6:8:22
It occurred to me the other day that we (critics, theorists, feminists) were so busy worrying about phallocentric women we never bothered to address male gynophilia, the explosion and fetsishization of which we are living through now. Why do we like it so much when men mimic and caricaturize us? Why do men enjoy it so much? Why is it their job, their identity? Why do men think they make better (looking) women than women? Why do we celebrate it as a culture all the time? Why aren't women doing the same back to men--dressing up as them and spoofing masculinity nonstop? Why have men been dressing us, styling us, photographing us, filming us, inventing feminine ideals and marketing them to us?
Where does it end? Now we see it doesn't and it was never meant to. The abolition of Sex is predicated on the celebration and supremacy of gynophilia above all else. There is no sex apart from men's mockery and co-option of the female sex.
Kara Dansky on bodies as technocratic prosthetics (from The Abolition of Sex):
"The entire English language is being manipulated and twisted in order to obscure the reality of sex. In June 2021, the Biden administration replaced the word “mothers” with the words “birthing people” in a section of a budget proposal regarding infant mortality. In a guide on “Safer Sex for Trans Bodies,” the Human Rights Campaign urges readers to refer to a vagina as a “front hole” and to a penis as a “strapless…”
That our language has changed so dramatically as to make the natural, material reality of sex nearly invisible, with so little public debate, is astounding… If we cannot talk about sex, we cannot talk about sexism. If we cannot talk about sexism, we cannot fight back against it."
As Dansky notes in her interview with Matt Taaibi, men on the Left co-opt and impersonate our sex, our bodies, our sovereignty, undoing the laws that protect us—laws we fought to put into place to protect ourselves—by co-opting them to once again protect themselves. Men on the Right co-opt our fight, our retaliation against being co-opted and silenced. This is not the same thing as being allies to women and feminists. Any way you slice it, this is simply the reinstatement of old-fashioned misogyny over transhumanist misogyny. Neither the Left or the Right is interested in how actual women feel about anything, least of all our bodies and rights. If they did, they would let us speak for ourselves. Stick up for ourselves. Be ourselves. If men want us to believe they are women, maybe they should stop acting like men.
Matt Taibbi: Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire just came out with a movie called “What is a Woman?” I’ve talked to some critics on the left who liked the movie but were a little frustrated, essentially because they were there first but were ignored. Did you see it, and what’s your reaction?
Kara Dansky: Of course feminists are angry that Matt and others like him are being hailed as leaders in this fight. Feminists have been doing this work for decades and we hardly ever get a platform for sharing our leftist feminist critique of “gender identity.” But I have an even bigger problem with conservative men like them, which is that they are being politically naive. If our society is going to be able to shift this narrative, it cannot be a story about the big bad religious right against a poor marginalized community. The right is going to lose that particular battle. I appreciate a lot that’s in the film, but approximately zero Democrats are going to be persuaded by a Daily Wire production featuring a Christian conservative traditionalist. They need us. But they ignore us because they either don’t realize this (or they do and they just don’t care), and because it would not advance their traditionalist conservative agenda to credit feminists with having accomplished anything positive.
Freud got it wrong when he said women envy men, specifically their penises--it's always been the other way around. Afterall, women don't come from men, men come from women. Or out of women, I should say. The historical excuse for misogyny (the lesser sex) is predicated on a lie that was rooted in a transferred and falsified jealousy that concealed the true jealousy. We're the ones with the problem, not men. This is how the world has always worked: one lie as a cover for another.
***
When speaking of the cases Kane v. de Blasio, Keil v. NYC, and New Yorkers for Religious Liberty (NYFRL) v. NYC, Attorney Barry Black predicts victory for NYC workers in the cases! Attorney Sujata Gibson agrees with him. Here is the quote from Attorney Black:
“The government will lose, and that’s why New York City is going to lose here in the end. We feel very very strongly there’s no way around it unless we completely throw out a long line of Supreme Court cases that says otherwise. There’s no way the city has around it....We’ve been calling it the pink elephant. I don’t think I’ve ever used that phrase “pink elephant” in litigation before. It’s not a very legal term but I think Sujata (Gibson) and I both feel comfortable using that word…because 4 or 5 times we have already argued it and the city has never answered it…because there is no answer…We think we have that smoking gun as you said.”
— Attorney Barry Black interviewed by Michael Kane today on CHD.TV
Watch full interview HERE