of "gender," it suddenly makes sense just how much nonsense they get away with just this one word.
You figure we should stop saying gender critical and switch to sex realist?
That is a better option I think. I personally prefer TERF because I just like the term, but I know that not everyone likes it.
Sex realist encompasses the truth, or you can just say realist if you don't like saying sex. Some people don't.
I like saying "sex." Time to go back to the truth. And not everyone is a radical feminist. :-)
That works!
Well if I’m saying that “gender” has no application to humans, then what am I criticizing?
Using the term at all opens the door, so all of the other terms will follow. If it’s applicable here, it can be applicable anywhere, so here comes “gender expression” or “gender identity” or “gender distress.”
You can use it if you prefer, but “sex realist” can work for that too. I like TERF specifically. I know not everyone does.
I’m saying the word is too confusing and causes too many problems to have a logical discussion—I think that’s being proven correct here.
Because it has no real application, people can make it mean whatever they want, and nobody knows what anyone is really talking about. Hence, men will end up in women’s prisons.
Can you see that happening? If you mean sexist stereotypes, use that term very clearly. Nobody can build an identity on that. Normal people will see that.
See the difference? I think I explained it fairly clearly in the post.
Yes, and that is why it makes sense to make it disappear from our vocabulary. Except for grammar. :-)
It's use for women has created a weapon against us.
Sounds good to me.
This was the best line "psychic realities".
Really?
Wtf does that even mean?
A schizophrenic who thinks the TV is talking directly to him is having a psychic reality. Is that a new gender?
The word games drive me nuts.
Brilliant dissection / deconstruction of it!!! 😍👏👏👏
And yup. I officially ditched this manipulative, deliberately deceitful word, that activists use to muddy the water SOLELY for the sake of confusing people, several years ago now. At the same time as I also ditched all their OTHER equally manipulative phrases, and fake pronouns!! Some came a bit before others, but it all happened within a very SMALL time span, really. Further amplified and sped up by just how WONDERFUL and freeing it was, to almost literally FEEL all of the remaining scales fall away, one by one, and fully reclaiming my WHOLE entire mind from the gaslighting!!! Best thing ever. For people who think I am maybe exaggerating, in terms of the level of difference that it made: you should try it! Then you will instantly see what I mean! I did not realize it, either, before I did it. Sort of like how it is if you have walked around carrying a BIG sack of deadweight on your back for years! And then at some point, it just became your new normal, and you forgot that you were even carrying it! But.. it is still such a MASSIVE relief to finally get rid of that thing!! Or the feeling of getting glasses, and finally having SHARP, clear vision, for the first time in years. Even though you used to think your former vision was perfectly fine, because again, it had become your expected baseline!! Except it still wasn’t. Which you realized once your vision was finally optimized / corrected.
Anyway… I have, for the most part, not missed the word “gender” at ALL! And it has been super easy to let go of it, and instead find other clear language, to replace it with!! With the only exception being TWO oft-used phrases that were slightly harder. Those two being: 1. «gender roles». 2. «gender non-conformity». Those were the hardest ones to replace, by far. But it was still perfectly doable!! As for what I replaced them with, personally..? That would be: 1. “sex role stereotypes» / «sexist stereotypes». (Or occasionally slightly different versions thereof.) 2. «sex role stereotype non-conformity». And then once it has been established that that is indeed the kind of non-conformity that we are talking about..? I simply use «non-conformity», going forward, as that is a lot simpler and less clunky.
..Just my own strategies. Do recommend, though! They have certainly worked for me, at least. 🙂 EDIT: I also still talk about “gender ideology”, but that is just a reference to what these people believe in. Similarly to how someone can be an atheist, and still talk about other people believing in a god.
I understand what you mean.
I don't use the term "gender ideology" because it's just too confusing, like I said. It takes so many forms that the term doesn't mean anything, so I refer to specifically what it meant at the time.
Is it child sterilization? Is it men in women's prisons or sports? Is it just pure misogyny?
That's how I view. There is no real ideology here. For most it's just making corporate profits, so I want to be more specific.
Yeah, great point!! I originally meant to post that first comment as a response to THIS comment, but oh well. I shall try thinking of that more, and what is the SPECIFIC area that we are discussing, because you make a really good point with that, too. 👍
Been doing this for quite a while: sex role stereotypes, sex realist, sex pay gap, sex observed at birth, etc.
Still refer to "the gender cult" and "gender ideology" though--so perhaps it's time to switch to "sex-reality-denial cult" and "sex-reality-denial ideology": and having just made those up, they look a bit clumsy but possibly worth trying...
And I do like "gender cult" as an expressive association of words, with both religious and negative loading. They tend to invite objections: the perfect opportunity to point out the cult-like nature of sexed reality denial.
"Gender cult" can work in some instances. The problem is when you open the door to using the word, people become more comfortable with it, so they think "gender identity" or "gender expression" or "gender norms" mean something too.
I view it from the perspective that people are easily confused by words because they are. I saw a poll once that said people thought a "trans woman" was an actual female with some type of genetic issue, like Rett Syndrome. So saying the most clear term is in my view just the best way to approach it.
I understand what you mean by saying "gender cult" though--it is cultish behavior of this ghoulish agenda. I call it a mutilation cult sometimes because that it what they are doing to people, both children and adults.
Completely valid perspective!! For what it’s worth, you are THE most hardline on language of all the TERFs I have ever encountered, and I thoroughly respect you for it!! That is a big part of why I enjoy this blog so much. 🙂 I also really like “sex denialism”, and I guess it would be possible to start talking about “sex denial ideology” more! I think I shall try to do that. At least when I remember it, and am aware of it. 👍
And yes--a mutilation cult for sure. Genevieve Gluck has written about the Skoptsy cult which required all its male members to be castrated.
I agree there can be problems however one uses the term "gender". I always use "trans-identified male" or TiM (and TiF) and never "trans woman"--where apparently "transwoman" is the insulting version, because "woman" is not a distinct term enabling easier expropriation of "womanhood" itself.
And I find it really confusing when even outfits like Sex Matters use the term "trans identified men": because when "men" is taken, as in "trans men", who are SM actually referring to?
And I could only figure it out from house style: to suppose SM is trying to reclaim everyday language, but unfortunately at the expense of clarity. So it's something of a can't-win situation--or, at least, a minefield.
I just say men in dresses or men in wigs. It's easier!
LOL
I like “men pretending to be women”, “male woman pretenders”, and the other way around when it is about women who pretend to be men. Also, sex mimics! Male sex mimics, and female sex mimics. That works great. Plus someone recently started using “gender liars”, which I first saw in a different TERF space, and I really liked it. So I adopted it!! 😜 Do see Kat’s point as well, though. About: maybe it would confuse normies, who don’t understand what “gender” is supposed to mean, to begin with! I think I shall keep using it exclusively with other TERFs.
I like it. Sex denial cult is enough, I think. Sex denial ideology. Which is what they really are doing. Trying to shove sex in the sense of conceived and born reality, under the rug.
Yes--I’ll be trying “sex denial cult” and “sex denial ideology” too, thanks!
Also been thinking: “gender cult” and “gender ideology” are actually misnomers: for what should really be “gender identity cult” and “gender identity ideology”.
Take out “identity”--from “gender identity” as the central lie of the whole “trans” phenomenon--and what’s left is just further demonisation, by linking it with “cult” and “ideology”, of a formerly useful word “gender”.
No wonder people are confused.
How about just plain “sex denialism”? That is another legit option. 🙂
Yes!
I have always preferred the turn of phrase "sex-based stereotypes".
It's precisely what it says on the tin, as it were. Not much room for identity fraud there.
That is an excellent, extremely accurate term
BRAVA, Kat!
I have always refused to use this this bonkers terminology. Once you accede to their language, you've already lost the argument. In fact, it means there IS no argument. Don't let the "trans" cult dictate the terms of the debate.
Everyone, refuse to use their language.
Correct.
There are women and men--everything else is marketing.
Beautifully put - I look forward with pleasure to a second reading later on today.
Orwell made the point (of course) about language being used to elucidate or to obfuscate: one might argue that he made a career of it. The problem with his clear-headed statement of the case is that he’s cited so frequently that many people have a hardwired, reflexive eye-roll triggered by the mention of his name. That, to me, is foolish: he made a good argument. More foolish, however, would be to assume there’s nothing further to add.
The point (to which I’ve taken a roundabout route) is that I think you add a great deal to the discussion, both specifically on the topic of “gender”, and more broadly in terms of the employment of language. Thank you for that.
Thanks for your comment, and thanks for reading. It all starts with the words.
Orwell made some excellent points about language. So much of it starts there, as he saw way back when. What would he think about "trans woman" vs "woman" vs "nonbinary" vs "trans man." Complete nonsense.
I re-read 1984 not too long ago. It has much more poignancy when you think about it in this context.
In the not too distant future, someone will write a history of the tortured word “gender. It might even be me, when I finally get around to retiring. I already have a tentative title - “A short history of “gender”: from grammar to child abuse.” It really is a giant circular pile of horses*hit. The problem that the genderistas have is that in their world view, “gender” must be something that we each “have,” and something that we can each “change,” and hence can become “trans-gender.” We are inconsistently told that gender is something “separate from sex.” But what is that strange thing, that no one was really even talking about before the 1960s? Sometimes we are led to believe that it refers to stereotypes - a social construct. But that doesn’t fit the bill for today’s genderistas. Because a stereotype isn’t something that I “have” and can “change.” But then when we see prominent genderistas who have “transitioned,” all they have to offer is cosplaying of “gender stereotypes.” Bud Light boy “Dylan Mulvaney” is my favorite example. He simply cosplays 1950s stereotypes of femininity. So gross. It’s funny that the feminist movement spent decades trying to undo those stereotypes. Only to be defeated by men in dresses starting around COVID times.
LOL A short history of “gender”: from grammar to child abuse.”
That is a catchy title, and I would read that.
If gender is social, then how is "gender dysphoria" eased with testicle or breast removal? Those aren't stereotypes. That's our physical biology.
Why did Dylan Mulvaney need a nose job and breast implants if gender is social?
I've asked a lot of "trans" trenders these questions. I've heard only drivel in response.
If you want to co-author this history with me let me know! I have some specific ideas on how to go about this.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you received threats of violence amongst the drivel. The whole trans enterprise is built on top of the pure nonsense of the word “gender”. We are not supposed to ask these questions or notice these obvious truths. It really makes one wonder who or what is behind this enterprise.
Yes, of course, these people are extremely violent. I haven't been attacked personally, but I've heard/seen threats. The screaming of activists can get very frenzied.
Everyone has their own theory of gender, but everyone in “gender studies” has to learn hers. Everything is put through the postmodern cuisinart. Can you imagine if political science students only studied Marx, or Adam Smith, or Bertrand Russell?
OMG. “Andrea” Long Chu. He sure said the quiet part out loud, didn’t he?
Right. It would have to be self-published, and then I would be canceled and someone else would write the authorized biography. Shannon was friends with Diane Middlebrook, who wrote the biographies of Anne Sexton and “Billy” Tipton, so I’m surprised someone hasn’t done it already. If anyone should have a publisher, it’s you. You are such a good writer; I admire you so much. Thanks for chatting with me!
YEEEESH Andrew "Andrea" is among the worst. He literally flat-out admitted that his pornography problem led him to claim to be "trans" and then won a Pulitzer Prize for it. Those used to be considered something prestigious.
If you self-publish, I would definitely read the story since it sounds interesting, but if you live or work in an area where you might be cancelled for writing about it, that would be an individual choice for you to make.
Thanks so much for the kind words, and I appreciate your comments!
The University of Wyoming of course frames it as “her journey to her true self.” This would be more objective.
I can get access. I was thinking of writing his/her story from a nonideological perspective, and was wondering if you had any ideas of where I could submit it. Besides Substack. I came up in old-school publishing. ☺️
Publishing right now is so pro the "trans" cult that it would be great if it would publish something by an author who would just admit that sex is binary and immutable.
Big sellers like "Mad Honey" is what they push, as well books by Torrey Peters, Andrew "Andrea" Long Chu, memoirs by Bruce Jenner, Ellen Page, etc.
Amazon has a self-publishing program, and there are programs to make your own books, so it would be a Kindle to purchase from Amazon, which is the largest online platform, if you would be interested in something like that.
If everyone has their own theory about something nobody can even define, what on earth is even being studied in "gender studies" is my question. It doesn't even mean anything.
This is what used to be called "women's studies," but to study women means you have to define women but there's only one definition which doesn't include men in dresses, so they changed it to this to make it even more confusing--and here we are.
One big word game and nobody knows what the hell is going on!
Political science studies in North Korea are like this--just one perspective.
Imagine if in a "gender studies" class at UC Berkeley, a TERF said she doesn't accept any of this. She would be thrown out.
💯 I got thrown out of a music class in Portland for not giving my pronouns. 😎
Are you kidding?
Was this in a university?
Portland is one of the worst places for this agenda, honestly worse even than San Francisco in many ways.
No, just a local folk music school. Everyone was asked to give their name and pronouns and their favorite singers. So I just left out the pronouns. She said, and your pronouns? I said, whatever. After the class she said to me that they were a safe space for all 2slbgtqia* people. I said, great! She refunded my fee and blocked me on social! 🤣 I see young women with binders and mastectomies and testosterone stubble and voices every day here. It’s sad. I want to adopt them.
That’s a crazy story.
If you wanted to pursue a legal case against it, you would probably win in court for discrimination based on your beliefs and freedom of speech. I mean if you found a lawyer willing to fight for the cause, which depending on your jurisdiction, might be difficult. Not to win tons of money, but to make a point. You should have had the right to participate.
The young women on testosterone are suffering, I see them around too. I have sympathy for them, unlike the obviously fetishistic cross-dressing males
It’s awful. What a decision to make at 19. BTW, I actually worked with a MtF person in Palo Alto for years in the early 90s. Very nice, interesting person. Obviously male, although no one else seemed to notice (and this was a pharma company. We worked with MD/PhDs). She was one of the original SRS patients at Stanford. Her name was Shannon Moffat and she left all her papers to the University of Wyoming. I was thinking about writing about her from the perspective of someone who was sympathetic but doesn’t think people can change sex. I wouldn’t seek permission to quote as they obviously wouldn’t approve of me, but most of the money quotes are in the university press release anyway. Do you have any advice on where I could submit this? I don’t want to bother unless I have somewhere to publish. I don’t have your energy! Thanks. Claire
what began as a theory and self reported psych issue ends in legal regimes that rob womens right to safe spaces and robs the right of kids and other vulnerable people to evidenced based heath care. what happened in between was the pharm industry teamed with wpath fetishists to manufacture a dsm which not based on any evidence to allow for billing and allowed rich fetishists to enact a well financed PR and lobby campaign. rich fetishists and mens rights activists took over all LGB groups.
yes, i view gender ideology as a religion because theres no evidence of any of their claims. for many, belief in the bogus claims of gender activism is simply a political stance. dont like trump? then you must agree that men should be allowed in womens spaces.
gender policies were enacted without scrutiny of any of their claims. but more and more people are revisiting these claims and seeing they dont check out. for example, gov systematic reviews determined "low quality evidence" of youth gender interventions. thats another way of saying gender ID and gender meds dont help.
regarding women's rights, i seldom see anyone challenging the claims made that allowed gender activists to rob womens rights.
- "trans" ID people are unsafe? nope. theyre one of the safest groups. claims to the contrary are based on self reports that dont match offical records.
- gender affirming policies help dysphoric people? nope. theres no evidence affirming anyones opposite sex ID has any benefit.
- gender ID is immutable or innate? no. gender ID is a choice. theres 1000 reasons why people chose to ID as opposite sex. many were scammed into it via false claims of benefit. most stop taking gender meds eventually. german insurance records found by year 4, half stop taking gender meds. US military says by year 4, 30% detrans. its likely by year 10 most ID again as their birth sex
I understand what you mean when you say it's like a religion bc there is no proof for it.
Here's how I see the problem--under the First Amendment in the US, people have the right to practice a religion.
Does a man have a religious right to plastic surgery or to use the women's restrooms? Bc if it's a religion then he would.
It can be cultish, but I view it more like lobotomies. Nobody has a right to a lobotomy, and only doctors do those. The medical industry doesn't run religions. It runs a business.
That's how I see it.
Bu your point about "gender ID" stands bc if it's immutable, why do so many stop claiming it? Nobody can stop being a sex, so what's the point?
I have been emailing my legislators because "gender identity" and "gender expression" are in my state's law, and the law also states that "Sex is gender" without ever defining "gender".
Here's what I've been sending in case it's helpful for anyone else who might want to write to their representatives (adjust per your own State's laws, of course). Note that I've yet to receive a response.
Dear Senator/Representative ________,
I am writing to ask you to clarify how ___STATE___ lawmakers believe the state's statutory definitions of sex, gender, gender identity, and gender expression can be logically and consistently applied in law.
I have become increasingly concerned that ___STATE___ law uses these terms in ways that are circular, undefined, or internally contradictory. These are not merely semantic concerns. These definitions form the foundation for laws and policies affecting women's and girls' rights, privacy, safety, sports, prisons, healthcare, and access to sex-segregated spaces.
For example, ___ LAW___ states that "'Sex' means gender," but the statute does not define "gender." The same section refers to "sex assigned to that person at birth," while ___STATE___ law elsewhere relies on gender identity and expression in determining how a person is legally treated. In addition, we all know that sex is not "assigned at birth" but rather observed either at birth or well before birth with ultrasound.
I would therefore appreciate substantive answers to the following questions:
What is the legal definition of "gender" in ___STATE___ State? If "sex means gender," as __LAW__ states, what precisely does "gender" mean in that context?
Is gender the same thing as sex, gender identity, or something else? If gender is different from sex, how can the law define sex as gender? If gender is the same as sex, how can a person have a gender identity that is "both, neither, or in-between"?
What does ___STATE___ law mean by "sex"? Human beings are sexually reproducing mammals, and biological sex has a clear reproductive function. If ___STATE___ law considers sex to be something other than a binary biological classification, what are the additional sexes recognized by law, what reproductive role do they play, and is ___STATE___ State making the remarkable claim that humans are not mammals, or are different from all other mammals on Earth?
What is meant by "internal sense" in the statutory definition of gender identity? ___STATE___ law defines gender identity as "a person's internal sense of being male, female, both, neither, or in-between." What exactly is this "internal sense"? Is it a scientifically measurable characteristic? Is there an objective means of determining it? If not, why is a person's self-report sufficient to establish it for purposes of law?
How can gender identity be both distinct from sex and effectively determine a person's legal sex classification? If gender identity is different from sex, why does a person's gender identity allow the person to change their legal sex marker? Conversely, if gender identity is equivalent to sex, how can someone be "both," "neither," or "in-between" sexes?
Why does ___STATE___ law define gender expression in terms of appearance, behavior, clothing, voice, and body characteristics? How is this distinction from "traditional" masculine and feminine characteristics not simply a repackaging of the very sex stereotypes that women have spent decades challenging? A woman should be able to have any appearance, clothing, voice, or behavior without that changing her sex or implying that she has a different gender identity or no gender identity at all.
My concern is that these definitions are not sufficiently precise to serve as the basis for legislation. If the terms are undefined, circular, or mutually contradictory, how can lawmakers, courts, agencies, schools, employers, and citizens consistently determine what the law actually requires?
I am asking you, as a legislator responsible for creating and amending ___STATE___ law, to provide a substantive response to these questions.
If you believe the definitions are logically coherent, please explain how you reconcile the following propositions:
"Sex" means "gender."
"Gender" is not defined.
Gender identity is an "internal sense" that may be male, female, both, neither, or in-between.
Gender identity is apparently distinct from biological sex.
Yet gender identity can determine a person's legal sex classification.
I would also like to know whether you believe ___STATE___'s current statutory definitions are adequate for the purpose of making sound public policy. If you do, please explain the reasoning behind that conclusion. If you do not, will you support legislation that provides clear, objective, and internally consistent definitions?
I am not asking for a statement of political values or a general statement about inclusion. I am asking a straightforward question about the definitions on which ___STATE___ law is built: What do these words actually mean, and how can the state make coherent laws if the underlying terms are undefined or contradictory?
I look forward to a substantive response.
Spoiler--you will never receive an answer because this whole thing is a load of bullsh*t
Yeah. I don't expect one :-)
It would still be interesting to ask and see what happens though
Just got back a reply, and I have further replied!
Their reply to me:
Thank you for reaching out again to share your concerns regarding legal definitions of sex and gender identity, as well as the privacy and safety of women and children in intimate spaces. We appreciate the seriousness with which you approach this issue and your desire for a substantive, honest dialogue rather than a generic statement.
The incident you referenced at the swim meet is has received a lot of attention on social media. Only people who were there know for sure what really happened and what was exaggerated to get attention and sow divisions. It is undeniably true that every individual deserves to feel safe, secure, and respected in public facilities.
In considering the questions you raised, the goal of lawmakers is to look at the full scope of public safety, data, and the competing needs of all community members.
First, it is important to emphasize that public safety is never considered compromised or secondary under __STATE__ law. Behavior such as voyeurism, exhibitionism, lewd conduct, or sexual misconduct remains strictly illegal and punishable under the state criminal code, regardless of a person’s stated gender identity or the space in which it occurs. Law enforcement and facility managers retain full authority to intervene, remove, and prosecute anyone engaging in predatory or inappropriate behavior.
Comprehensive data—including independent archival reviews of sexual assault complaints by organizations such as the National Policing Institute—demonstrates that systematic safety violations or predatory behavior by individuals utilizing facilities aligned with their gender identity are extraordinarily rare.
When evaluating policies governing sex-segregated spaces, lawmakers must balance the privacy and safety concerns of women with the very real safety risks faced by transgender individuals.
Data shows that transgender women face exceptionally high rates of verbal harassment, physical assault, and violence when forced to use male-designated facilities like showers and locker rooms. Forcing a transgender woman into a men’s intimate space does not eliminate the safety risk; rather, it shifts a severe safety vulnerability onto a deeply marginalized population. The challenge before us is to find a path forward that protects everyone, rather than trading the safety of one group for another.
Rather than barring transgender individuals from public life or removing hard-won protections, many facilities are successfully implementing structural solutions that increase privacy for everyone:
Enhanced Privacy Architecture: Facilities are increasingly moving toward single-occupancy changing stalls, floor-to-ceiling doors, and private shower curtains within communal spaces. This allows any individual who desires extra privacy to secure it without segregating or exposing others.
Universal Single-Use Facilities: Expanding the availability of gender-neutral, single-occupancy restrooms and changing spaces provides a safe, private alternative for families, individuals with caregivers, or anyone uncomfortable in a communal setting.
Clear Facility Conduct Codes: Ensuring that all facilities explicitly post and enforce codes of conduct regarding behavior—focusing on actions rather than identities—helps staff respond swiftly to any legitimate disruption.
Your point regarding the need for clarity, consistency, and a thorough consideration of foreseeable consequences in our legal definitions is well taken. Coherent policy requires rigorous examination, and your feedback is a vital part of that legislative process.
Please be assured that protecting the privacy, dignity, and safety of women and children remains a core priority.
Thank you again for your time, your perspective, and your commitment to thoughtful conversation.
My reply back to them:
Thank you for your response. I truly appreciate you taking the time to reply, but unfortunately it does not answer the questions I raised about either the law or the evidence underlying the policies you describe.
In fact, several of the assertions in your response raise additional questions.
1. Evidence concerning men who identify as women and sex-segregated facilities
You state that:
“Data shows that transgender women face exceptionally high rates of verbal harassment, physical assault, and violence when forced to use male-designated facilities like showers and locker rooms.”
Can you please provide the specific data and sources supporting this statement?
I have not seen evidence demonstrating that men who identify as women face exceptionally high rates of violence specifically as a result of being required to use facilities corresponding to their biological sex. I would genuinely like to see the evidence you are relying upon, particularly because this is being presented as a justification for public policy.
You also state that “comprehensive data” demonstrates that safety violations or predatory behavior by individuals using facilities aligned with their "gender identity" (which is??) are “extraordinarily rare,” citing the National Policing Institute.
Again, please provide the specific study or studies you are referring to. What population was studied? What facilities were examined? What period of time was covered? How was “predatory behavior” defined, and how was it identified or measured?
These are important empirical claims, and I don't think they should simply be asserted without providing the underlying evidence.
2. I am not proposing to “bar transgender individuals from public life.”
You characterize the alternative to your preferred policy as:
“barring transgender individuals from public life or removing hard-won protections”
I am not suggesting either of those things.
I am asking whether __STATE__ should continue to recognize the importance of single-sex spaces and define and enforce those spaces according to biological sex.
People who identify as transgender should not be discriminated against in employment, housing, or other areas where discrimination is prohibited. That is not the issue I am raising.
The issue is whether the hard-won protections women and girls have for privacy, dignity, bodily boundaries, and safety in intimate and vulnerable settings should remain meaningful.
A women's locker room is not a “public life” issue. Neither is a rape shelter, a prison cell, a changing room, or a communal shower. These are precisely the circumstances in which sex segregation has historically served an important safeguarding function.
3. The proposed structural solutions do not address the underlying problem.
You suggest:
floor-to-ceiling doors;
private shower curtains;
universal single-use facilities; and
conduct codes.
These may be useful accommodations in some circumstances, but they do not answer the fundamental question I raised.
For example, floor-to-ceiling doors can create safeguarding problems of their own. If someone collapses or is otherwise incapacitated inside a fully enclosed stall, staff may not be able to see that person or respond quickly.
Private shower curtains do not solve the problem of allowing males into spaces that were established specifically to provide women and girls with privacy from males. Nor do they address the fact that many women simply do not want to undress or shower in the presence of males, regardless of whether those males are behaving appropriately.
This is not merely a theoretical concern. Research commissioned by Sex Matters in the UK has found substantial public support for maintaining sex-separated facilities, and women have expressed strong preferences for single-sex changing and showering facilities rather than mixed-sex arrangements.
“Segregation” is not inherently a bad thing. Sex segregation in particular circumstances is an important safeguard that allows women and girls to have privacy from males. We should be careful about treating the word itself as though it describes something inherently unjust.
4. Conduct rules do not solve the problem of sex mixing.
You suggest that facilities should focus on behavior rather than identity and enforce codes of conduct.
Of course inappropriate behavior should be prohibited and punished. But that does not address the issue I am raising.
A man does not have to be a voyeur, exhibitionist, or sexual predator for a woman to reasonably object to his presence while she is undressed.
The question is not simply whether someone is behaving badly. The question is whether a space designated for women is actually a single-sex space if males are permitted to enter it based on self-identification.
We cannot know which individual men may be predators. That is precisely one reason sex-based safeguarding rules exist: they establish boundaries in advance rather than requiring women and staff to determine whether an individual male has sufficiently bad intentions to warrant exclusion.
A clear rule that women's intimate spaces are for females provides women with a predictable boundary and gives staff a straightforward rule to enforce. Replacing that with an assessment of an individual's identity or behavior places the burden on women to object and on staff to determine whether an individual male's presence is sufficiently concerning.
That is not equivalent protection.
5. What about women in particularly vulnerable circumstances?
Your proposed solutions also do not address settings such as rape crisis shelters, domestic violence shelters, prisons, and other environments in which women may be especially vulnerable to males.
For example, __STATE__ has policies under which male prisoners who identify as transgender may be housed in women's prisons. This is particularly troubling because incarcerated women cannot simply leave, choose another facility, or remove themselves from an uncomfortable situation.
I am aware of women incarcerated in __STATE__ who have expressed fear and distress about being housed with male prisoners. Their concerns should not be dismissed as prejudice or treated as though they are simply asking to exclude someone from “public life.”
These are precisely the circumstances in which sex-based safeguarding matters most.
Most importantly, I still have not received an answer to my original legal questions.
My initial letter asked about the definitions underlying these policies. In particular, I asked how __STATE__ can make coherent policy when:
RCW 49.60.040 says that “sex” means “gender,” without defining “gender”;
__STATE__ law also refers to “sex assigned at birth”;
“gender identity” is defined in terms of an individual's “internal sense” of being male, female, both, neither, or in-between; and
gender identity can nevertheless have legal consequences that effectively determine a person's treatment according to sex.
Your response says that “coherent policy requires rigorous examination,” which I appreciate. But I am asking you to engage in precisely that examination.
What does “gender” mean in __STATE__ law? What does “sex” mean? How are they related? What is the legal meaning of an “internal sense” of being male, female, both, neither, or in-between? And how can these concepts provide an objective and predictable basis for laws governing sex-segregated spaces?
I am not asking for a statement of values or a general assurance that everyone deserves to feel safe and respected. I agree with that principle.
I am asking for the evidence and the legal reasoning behind the policies you support.
If you can provide the specific sources for the claims about "transgender" safety that you cited, as well as a substantive response to the statutory-definition questions in my original letter, I would genuinely appreciate it.
Thank you again for responding, and I hope we can continue this conversation at the level of evidence and law rather than general statements about competing needs.
Sincerely,
This is what stands out to me:
"Data shows that transgender women face exceptionally high rates of verbal harassment, physical assault, and violence when forced to use male-designated facilities like showers and locker rooms. Forcing a transgender woman into a men’s intimate space does not eliminate the safety risk; rather, it shifts a severe safety vulnerability onto a deeply marginalized population."
They hit every ridiculous lie right here.
Men are violent so men in dresses have to be let into women's spaces.
You asked for the sources, so I wonder what they'll send. Some study funded by the Pritzkers or something about how cross-dressers are the biggest victims of all time.
Meanwhile in real life:
https://reduxx.info/lawsuit-challenges-washington-doc-gender-identity-policies-citing-trans-identified-male-assaults-on-female-inmates/
Thanks, Kat
Easier said than done to avoid using the word 'gender' but I fully take your point
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/gregorys-girl
Dusty
I know, the problem is it's everywhere!
That's my point. Gender medicine, gender doctor, gender clinic...
It's become a headache.
It certainly has
But I reserve the right to use "gender" as follows:
If your sex and gender don't match, cut off the gender. :-D
If gender is social, how they can have surgery for it lol