Interesting review.
I am somewhat puzzeled by the persistant inclusion of, at least one of the feminsits so vocally opposed to transgender, n most of these articles. This time is was abrief mention of Raymond.
In any reasoned discussion, all sides must, of course be considered. But objections of the politically religious are generally dismissed in passing. The reason, their objections are singular, doctrial and immutable. However, their objections are invariably based upon textual references, albeit, dubious.
Yet there persists a tendency to reference these radical feminists. Their objections are equally singular, doctrinal and immutable. Moreover, their objections are based upon a paranoid belief in conspiracies by males.
QuoteAre these children not actually transgender unless they are engaged in doing something which relates to that identity? Do the acts of crying themselves to sleep, praying that they will wake up as a girl or boy, for example, count as (trans)gender expression? What about the acts of wishing they can wear dresses, ties, skirts, trousers, or play with dolls or trains?
Many of us can identify with this dscription. Are these children all to be dismissed as part of a large, male conspiracy, to castrate themselves, so they can infultrate the women's movement and return the sisterhood to repression?
Even the little ggirls?
But on the other hand, failure to include the feminist position would no-doubt, result in accusations of deliberate exclusion as part of a large, male conspiracy, ........
Since it is deemed acceptable to include these paranoid feminists, what is the justification for the exclusion of the equally paranoid supreminists who view almost everything as part of a Jewish conspiracy?
These writers many claim scientific credentials, but their intelectual integrity is questionable.
