#notice how the debate is always 'transgender males in the female category' and never 'transgender females in the male category'

[maslows-pyramid-scheme]

It’s a bit dishonest to claim the ‘ban’ is discriminatory; the guidelines do not ban transgender women from all sporting events, as it’s been reported on in some countries, but only from sporting events in the female category. Transgender women are not female, so why should they be permitted to compete in the female category?

I think one of the major problems around the ‘debate’ is the infantilisation of female athletes. We’re not seen as talented or capable as our male athletic counterparts, so our athletes and achieved can be framed as being about ‘inclusion’ and ‘fun’ and ‘artistic’ (rather than ‘competitive’ or ‘serious’ or ‘thrilling’).

I think one of the other major problems around the ‘debate’ is the willingness of well-minded people to ignore how sex differences practically play out in patriarchy (or, in other words, people are just too ‘sex-blind’). Of course female and male athletes have different sporting capacities - our sports aren’t ‘gender-neutral’/’body-neutral’ - they’re designed to show-case male bodies!

[woman-loving]

I’ve been reading some articles about lesbian identities in Indonesia, from the late 80s to the 00s, and wanted to share some quotes that highlighted a couple trends that I’ve also noticed in reading about butch/femme communities in other countries.

1) There are different expectations about sexual distinctiveness and marriage to men are attached to butch and femme identities. There is a greater expectation that femmes will marry men, and femmes more often do marry men, though some butches do as well. Marriages to men seem to be for convenience or in name only, and women may continue to have female lovers.

2) Distinctions are made between real/pure/positive lesbians (butches) and other lesbians (femmes) who are “potentially normal.” This shows the flexibility of lesbian identity, where they can be gradations and contradictions in what it means to be a lesbian (e.g. a woman being a lesbian but not a “real lesbian"). The category has cores and peripheries, rather than everyone being equally lesbian or else completely outside of it.

3) There are disagreements between members, which cross butch/femme lines, about the meanings of these identities and whose lesbianism or community involvement should be taken seriously. The first passage describes femmes as engaging in a “more active appropriation of lesbianism as a core element of their subjectivity.” The boundaries of lesbianism can potentially expand or contract as people struggle to define it.

4) People don’t always meet the community expectations attached to their identity.

I think these passages help complicate the picture of what lesbian identities can look like, and some of these same tensions and debates are common features of lesbian identity in many different cultures. I also think these issues--the (differential) weight given to relationships with men, the notion of positive versus negative lesbians, and the active appropriation of lesbianism by peripheral members--are relevant to bisexual interest, since these questions also shape bi women’s engagement in lesbianism/lesbian communities. (And we can say that without claiming that any particular women in these narratives are “really bisexual.”)

Anyway, without further ado... (this first one picks up right in the middle of a passage because I couldn’t get the previous page on the google preview :T)

From “Desiring Bodies or Defiant Cultures: Butch-Femme Lesbians in Jakarta and Lima,” by Saskia E. Wieringa, in Female Desires: Same-Sex Relations and Transgender Practices Across Cultures, eds. Evelyn Blackwood and Saskia E. Wieringa, 1999:

“[...]negative lesbians. We are positive lesbians. We are pure, 100% lesbian. With them you can never know. Before you know it, they are seeing a man again, and we are given the good-bye.”

Father Abraham, who had entered during her last words, took over. “Let me explain. … Take Koes. Again and again her girlfriends leave her. Soon she’ll be old and lonely. Who will help her then? For these girls it is just an adventure, while for butches like Koes it is their whole life.”“Yes, well, Abraham, … my experience is limited, of course, but it seems to me that the femmes flee the same problems that make life so hard for the butches. So they’d rather support each other.”

“In any case,” Sigit added, ‘they have become active now, that’s why they’re here, isn’t that so?” And she looked questioningly at the three dolls behind the typing machine, Roekmi and my neighbour. The most brazen femme had been nodding in a mocking manner while Sigit and I were talking.

“So we’re only supposed to be wives? We’re not suited for something serious, are we? Maybe we should set up a wives’ organization, Dharma Wanita,[23] the Dharma Wanita PERLESIN? Just like all those other organizations of the wives of civil servants and lawyers?” …

“Come on, Ari,” Sigit insisted, “why don’t you just ask them? You could at least ask them whether they want to join?” Ari found it extremely hard. Helplessly she looked at the other butches.

“Do you really mean that i should ask whether our wives would like to join / our / organization?” One of the butches nodded.

“Ok, fine.” She directed herself to the dolls.

“Well, what do you want? Do you want to join us? But in that case you shouldn’t just say yes, then you should also be involved with your whole heart.”

“You never asked that of the others,” the brazen femme pointed out, “but yes, I will definitely dedicate myself to the organization.” Roekmi and the two femmes at her side also nodded. (Wieringa 1987:89-91)

The above example is indicative of the social marginalization of the b/f community. it also captures in it one of its moments of transformation. The defiance of the femmes of the code that prescribes the division of butches and femmes into “positive” and “negative” lesbians respectively indicates a more active appropriation of lesbianism as a core element of their subjectivity. At the same time it illustrates the hegemony of the dominant heterosexual culture with its gendered principles of organization.

Yet, however much the butches conformed to male gender behavior they didn’t define themselves as male; their relation to their bodies was rather ambiguous. at times they defined themselves as a third sex, which is nonfemale[…]. [...] [Butches’] call for organization was not linked to a feminist protest against rigid gender norms. Rather they felt that nature had played a trick on them and they they had to devise ways to confront the dangers to which this situation gave rise. Jakarta’s b/f lesbians when I met them in the early eighties were not in the least interested in feminism. In fact, the butches among them were more concerned with the case of a friend of them who was undergoing a sex change operation. They clearly considered it an option, but none of them decided to follow this example. When I asked them why, all of them mentioned the health risks involved and the costs. None of them stated that they rather preferred their own bodies. Their bodies, although the source of sexual pleasure and as such the object of constant attention, didn’t make it any too easy for them to get the satisfaction they sought or, at least, to attract the partners they desired.

From "Let Them Take Ecstasy: Class and Jakarta Lesbians," by Alison J. Murray, in Female Desires: Same-Sex Relations and Transgender Practices Across Cultures, eds. Evelyn Blackwood and Saskia E. Wieringa, 1999:

Covert lesbian activities are thus an adaptation to the ideological context, where the distinction between hidden and exposed sexual behavior allows for fluidity in sexual relations (“everyone could be said to be bisexual” according to Oetomo 1995) as long as the primary presentation is heterosexual/monogamous. It is not lesbian activity that has been imported from the West, but the word lesbi used to label the Western concept of individual identity based on a fixed sexuality. I have not found that Indonesian women like to use the label to describe themselves, since it is connected to unpleasant stereotypes and the pathological view of deviance derived from Freudian psychology (cf Foucault 1978).

The concept of butch-femme also has a different meaning in Indonesia from the current Western use which implies a subversion of norms and playful use of roles and styles (cf Nestle 1992). In Indonesia (and other parts of Southeast Asia, such as the Philippines, Thailand’s tom-and-dee: Chetame 1995) the roles are quite strictly, or restrictively, defined and are related to popular, pseudo-psychological explanations of the “real” lesbian. In the simple terms of popular magazines, the butch (sentul) is more than 50% lesbian, or incurably lesbi, while the femme (kantil) is less than 50% lesbian, or potentially normal. Blackwood’s (1994) description of her secretive relationship with a butch-identified woman in Sumatra brings up some cross-cultural differences and difficulties that they experienced and could not speak about publicly. The Sumatran woman adopted masculine signifies and would not be touched sexually herself; she wanted to be called “pa” by Blackwood, who she expected to behave as a “good wife.” Meanwhile, Blackwood’s own beliefs, as well as her higher status due to class and ethnicity, made it hard to take on the passive female role.

I want to emphasize here that behavior needs to be conceptually separated from identity, as both are contextually specific and constrained by opportunity. It is common for young women socialized into a rigid heterosexual regime, in Asia or the West, to experience their sexual feelings in terms of gender confusion: “If I am attracted to women, then I must be a man trapped in a woman’s body.” Women are not socialized to seek out a sexual partner (of any kind), or to be sexual at all, so an internal “feeling” may never be expressed unless there are role models or opportunities available. If the butch-femme stereotype, as presented in the Indonesian popular media, is the only image of lesbians available outside the metropolis (e.g., in Sumatra), then this may affect how women express their feelings. However, urban lower-class lesbians engage in a range of styles and practices: some use butch style consciously to earn peer respect, while others reject the butch as out-dated. The stereotype of all lower-class lesbians whether following butch-femme roles or conforming to one subcultural pattern is far from the case and reflects the media and elite’s lack of real knowledge about street life. […]

The imagery of sickness creates powerful stigmatization and internalized homophobia: women may refer to themselves as sakit (sick). An ex-lover of mine in Jakarta is quite happy to state a preference for women while at the same time expressing disgust at the word lesbi and at the sight of a butch dyke; however, I have generally found that the stigma around lesbian labels and symbols is not translated into discrimination against individuals based on their sexual activities. I have been surprised to discover how many women in Jakarta will either admit to having sex with women or to being interested in it, but again, this is only rarely accompanied by an open lesbian (or bisexual) identity. I have found it hard to avoid the word “lesbian” to refer to female-to-female sexual relations, but it should not be taken to imply a permanent self-identity. It is very important to try and understand the social contexts of behavior, in order to avoid drawing conclusions based on inappropriate Western notions of lesbian identity, community, or “queer” culture.

From “Beyond the ‘Closet’: The Voices of Lesbian Women in Yogyakarta,” by Tracy L Wright Webster, 2004:

Most importantly a supportive community group of lesbian, bisexual and transgender women is essential, given that these sexualities are thrust together in Sektor 15. Potentially, a group comprised of women from each of these categories, that is lesbian, bisexual or transgender, may prove problematic to say the least, given that the needs and issues of each group are different. Clearly the informal communities already in existence in Yogya are indicators of this. Any formal or organized groupings would certainly benefit by modeling on current, though informal organisations. In the lesbian network, transgendered women (those who wish to become men or who consider themselves male) are not affiliated, however many ‘femme’ identified women who have been and intend to be involved in heterosexual relationships in the future, are among the group in partnership with their ‘butch’ pacar (Indo: girlfriend/boyfiend/lover).

Organisations of women questioning sexuality have existed in Yogya in the past. A butch identified respondent said she was involved in the formation of a lesbian, bisexual and transgender network in collaboration with another Indonesian woman, who also identified as butch, 20 years her senior. The group was called Opo (Javanese:what) or Opo We (Jav:whatever), the name highlighting that any issue could be discussed or entered into within the group. Members were an amalgam of both of the women’s friends and acquaintances. The underlying philosophy of the group was that “regardless of a woman’s life experience, marriage, children…it is her basic human right to live as a lesbian if she has the sexual inclination”. The elder founding member of this group, now 46, married a man and had a child. She now lives with her husband (in name only), child and female partner in the same home. Although this arrangement according to the interviewee “is rare… because the husband is there, she is spared the questions from the neighbours”. Here I must add that it is common in Java for lesbians to marry to fulfill their social role as mothers, and then to separate from their husbands to live their lives in partnership with a woman. This trend however is more common among the ‘femme’ group.

From "(Re)articulations: gender and same-sex subjectivities in Yogyakarta, Indonesia," by Tracy Wright Webster, in Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific, Issue 18, Oct 2008:

Lesbi subjectivities Since gender, for the most part, determines sexuality in Java, sexuality and gender cannot be analysed as discrete categories.[64] For all of the self-identified butchi participants, lesbi was the term used to describe their sexuality. This is contrary to the findings of two key researchers of female same-sex sexuality in Indonesia. Alison Murray's research in Jakarta in the 1980s suggests that females of same-sex attraction did not like the term 'lesbian'[65] due to its connection with 'unpleasant stereotypes' and deviant pathologies.[66] In 1995, Gayatri found that media representations depicting lesbi as males trapped in female bodies encouraged same-sex attracted women to seek new, contemporary descriptors.[67] The participants in this research, however, embraced the term lesbi as an all-encompassing descriptor of female same-sex attraction and as Boellstorff has noted in 2000, Indonesian lesbi tend to see themselves as part of a wider international lesbian network.[68]

The term lesbi has been used in Indonesia since the 1980s, although not commonly or consistently. Lines, les, lesbian, lesbo, lesbong and L, among others, are also used. Female same-sex/lesbi subjectivities in Yogya are not strongly associated with political motivations and the subversion of heteropatriarchy as they were among the Western lesbian feminists of the 1960s. By the time most of the participants in this research were born, the term lesbi had already become infused in Indonesian discourses of sexuality among the urban elite (though with negative connotations in most cases), and has since become commonly used both by females of same-sex attraction to describe themselves, and by others. Most learnt from peers at school and through reading Indonesian magazines.

However, public use of the term lesbi and expression of lesbi subjectivity has its risks. Murray's research on middle to upper class lesbians suggests that females identifying as lesbi have more to lose than lower class lesbi in terms of social position and the power invested in that class positioning. This is particularly in relation to their position in the family.[69] Conversely, her work also shows that lower class lesbi 'have the freedom to play without closing off their options.'[70] As Aji suggests, young females, particularly of the priyayi class may not be in a position to resist the social stigma attached to lesbianism and the possible consequences of rejection or abuse. Yusi faced this reality despite the fact that s/he had not declared herself lesbi. Hir gendered subjectivity meant that s/he did not conform to stereotypical feminine ideals and desires.

With so much at stake, many lesbi remain invisible. Heteronormative and feminine gendered expectations for females in part explain why lesbians may indeed be the 'least known population group in Indonesia.'[71] Collusion in invisibility can be seen here as a protective strategy. The lesbi community or keluarga (family) is what Murray refers to as a 'strategic community' of the lesbian subculture.[72] The strategic nature of the community lies in its sense of protection: the community provides a safe haven for disclosure. Invisibility, however, also arises through the factors I mentioned earlier: the normative feminine representations of femme, their tendency to express lesbi subjectivity only while in partnership with a butchi, and their tendency to marry. Invisibility, as a form of discretion, however, may also be chosen.

Gender complementary butchi/femme subjectivities [...] Due to the apparently fixed nature of butchi identities and subjectivities and their reluctance to sleep with males, they are seen as 'true lesbians,'[79] lesbian sejati, an image perpetuated through the media.[80] Similar to the butchi/femme communities in Jakarta, in Yogya, butchi are identified by their strict codes of dress and behaviour which include short hair, sometimes slicked back with gel, collared button up shirts and trousers bought in menswear stores, large-faced watches and bold rings. Butchi characteristically walk with a swagger and smoke in public places. In her research in the 1980s, Wieringa noticed that within lesbi communities in Jakarta the strict 'surveillance and socialisation 'may have contributed to the fixed nature of butchi identities.[81] In Yogya, this is particularly evident in the socialisation of younger lesbi by senior lesbi (a theme I explore elsewhere in my current research).

The participants held individual perspectives on butchness. Aji's butchness is premised on hir masculine gender subjectivity and desire for a partner of complementary gender. Yusi expresses hir butchness differently and relates it to dominance in the relationship and in sex play. The participants who told of the sexual roles within the relationship emphasised their active butchi roles during sex. As Wieringa suggests, this does not necessarily imply femme passivity as femme 'stress their erotic power over their butches.'[82] It does, however, indicate one way in which the butchi I interviewed articulate their sexual agency.

Femme subjectivities, on the other hand, are generally conceived of as transient. As many of the interviews illustrate, femme are expected by their butchi partners to marry and have children: butchi see them as bisexual. In public, and indeed if they marry, they are seen as heterosexual, though their heterosexual practice may not be exclusive. In the 1980s, Wieringa observed that femme 'dressed in an exaggerated fashion, in dresses with ribbons and frills...always wore make up and high heels.'[83] In the new millennium, the femme I met were also fashion savvy though not in an exaggerated sense. Generally they wore hip-hugging, breast-accentuating tight gear, had long hair and wore lipstick and low-heeled pumps. Their feminine representations were stereotypical: it was through association with butchi with in the lesbi community that femme subjectivities become visible.

[sagvibery]

The trans lobby peddles a pink and blue world

Being a girl who likes trucks or a boy who wears nail polish doesn’t make you gender fluid, it just makes you human

Over dinner a younger friend said he thought I was “gender fluid”. I was taken aback. He was, I suspect, half-joking. But his inference was clear. I’m quite a “strapping” build, I rarely wear heels, I’m stroppy, opinionated, I hate shopping and like muddy boot camps. So, by modern definitions, I can’t be wholly female, rather somewhere along a spectrum between male and female.

I’d never thought about my gender identity before. It hadn’t occurred to me that not being a “girly” girl meant I wasn’t 100 per cent woman. The point, I’ve always believed, is to expand the categories “man” and “woman”, to tear down pink and blue prisons. So a little girl can like trucks, spacemen, getting dirty and still be a girl; a boy can put on nail polish, play with dolls and be no less a boy.

But it is not so simple now. I was speaking to a student I’ve known since she was 11: quirky, funny, inventive, always making mayhem with my son. Later she found the flicky-haired, make-up mad teen-girl scene cloying and repressive. She read Caitlin Moran’s book, found feminism and herself. “But if I was 13 now,” she says, “I’d be reading online trans forums and thinking that maybe I wasn’t really a girl.”

This is where we are now. On Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday we heard from 16-year-old Colin, who transitioned into a male two years ago. A tomboy who wore boys’ clothes when a little girl, at 14 he “identified with people I saw on the internet” and now straps down his breasts with painful binders. We heard a nine-year-old trans girl called Poppy who as an “effeminate” boy was bullied “so I changed to a girl and they liked me more”.

As the head of the Tavistock clinic reported, her patients were once a very few, distressed young people, suffering from gender dysphoria, a psychological condition in which they had an overwhelming belief that they were born in the wrong body. Now a new, larger wave of patients, like Colin and Poppy, were emerging whose desire to transition may be stimulated by external ideas. Some are heading towards surgery and/or heavy, lifelong hormones that render them infertile.

A letter from Brighton and Hove city council recently asked parents to help their reception class four-year-olds choose the gender “they most identify with”. How stressful for parents. What if my son is too keen on the dressing-up box? If my little girl says “I hate pink, I must be a boy”, do you reply “pink sucks, wear what you like” or, as trans campaigners advise, honour your child’s “true” gender?

I knew a four-year-old who swore he was a dog, yet children that age are now encouraged to change their names and gender pronouns. The plasticity of infant identity, the ever-evolving personalities of the very young, are seen as set; even though 80 per cent of children who identify as opposite gender grow out of it, the majority turning out to be lesbian or gay.

The trans cause is hailed as the latest liberation struggle. And we should defend trans men and women from discrimination and the hideous violence many have endured. But this should not stop us opposing a view of gender, spun off from the trans movement, that is as conservative as the Mad Men 1950s. Until recently Eddie Izzard was a transvestite, wearing skirts and make-up: “These aren’t women’s clothes,” he’d say, “they’re my clothes”. Like Bowie, Prince and Grayson Perry, he made the category of man bigger, brighter, less confined. Now Izzard says he has “boy genetics and girl genetics”. Filmed rushing into a manicurist, he gushed: “Being a transgender guy, I do like my nails.”

Men, I’ve found, can’t understand why this enrages women. Why are feminist ladies so mean to Eddie? Well, because he’s no longer saying “I’m a bloke who likes pretty nails”. He has declared: “Because I like pretty nails I am female.” He is reducing being a woman down to make-up and sparkly shoes. By which definition, he’s more woman than “gender fluid” ol’ me.

In America a debate is raging about access to bathrooms by transgender students. In North Carolina and Mississippi, state legislatures have passed laws saying that students must only use toilets of their born gender, causing fears that trans girls in particular will be humiliated and attacked in boys’ lavatories. Barack Obama this week threatened to withdraw federal funding from these states unless they desist.

Such ugly, hateful laws have grown from bigotry and disgust. But also from the ever-expanding mission of the trans movement itself, which demands that anyone who identifies as female - even born men who’ve never had surgery or hormones and who still have beards - be allowed into women’s changing rooms. I don’t care if a transitioned woman changes beside me. No doubt plenty have and I never noticed. But the idea that any man who just “feels” female can barge in unchallenged has caused understandable unease. Instead of addressing fears, activists scream transphobia, and from the ensuing polarised debate come bathroom laws.

The challenge now is how to support genuine, heartfelt young trans people, while addressing an internet culture that lures teenagers, amid the maelstrom of adolescence, towards ever greater confusion. At heart the trans lobby upholds the same nonsense that underpins porn and men’s mags and the Tea Party right: that men are muscly hunks and women are passive pink fem-bots. To feel you are neither doesn’t make you gender fluid - or any of the other 72 crazy gender categories on Facebook - it just makes you human.

By Janice Turner

[conscientiously]

A LINE BY LINE RESPONSE TO:

Original post here, if you’re so inclined to read without my annotations. 

Let’s jump right in, shall we?

A Line by Line Analysis of “I Am A Female And I Am So Over Feminists” by Gina Davis

“I believe that I am a strong woman, but I also believe in a strong man.”

A strong man? Just one? Also, what does believing that strong men (excuse me, a strong man) exist have to do with anything?  Are you arguing that feminists don’t believe in strong men?  I don’t feel that the existence of men who are “strong” by whatever convoluted definition of that word you’re implying is a particularly debatable point, not to mention its irrelevancy.

“Beliefs are beliefs, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.”  

This is true enough in context, but you’ve already demonstrated that you confuse belief with irrefutably true fact.  Being “entitled” to hold an opinion that defies or ignores a proven statement is called ignorance, and it’s one of the biggest problems in the world today.

“I’m all about girl power, but…” 

Are you aware of the definition of feminism?

“… in today’s world, it’s getting shoved down our throats.” 

As we all know, the most unpalatable, troublesome public figures we hear about day after day after day in media coverage are all feminists working to further the cause of gender equality (looking at you, Donald Trump).  

“Relax feminists, we’re OK.”

Who exactly is the we you’re referring to here? Does it include women who are being brutally tortured, publicly shamed and killed around the globe because of their gender?  Does it include girls who are denied education because of their gender?  Does it include transgender women?  I could go on and on.  You are grossly generalizing.  Congratulations on being happy with your life—just don’t assume all women have your privilege.

“My inspiration actually came from a man (God forbid, a man has ideas these days).”  

God forbid, a woman writes an article bashing feminism without confusing women’s rights and male oppression these days.

“One afternoon my boyfriend was telling me about a discussion his class had regarding female sports and how TV stations air less female competitions than that of males.” 

At this point, you may notice my respect of your writing skills falling equal to my respect of your opinion on feminism.

“In a room where he and his other male classmate were completely outnumbered, he didn’t have much say in the discussion.” 

As an obvious expert on gender studies and sports media, I’m sure his insights on that topic would have been absolutely invaluable.

“Apparently, it was getting pretty heated in the room, and the women in the class were going on and on about how society is unfair to women in this aspect and that respect for the female population is diminishing quickly.” 

I’m not sure what your point is with this story.  The coverage of women’s sports on television is far from a top priority of any feminists I know.  It’s also not representative of the issue of global women’s rights.  It’s an irrelevant personal connection to a problem much larger than you, your boyfriend’s class, or even (God forbid) the WNBA.

“If we’re being frank here, it’s a load of bull. First of all, this is the 21st century.” 

Here, in fact, we are agreed.  It is the 21st century.  And focusing on this sub-sect of inequality that is undeniably superficial compared to the real problems real women face worldwide is a load of bull.

“Women have never been more respected. Women have more rights in the United States than anywhere else in the world.”  

Yes. This is exactly the problem that many, if not most, self-proclaimed feminists work to solve.  How much more chauvinistic can you get than to claim that since women in America have “rights,” feminism doesn’t matter anywhere?  I am not just an American woman, I am a woman of the world.  I want to show solidarity with Malala Yousafzai, a Pakistani who was shot in the head on her way to school because of her gender.  I want women who have fewer opportunities than I do to know I care about them and am working to make their lives better.  Please, lift your nose out of your privilege and see the serious problems women face in our global community.

“As far as sports go, TV stations are going to air the sports that get the most ratings. On a realistic level, how many women are turning on Sports Center in the middle of the day? Not enough for TV stations to make money. It’s a business, not a boycott against female athletics.”  

I can’t believe we’re still talking about equal ESPN coverage.  And I can’t believe how sweeping your gender-based generalizations have become.  Oh wait, they’ve been this bad all along.

“Whatever happened to chivalry? Why is it so “old fashioned” to allow a man to do the dirty work or pay for meals?”  

Number of times I’ve asked myself if the author of this article knows the definition of feminism: approaching double digits.  Feminism is not about refusing to let men play historically male roles. Feminism is not about policing your personal relationship choices. In fact, it’s the opposite.  It’s letting you, as a woman and ultimately as a human being, take the role you want in your relationships and your community and your world.  And letting all other women do the same.

“Feminists claim that this is a sign of disrespect, yet when a man offers to pick up the check or help fix a flat tire (aka being a gentleman), they become offended. It seems like a bit of a double standard to me.”  

First of all, logical fallacy: almost everyone becomes offended when they are shown a sign of disrespect.  That’s not unique to feminists, and it’s not a double standard.  Also, the part that is disrespectful is when people (not always men) offer something without first asking whether another person wants it.  A culture where we don’t pay attention to what others want is a culture of normalizing and excusing rape, abuse, theft, dishonesty, and ultimately, collective egocentrism.  

“There is a distinct divide between both the mental and physical makeup of a male and female body. There is a reason for this. We are not equals.” 

There is a very simple explanation for this physical phenomena: reproduction.  You are substituting anatomical truths for sociological ones.  No feminist I’ve ever heard of is out to create a uni-gender human race. But every feminist I’ve ever heard of is out to change the ignorant beliefs that because men and women are different, we’re not equal.  

“The male is made of more muscle mass, and the woman has a more efficient brain (I mean, I think that’s pretty freaking awesome).” 

Now I see what you were saying about believing in a strong man.  You refuse to acknowledge the manhood of any men who have less muscle mass than you.  You are doing such a great job generalizing the sexes and blatantly ignoring anyone who doesn’t conform to to the two dominant categories!  I mean, I think that’s pretty freaking awesome.

“The male body is meant to endure more physically while the female is more delicate. So, quite frankly, at a certain point in life, there needs to be restrictions on integrating the two.” 

I'm sorry, are you actually arguing in favor of gender segregation? After all, that is the opposite of integration, which you say you want to restrict.  Men, you get the northern hemisphere.  We women will all live in the southern.

“For example, during that same class discussion that I mentioned before, one of the young ladies in the room complained about how the NFL does not allow female athletes. I mean, really? Can you imagine being tackled by a 220-pound linebacker? Of course not.” 

Actually, I can absolutely imagine that situation, because you can’t police my thoughts. And many women worldwide can do more than imagine it, because something similar has happened to them in their experiences with rape, abuse, or torture.  Also, how is this is still about sports?

“Our bodies are different. It’s not “inequality,” it’s just science.” 

The bodies [phenotypes] of a white man and a black man are different.  The body of a pregnant woman is different than that of a menopausal woman.  The body of a sedentary, obese person is different than that of an olympic runner.   Are there inherent inequalities in these differences, too?  Does every physical difference between people contribute to a hierarchy of superiority? Groups like the Nazis and the KKK answered yes to these questions.  And while we’re on the subject of science, does science have an answer for the pay gap that pervades its own very field of study? Can science explain religions that deny women leadership roles in them? Physical differences are not the end-all-be-all of gender inequality.

“And while I can understand the concern in regard to money and women making statistically less than men do, let’s consider some historical facts. If we think about it, women branching out into the workforce is still relatively new in terms of history.” 

Only because of millennia of patriarchal oppression.  But please, go on.

“Up until about the '80s or so, many women didn’t work as much as they do now (no disrespect to the women that did work to provide for themselves and their families—you go ladies!). We are still climbing the charts in 2016.” 

Okay, we were planning to talk about historical facts.  These seem to be historical (and present) stereotypes you didn’t bother to research.  Or perhaps they’re alternative facts.  But please, go on.

“Though there is still considered to be a glass ceiling for the working female, it’s being shattered by the perseverance and strong mentality of women everywhere.” 

Wowzers!! I had never thought of it this way before!! You mean women can take a stand against the pay gap and demand equal salaries to make their workplaces fairer for everyone?? We should come up with a term for that movement!! What do you think would be a good word to indicate a strong and persevering woman who shatters inequalities and advocates equal rights for her gender??

“So, let’s stop blaming men and society about how we continue to “struggle” and praise the female gender for working hard to make a mark on today’s workforce. We’re doing a kick-ass job, let’s stop the complaining.”  

This is like heading to the bar to celebrate the end of finals week…on Tuesday night. Disastrous. Yes, women are working hard to fix problems and they should be celebrated.  But the work is not done and the struggle (which is not imaginary nor ironic and will not be put in subliminal quotation marks here) is not over. In some places in the world, it is even getting worse. So we agree: let’s stop the complaining, Miss “I’m so over feminism,” look around us at the problems women face and get back to work.

“I consider myself to be a very strong and independent female.”

 Whoa, me too!!  And I know a lot of other women who would say the same thing!! We should, like, call ourselves something!!

“But that doesn’t mean that I feel the need to put down the opposite gender for every problem I endure. Not everything is a man’s fault.” 

You’re right; not everything is a man’s fault (the one man again though? The strong one, right?).  Who do you blame though, for the pay gap, which you’ve at least acknowledged as being real?  Or is it just no one’s fault?  When systemic sexism evolves from centuries of being entrenched in a patriarchal worldview, that’s just not worth assigning blame for?  God forbid we offend any men reading this article!  No, screw it: if you are a male, and you’re reading this, your gender is responsible for thousands of years of oppressed, forgotten, enslaved, uneducated women who could have contributed to today’s society and made the world we currently live in a brighter place.  I am not going to blame you for everything (though I could go on), but for that, I see no other instigator.  

“Let’s be realistic ladies, just as much as they are boneheads from time to time, we have the tendency to be a real pain in the tush.”  

Careful, you almost sound like you believe there is a shared characteristic between men and women!

“It’s a lot of give and take. We don’t have to pretend we don’t need our men every once in a while.”  

The infamous royal we.  You, madam, do not have to pretend you don’t need your men (I notice you shift to the plural here. Interesting choice.) every once in a while.  But I don’t have to conform to your generalizations of a female as needy, vulnerable and dependent on men.  Neither do women who choose to be single, women who choose to depend on other women, or women who don’t have the option to make these choices, who have no one, male or female, to depend on because they are isolated, imprisoned, abused, or abandoned.  

“It’s OK to be vulnerable.” 

If you met a woman who spent her childhood physically and verbally abused, forced into prostitution, and who was risking her life by asking you for advice on getting out of her current life situation, would you pat her shoulder comfortingly and say, “It’s OK to be vulnerable”?

“Men and women are meant to complement one another—not to be equal or to over-power. The genders are meant to balance each other out. There’s nothing wrong with it.” 

Your reasoning here has tied knots in my brain by its paradoxes.  If the genders are meant to complement, balance, and not overpower each other, then how can they not be equal?  In what logical reality does that make sense?  Regardless, the world we live in is not one where one gender doesn’t try to overpower the other.  Men have spent all of human history overpowering women, and they are not letting up now.  There most definitely is something wrong with that.

“I am all about being a proud woman and having confidence in what I say and do.  I believe in myself as a powerful female and human being.” 

No but really, have you even looked up feminism in the dictionary?

“However, I don’t believe that being a female entitles me to put down men and claim to be the “dominant” gender.” 

Neither do I, although I think out of fairness the men of the world should perhaps allow us to spend the next few thousand years in control and see if we end up better off than we have with them in charge.

“There is no “dominant” gender.” 

Right.  Really.  All sarcasm aside, I agree with you 100%.  That is why I identify as a feminist.  I see men around the world claiming to be the “dominant” gender every single day, and I want to set it right for my daughters and their daughters until modern gender inequality is as archaic as Adam and Eve are to us.

“There’s just men and women.  Women and men.” 

No, no, no. You were doing so good for a sentence or two there, Gina.  This article gets an A+ in perpetuating the binary gender paradigm. Whether or not you personally believe being transgender is a natural gender identification, you can’t simply will away the existence of people who identify outside “just men and women” by ignoring them.  If you want to be relevant to the feminist conversation, you need to address everyone it includes, not least among them transgender females, who are much more likely to face gender discrimination than cisgender females.

“We coincide with each other, that’s that. Time to embrace it.”  

What a specific, attainable, and empowering call to action to end this illuminating article!!  I am going to go embrace a man now and thank him for all he’s done for me and my fellow women!!  I am going to go hug my female professors and thank them for teaching me for a lower salary than their male colleagues!!  I am going to send a thank you note to my boss for allowing me to “build character” by living on lower wages than my male coworkers!!  And don’t forget about the gender segregation act taking effect next month. I’ll see all y’all men at the equator, which will be the only place we’re allowed to “coincide” from now on!!

A personal message to Gina Davis: Please, educate yourself on what the majority of feminists are fighting for.  You will find it not so different from your own views, if you think about the problems your fellow women face across the globe.  You are privileged to be a white American female, in a loving relationship with a stable income, internet access, and constitutional rights.  You are legally free to write articles that help perpetuate laws that deny other women the same exact right.  But by the same token, you could use your rights, your freedom, and your education to help further the cause of those women who lack them.