I've told you before and I'll tell you again: Racism doesn't mean racism anymore; it means anything that holds up Western norms such as biological sex, the nuclear family, or even math. They didn't water down the word racism, they just see it as anything that promotes "whiteness."

Anyhow, I've been reading this lady's paper for waaaay too long and I better just share it with you and inform you as to how being anti-males-in-female-spaces is actually, somehow, racist.

Yes, racist.

Just a little intro here: Helen Clarke is a gender studies scholar (real thing); she's also a lesbian and she hates the LGB Alliance, a gay group that claims the trans movement is interfering with their lifestyle by way of allowing trans-identifying males to become lesbians and trans-identifying females to become gay men (yes, this is also a thing).

Here we are witnessing a civil war of sorts within the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. It has been a long time coming.

Let's get to the "scholarly" paper, shall we?

Self-described ‘gender-critical' feminism, a movement that campaigns to exclude trans women from cis women's spaces, is now hugely influential in British politics and culture (Thurlow, 2022; Zanghellini, 2020). Public toilets, changing rooms, refuges and other spaces deemed ‘female-only' have become contested grounds: gender-critical feminists argue that some predatory men masquerade as women merely to access these spaces, requiring the exclusion of trans women to protect (cis)1 women's safety …

Phipps (2020) further argues that the gender-critical feminist demand that trans women should be excluded from (cis) women's spaces is situated within these strategies of political whiteness and claims of victimhood based on the experiences of white bourgeois women. Primarily, the possibility of having a sex/gender normative body, which is anatomically correct and which is sexually attracted to other appropriately marked sex/gender normative bodies, draws upon biological models developed by colonial/racial scientists (Phipps, 2022). The background to these particular ‘scientific' models can be traced, in part, to particular Western/imperialist models of human evolution, in which Europeans were positioned as the culmination of progress, and only white bourgeois women could properly claim the category of ‘womanhood' (McClinton, 1995). To justify slavery, black women's bodies were reduced to being a ‘thing' without social or cultural worth, their minds violently inferiorised.

See how we're moving toward racism? Because everything is racist if "whiteness" (or Western values) is considered racist.

Oh, and don't forget colonialism. Here Clarke notes one of the worst atrocities we committed on the natives when we crossed the Atlantic.

Colonial relations of power established gender differentials in societies that had not conceived of sex/gender through biological and anatomical models of the male/female binary. Many previously understood local variances were violently erased, destroying Indigenous practices and subjectivities (Lugones, 2007). Consequently, the ideology behind sex/gender normativity and the male/female binary (that men and women are distinctly anatomically marked) echoes so-called ‘scientific' models saturated with racialized meaning (Markowitz, 2001). Even the very concept of sexual orientation (that individuals can be divided into discreet sexual categories) reflects underlying theories of the sexual races: that humans can be divided into distinct groupings, their bodies operating as legible texts revealing the truth about their nature (Halperin, 1990).3 This concept of political whiteness is particularly useful when employed alongside the theory of heteroactivism.

That's some of the dumbest stuff I've ever heard.

We brought science to the undeveloped world - thousands of years of progress in less than a century - and it's bad because the natives learned about biological sex.

And this gem I just have to show you, because it shows just how disconnected these gender studies people are.

Across Europe, anti-gender and anti-EU actors warn that the political ideologisation of gender, enforced by global institutions, will result in the denaturalization of the sexual order, societal instability and a decrease in long-established beliefs.

Bro, we're chemically castrating children right now in the name of progress. Like, of course that's going to denaturalize the sexual order; of course it will create societal instability; of course it's going to result in a decrease in long-established beliefs.

That's what you guys want, isn't it?

Be real.

Here's the author's response to the LGB Alliance's claim that the definition of trans has been so watered down that now regular men are insisting that they're trans and then moving into lesbian spaces as if it's no big deal and not predatory or anything.

Okay, more word salad coming at ya:

The argument, then, is that ‘real' women, and ‘real' lesbians, are those who are biologically and anatomically marked as ‘female', possessing, for example, breasts, a vagina, and clitoris. Trans women, conversely, whose bodies are not considered to be sex/gender normative, are denied their womanhood, their bodies violently inferiorised. As Phipps (2020) highlights, this model of ‘femaleness' is ultimately a product of colonial/racial science, through which only white bourgeois women could properly claim the category of womanhood, and black women's bodies were denied socio-cultural worth.

Racism and colonialism are responsible for the basic biological distinctions between men and women. This is a real research paper!

Consequently, LGB Alliance can be understood as reflecting how sex/gender normative models of femaleness, based on the possession of specific biological components, are determined, in part, through specific configurations of gender, race and class. Following this, and by stating that without making physical alterations to their bodies, ‘almost any man can declare he is a woman', LGB Alliance recentres the importance of biology, and, crucially, the threat of ‘male' physicality. The emphasis here is on the penis, and the anxiety that trans women may enter (cis) women's spaces, or seek to engage in (cis) lesbian relationships, with their penises intact …

This preoccupation with the penis, and its portrayal as causing particular distress among (cis) women, fails to consider the complex intersections of gender, race and class, and the unique experiences of women of colour.

"It doesn't matter that he's got male body parts: He's oppressed, so he's a woman, darn it!"

The supposed privilege held by trans women (i.e. maleness) is discursively framed as more threatening than any other form of privilege (e.g. whiteness and middle- classness). The argument that penises represent the ultimate anxiety for (cis) women fails to acknowledge that, for women of colour, white skin is an equal reminder of violence and oppression (Koyama, 2020). By constructing ‘womanhood' through visual codes influenced by white cultural norms and standards, and positioning ‘sex' as the root cause of (cis) women's oppression, LGB Alliance can be understood as recentring white women's experiences, and marginalizing the lived realities of women of colour.

Clarke claims she isn't necessarily calling the LGB Alliance racist, yet her paper uses the words racist and racism a total of 12 times, including,

Although LGB Alliance claims its advocacy is intended to support and advance the interests of the (cis) lesbian, gay and bisexual community, the article argues that the organization can be read as (re)producing and engaging in harmful discourses related to heteronormativity, racism and classism, and which, overall, seek the restriction and limitation of broader LGBTQ+ equalities.

Yup, so there you have it, folks. If you're one of those anti-trans bigots, you are also a racist.

A RACIST!

(The woke mind virus is deadly, y'all.)

P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇