The abolition of women, by Michael Davis.
First we were told that butch lesbians like Rachel Maddow are every bit as ‘womanly’ as Marilyn Monroe because femininity is a ‘performance’ or a patriarchal ‘construct’. Sure, fine. I don’t agree, but I follow the logic.
Yet drag quee— um, trans people were always accepted as being basically women because they dressed like women… even though we’d just established that woman-ness has nothing to do with outward appearances. Now trans feminists are up in arms about ‘genital-based feminism’, rejecting any link between having a vagina and being a woman whatsoever. …
But could any of you femsplain to me just what the hell ‘womanhood’ actually means? …
I can’t help but recall last year’s hubbub when Alex Fitton declared himself transgender in order to be eligible for an executive position on [the University of Sydey’s Student Representative Council] that’s reserved for women. Why not? The fact that he plays AFL, wears RM Williams, produces testosterone, has a penis …, has sex with women …, and has no intention to modify his lifestyle shouldn’t have mattered. None of those things would, by the standards of modern feminism, disqualify one from attaining the ranks of the Sisterhood.
Which, when you think about it, is pretty messed up. Feminists have so degraded womanhood that even a blokey bloke like Alex qualifies – simply because he ‘identifies’ as a female. That is the sole, single criterion.
Politically correct, but clearly not correct.