We are in the middle of a three-way ideological war. It’s worldwide, patterned on the patriarchal myth of the Christian Trinity and it’s about control over women.
I know. I'm sorry. I realized as a clicked "send" that it was a downer. But it's so bloody true. Have you checked out my substack? I'm trying to sell feminist ideas to Canadians in canada. It's going to be a hard sell.
important to remind us that we have no haven in any patriarchal camp. in the end it is about control of us. they are parasitic whatever clothing they wear, and they are master slight of hand artists.
Great essay. This is one of the reasons why I cringe when feminists delight in Matt Walsh. So what he's against trans ideology, he's also a foe of feminism, radical or not. Being a foe of feminism means a he's a foe of women. This quote from your essay sums it best "The men are not fighting to overthrow patriarchy. They are arguing about how best to run patriarchy."
The religious context of patriarchal control is very apt and applies to nearly all religions - it was analysed in the book the Creation of Patriarchy by Gerda Lerner - In todays context of gender ideology which is promoted as an unquestionable religious cult as Jo shows it is even more relevant
I really enjoyed reading this and it is a very creative way to view what's going on. I feel power struggles happen between women too and between men. Men not only fight for power over women, but power over everything and everyone. It is a ridiculous losing war they wage everyday to rule the world instead of ruling themselves. I tend to disagree with the view on HRT as it is what I'm on and it helps me manage emotions, behaviour, and hot flushes at the moment. But I might be one of those women not to be counted who is struggling with her perimenopause. I don't know how it'll be in full fledged menopause.
The foundational myth most appropriate to understand in the context of sex exploitation is the founding Jewish myth of Sara and Abraham, wherein Abraham PIMPS OUT SARAI in order to blackmail the Egyptians and start to plunder their land. This is the founding myth of GENESIS in the OT. I refer to a discussion by a Jewish man, Samuel Roth, in Jews Must Live.
This is how women are traded and used and how they are viewed from the earliest Abrahamic perspective. THIS IS THE SOURCE OF THE ROT IN THE WEST. JUDAISM CREATED CHRISTIANITY. ALL ARE ABRAHAMISM. THEY ARE ALL CALLED ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS. ALL RELATED. I can't believe we don't know this in 21st c. But I know why.
This is the origin of Western patriarchy.
Women are used by the intel services in this way today, and we all know this is how politics is done. Trafficking industries including PORN started here and thet have admitted it. I have some guy on the record admitting it. Jewish guy. THere's one.
The perennial Jewish money power originating from Babylon originated this. (This ultimately is responsible for the persistence of patriarchy. The question was not answered correctly, because you can't see the occult patriarchy. You can only see the surface.)
They realized the value of women in sexual blackmale and that is how it is done. Our rights erode not only from the other founding myth (Adam/Eve) but this is the source of USE of women in trafficking. See ROTH Jews Must Live. Roth commented on it 100 years ago. He was a good and honest Jew. Read Chapter 2 of this book.
Agreed and well said! The concept of the Christian Trinity was stolen from women- It can never be the Father, the Son, and the in-living spirit which is a non-male but not quite female ghost. The Trinity for all time is all female, the Crone, the Mother, and the Maiden are the three aspects of life through the generations. The Grandmother, the Mother and the Girl are how life survives. It is life giving birth to itself. Males cannot conceptualize this and create death cults like Capitalism as a mockery to life itself. Males are thieves - every advance has been an idea stolen from women or based on how women communicate to achieve survival. The Unholy Trinity you describe tears down women's ability to function and the earth itself suffers. All of the goodies that women provide are not given value in misogynistic economies which enables males to hoard the earth's resources in order to subjugate women. For example, Oxfam withheld food from girls in order to force them into unwanted sex.
Women now have the technology (created from ideas stolen from women) to create our own currency, economic system and a world wide women's governing system based on "Women's Work" which is the only essential work being done, without which the human species will become extinct. "Women's Work" is not included in any male economy, but without which there can be no male economies, religions or governments. Monetizing women's work at home, as volunteers, or in underpaid care and service jobs and restricting it to women-only usage will enable women to continue to do the necessary work of species survival.
A few years ago I realized this was technically possible, but it wasn't on anyone's radar, so I wrote a romance novel (since women use them to communicate difficult concepts and males don't read what they disparagingly call "chick lit"). What was technically possible in 2012 is even more easily accomplished today. I suspect that if AI were given directions to eliminate unnecessary suffering that its logic would align with that of the Radical Feminists.
Here is a link to that novel:
What would a World Wide Women’s Revolution look like?
Catch! is a history of the future that tells of an economic realignment during the week when women around the world said, “Enough is Enough” and created their own world-wide system of currency.
Set during a Costume Convention, Catch! features a romance between a hunky Men’s Rights Activist and a Radical Feminist Fashionista and their struggles with trauma, internalized misogyny, lust, love, and friendship as she participates in, and he observes, a species-wide recalibration of human culture.
Who runs these organizations? YOu talk generally but do you even know you are tralking about specifically? NO, you don't. You merely generalize to all men when the Oxfam things and all "international" orgs are run by zioglobalist Jews. It's the Kahal of these men. And there are about 300 in the top positions but really it's the freaking Rothschild family.
It's so funny you in the UK sit with the 200-300 YEAR OLD ENTRENCHED ROTHSCHILD TRUST lorded over your country. You don't even know they ran British East India, ran the the British empire, which was not British but Jewish, as is the "American empire", Jewish. Zioglobalist. No one has the right frame.
The kahal is the origin of the corporation. I like your aspirations, we need them. But unless we talk about the Jewish zioglobalism behind all of Western misogyny, and again since they created Christianity they must be looked to. Does your history stop at 2000 years ago? NO! But you'll find any way to blame your own European men over the Jewish men who invaded many many countries and trafficked and raped their girls and murdered them.
Am I excusing European men? Nope. But I am saying they were blackmailed and basically played most of the time, by this patriarchal perennial power extending back to Babylon. And yeah a lot of them, just more male apes, yeah. For sure.
The financial system is a PRIVATE JEWISH ZIOGLOBALIST BANKING SYSTEM -- and actually includes many nonbank IFIs. I suggest seriously starting with Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind (sic) by Stephen Mitford Goodson, former South Afican banking head. He explains the system well but his politics are not desirable. We don't read to agree, we read to learn from everyone, including many men, to learn.
If you understand world politics as rothschild trying to get his banks, yeah, you can see. Hitler printed his own money. Italy did. Japan did. Notice something here? American colonies did at one time too, and were wildly successful.
It's as basic as printing money as a debit or a credit. Roths and friends hijacked state right tp print money and US congress gave it away without consent of the People. because they were blackmailed, just as in Genesis.
We print money as a debit and pay Rothsc rent on it. That's basically you can't have a country. So, I hope you start to understand this. Ezra Pound went out of his mind trying to explain to people. Where he failed I will succeed.
States need to print their own moneys, period. Private banks hijacked this basic state right. First in England B of E. It's not Britain's bank! It's Rothschild's!!
This is the key also to women's emancipation and I am glad to hear people talking econ but yeah you're still looking at the FRONTS AND not what is behind. Stop listening just to Mary Daly. Come on. She can't know the world now.
Definitely, we have Islam following on the same tradition but more brutal. And Hinduism, and Ancient Greece or Hellenistic Astrology, Buddhism, New Age oneness. Judaism is only part of the origins of patriarchy. Some American Indigenous cultures were also part of it, the Chinese and Japanese empires. Babylon, Mesopotamia, the Roman empire... It's been a widespread mental illness for thousands of years
On HRT: This can lead to many cancers, particularly uterine. My mother got uterine cancer from HRT as well as gall bladder removal. THe two are linked. HRT overloads body with synthetic steroid that the liver cannot process. Puts stress on GB. Huge rash of GB removals and uterine cancers. So it's causing disease and cost my mother her ovaries, uterus and gall bladder. DO NOT DO IT!
Also do not just take shatavari or estrogenics unless you are knowingly low on estrogen.Even herbs can imbalance you and cause issues. Everyone's process will be different. I think estrogen supplementation is causing a lot of problems and cancers. Rockefeller MDs are quacks and I hope that is becoming clear. QUACKS like a duck....
How old is your mother? Oral oestrogen does cause cancer. And it was prescribed before topic or vaginal one was used. It seems recent research shows those two ways of administration are safe.
Whatever normal men means. I agree that men are in power and your God is viewed as a man. That doesn't mean I want to trade places either, but you thought I felt envy because of that. I don't believe in any battle unlike you who said war is necessary at times. Another one of your numerous cognitive disonances. The entitlement and arrogance of "most men being gentlemen who deserve the benefit of the doubt"! Metaphysical and phylosophical questions have always been there a long time before Judaism and the bible existed. Educational and morality which were wrong for the most part and killed and tortured many human beings in the name of your invisible friend. Who cares about pretty hair?
Socialism is acknowledging some men exploit everyone around them and wishing to overturn the power of a few to the power of the majority. Then Stalin turned everything fascism and from them on it hasn't changed. It's not envy of wealth. It's wanting to be treated like a human being and being compensated as much for my energy and service to others as the king and ceos. Why is their energy compensated and valued more than mine? It's not envy. It's justice.
Greed is also a sin in your book, but you don't mention it.
Male CEO's being paid more than female midwives who might have been the ones who helped their mothers bringing them into this world safely is just outrageous. I can't feel envy when I'm not a mother or a midwife. But you might be projecting your own emotions on me.
When have I mentioned a heavenly reboot? What are you talking about?
Tell me which war has not killed innocent people. You live in such a world of illusion. It is unbelievable. The law and heroes welcomes are part of the lies men tell themselves and their ridiculous worldview.
The promise of a future makes no man try to actually work towards peace and leave their stupid urge to rule the world and loot it for their own benefit.
I forgot to mention that socialism was seen as the proletariat's fascism which as any fascism goes becomes untenable in the long run. Socialist/communist men are working class men wishing to have the lives of those men exploiting them. They don't think about what women want or need. They like any other men exploit women in marriage, friendship, cohabitation, neighbourhoods, communities, offices, workplaces, governments, movements, organisations, ...
But is it ALL men or just some men? And does that matter? Just asking seriously. My answer is it is some men, although I basically despair daily of my own very intense misandry. But my misandry is not healthy for me either. I mean I have to live in the world. My view is men would have already gotten much better BUT FOR THE MONEY POWER, so yeah I blame the group of Jewish men and I think more people who understand the truth of history will understand this. YES OUR men did try to resist the blackmail. Actually this is blocked out of Judeocentric history but Hitler did not want war and made three peace offers. You Brits probably never heard it. Hitler actually wanted to stop animal cruelty and put herbalism into the medical system. He was a socialist if you didn't know. And no, he didn't do what they said he did. NO way.
I just hope some of those people are feminists. So far, it looks like you are not allowed to speak of such things.
Yeah I probably blew all of your heads up but please don't ban me. Women need me even if you don't see what I am saying is true yet. Maybe you will. I hope you do.
I'm not a misandrist. I just have nearly enough anger and hate to match men's crimes on me and people like me and I'm a woman, a disabled woman, a now middle-aged woman. An immigrant woman. Not British like you assumed. Because my native language is not English, the English speaking world will not consider me nor call me an ex-pat woman which is so telling. The experiments done on people by Nazi Germany are enough to make anyone sick. Jewish men are a great part of the patriarchal burden in the world but so was Hitler, Himler, Menguele, and other German men. I don't care about distinguishing between some or all men. I leave that to the men who know they're guilty of crimes, oppression, suppression, and exploitation. I know it's too many men. And too many women participating and maintaining patriarchy and its tools of power.
I forgot to mention as usual. It's part of my disability. That my anger or hate for men isn't enough to match the crimes they commit on people like me: women. And it goes further because I'm not a native citizen, without disabilities, feminine for the most part, interested in men sexually, romantically, for friendship, cohabitation, or in any other way, thin, young, childlike,... But the starting and central point because I'm a woman and vulnerable. Killing a whole ethnoreligious group didn't solve anything or will solve anything, Hitler is proof of it. He was just another sociopathic power hungry man amongst the many other German men and women supporting his regime at the time.
The concept of the “Trinity” is a Christian one, not solely Roman Catholic. I suggest you read some more.
Radical feminists in many cases are opposed to religious viewpoints for the simple reason that religion is primarily male-centred but exploits women’s socialisation to preserve their religious communities. Very little that religions of any sort have to say supports females’ self-actualisation but actively repress women and girls, in the same old patriarchal fashion.
“The same fantasists women helped to create”? It’s not feminists who have pushed pornography, prostitution and pimping at the young of every society, debasing relationships between the sexes and driving young boys and girls to turn away from the toxic postures and sexualisation that drives them to present themselves as other than their actual sex.
You are not supporters of women speaking for ourselves.
And these religious communities, my darlings they are actual military subversions. Like have any of you heard of the freemasons? Where did you think they went? They exist today but no fems talk about it. YOu talk over the top of reality and miss the machinations screwing your lives.
They are military orders and the Jesuits admitted they are a phallic sex cult. Abbe de Barreul. And also hate to tell ya Loyola (founder of Jesuits) was a Jew. THey admit they are masculist fag cults. And this is the stupid and dark side of the old boys clubs: freemason faggotry.
No religions support female self-actualisation. While some Jewish and Muslim texts seem to support women they do so to maintain male control over females. Radical feminists do not, generally, support mainstream religions. Furthermore radical feminists played no part on promoting gender ideology. Feminism has been combatting “gender” - sex role stereotypes - forever: back to suffragists and back to the earliest struggles of women to loosen the shackles of patriarchy. Religions of all sorts seek to maintain the patriarchy and that is why we reject man-made religion. There are female and male people; that is all. “Gender” has no place in any society that supports equality for women, while gender roles still want to put boys and girls in stereotypical strait-jackets.
"TERFs are self-segregating?" Are you kidding? If you mean Radical Feminists, we've been fighting this fight for decades. What you call self-segregating is our being marginalized by the factions of patriarchy described here and Liberal Feminists (who support Gender Ideology) as well. We are the only group against whom violence is deemed justified. Trans Activists and their "Liberal" allies openly advocate brutality against "TERFs" and act on it, with the help of Antifa thugs ironically acting as Brown Shirts at any gathering of Gender Critical women and allies. Women are swarmed, called Nazis, spit on, and punched, resulting in bleeding and broken bones as police look on and ignore acts of violence against us.
We do work with other groups, but we have no illusions about being used as a means to an end by religiously driven groups who will give us the only platform to reach the public (only Tucker Carlson ever had women from the #LetWomenSpeak events on his show to talk about violence directed against them) while simultaneously blaming Feminists for the beginnings of the Gender Ideology movement. Lesbians, in particular, are vilified by all three factions described here as Lesbian community spaces are being legally prohibited and existence as part of the sex class of women is being erased.
None of the patriarchal threesome cares about the well-being of women. The Right wants physical ownership and control, including slave births; the Left exploits our power as voters and volunteers while comodifying women for prostitution and paid surrogacy; and the Trans Activists want to erase women altogether, stealing the language we use to describe ourselves, stigmatizing words used to describe female anatomy and reproductive processes, ending our legal protections as a distinct Sex Class.
We may have common cause, but our goals are in direct opposition. The one true agreement is the safety of children, who are being harmed by Gender Ideology, with the encouragement of Liberals under the spell of emotional manipulation that claims gender affirming care prevents suicide, in spite of evidence it does the opposite.
The difference is RadFems/Gender Critical activists do not want to eradicate transgenderism. We do not deny or abhor the existence of trans individuals as many on the Right do. Our goal is to preserve women-only spaces and services while limiting gender medical interventions to adults old enough to understand the social and physical ramifications of transition.
Gender Ideology refers to belief in the existence of a gender identity that can exist in variance to an individual's sex. It is being imposed as a sort of state-supported religion in spite of contradicting scientific facts. Transgenderism is the state identifying as trans. Radical Feminists to not want the eradication of trans people. We support their rights to fair housing, education, employment, etc. We do not agree with the belief that "trans women are women" and we object to the policy of Self ID, which opens what should be female-only spaces to men with no restrictions. It is completely possible to support both Trans Rights and Women's Rights, but that isn't happening. Instead, the needs and rights of women are being subordinated to the feelings of Trans Identified Males.
We also understand that no child under 16 has developed the higher brains functions necessary to consent to life-altering therapies and sugeries. We are not "Anti-Trans," we are Pro-Woman and Pro-Child Safeguarding.
Transgenderism is the same as gender ideology. Trans people are gender non-conforming or gender dysphoric people. Radical feminism supports gender non-conforming people not transgenderism nor gender ideology.
I do not support any kind of mentally ill person calling themselves trans. I feel they need help. No they don't have any right to housing or education or anything. YES I DO WANT THEIR ERADICATION. IT'S A PSYOP OR DISEASE, EITHER WAY, NO NO NO. Stop allowing biology to be ruined. You are not even scientifically literate so you are guardian of biology? Nope.
Your position is losing and still supports trans rights against women's existence.
If you conceptualise "transgenderism" as the "state (of) identifying as trans" and that "Gender Ideology refers to belief in the existence of a gender identity that can exist in variance to an individual's sex" that is "sort of state-supported religion in spite of contradicting scientific facts", then how do you contrast people who simply believe in "gender ideology" with people who in addition "identify as trans"?
Using the religion analogy, people who believe in "gender ideology" would be people with a religious belief, eg. Christians, Muslims, Hindus.
How do people who "identify as trans" fit into this? They would not be just adherents of a religion, like those who simply believe in "the existence of a gender identity that can exist in variance to an individual's sex".
Within the religion analogy, are you adopting a sort of "trans as shaman" position? Trans as "touched by the hand of God"?
I have to say that I have not come across "transgenderism" being used in the way that you do, which is partly why I asked the question. It is more commonly used as a synonym for "gender identity ideology".
However, "transsexualism" was/is a medical diagnosis so I can see why you might be using "transgenderism" in a similar way.
Yes, transgenderism is different from transexualism. In order to identify as transgender you have to believe that you have a "gender identity." I think that's a misnomer. It's style, personality, combined with an obsessive need to conform to traditional patriarchal sex roles. Wearing makeup and dresses doesn't define a person's sexual identity. It doesn't change their sex. It shouldn't be taken as a sign that they need SRS. That's concrete, black and white thinking that society had (we thought) grown past in the 60s-70s-80s with the acceptance of androgyny and "gender-bending" led by the fashion and music industries. We've gone from "there are no rules" to "these are the rules, and don't you dare question them!" The medicalization of transgenderism is what's new, and a few people, like the Pritzker family, are making billions convincing unhappy and often mentally ill people, including kids too young to understand an abstract concept like gender, that they can't be happy without puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery. Or worse, that having those treatments will solve their problems. There's a reason so many trans kids are Autistic - they take things more literally than most people. Tell any kid that a boy who likes to play with dolls is a girl trapped in the wrong body, and they take it as fact because they don't yet have the mental faculties to examine the idea critically. The concept should never be mentioned to anyone under 16. Every kid that identifies as trans represents $3.2 million for the medical profession. Ethical doctors in Europe are realizing now that transition doesn't prevent suicide - in fact, it may do just the opposite. There may be a few people who are genuinely helped, but they're rare. What is happening most often is they're sterilizing gay and lesbian kids. This is a medical scandal brewing. The first lawsuits in America are being filed now by biological females who were pushed through transition as early as 13, who claim they were exploited at a time when they were confused, vulnerable, and needed therapy rather than surgery. We need to slow down, do better studies that follow detransitioners, and examine the current narrative that says this is therapeutic.
I appreciate your lengthy explanation and most of it I would agree with as being factually accurate. However, I do not feel that this gets to the heart of what I am querying, which is your position with regard to "gender ideology" which you say is different to your position with regard to "transgenderism".
This was my first reply:
----------
You say Liberal Feminists "support Gender Ideology" and "RadFems/Gender Critical activists do not want to eradicate transgenderism".
What do you mean by "Gender Ideology" and "transgenderism"?
---------
In your reply to me you made an analogy with religion and I replied asking how you see people who "identify as trans" fitting into the idea that "gender ideology" operates as "a sort of state-supported religion".
I possibly threw you off track by mentioning transsexualism.
You say, "transgenderism is different from transexualism. In order to identify as transgender you have to believe that you have a "gender identity." and later "The medicalization of transgenderism is what's new".
I think this is a bit of a red herring.
Firstly, "transsexualism" as a medical diagnosis does not necessarily have anything to do with "medicalisation", ie. body modification using surgery or hormones. The diagnosis of transsexualism, which posits possession of a cross-sex "gender identity", is what justifies access to medicalised body modification. Sometimes "gender identity" is referred to as "sex identity" or "sexual identity" but the concept is exactly the same as "gender identity".
Secondly, the "medicalisation of transgenderism" is not at all new. It has been going on for about 100 years.
The difference now is that it is an extremely lucrative and growing industry that targets children as well as adults, by promoting the notion that "transgenderism" exists, ie. that it is possible to have a "gender identity" and, further, that it is possible for this "gender identity" to be that of the opposite sex - or no sex or something in between.
I am not sure from what you have written whether you really believe that "transgenderism" (as a personal thing) exists. You do not believe that "gender identities" exist but to believe in "transgenderism" you have to believe that "gender identities" exist.
Unless by "transgenderism" you mean "suffering from the delusion of having a gender identity and also that that gender identity is that of the opposite sex or no sex or something in between"?
If so, that delusion seems to cause unhappiness and a wish, even before the Pritzker influence, for extreme body modification to "match" the supposed "gender identity", which in most cases results in even greater unhappiness.
Why then would you not want to "eradicate transgenderism"?
What is happening now has disturbing echoes of the Skoptsy:
Castrating Children in the Service of Male Sexuality
The Bible and your God, a patriarch, as well as Judaism are hateful, pro-war and sexist. The fact that your god is seen as male proves my point. But we only have to look at the bible for contradictions, hate, murder, and torture and domination of women and anything not Jewish. The murders committed at times by god and his angels when not obeyed his premises. Lilith is a prime example
Your cognitive disonances are numerous in this brief paragraph. I don't have the energy to dispell them all for you. What even is girl-power? War is not murder? God is male and that's the way it is? Plain Jane? the looker? Why are men going to have some advantages over women? You'll find is actually men who envy women because we create life, full human beings, something men have always envied hence patriarchy, sexism, and misogyny. Also being aware of most DNA is produced by the mother and her lineage. Your invisible friend in the sky can be imagined as a man by you and the other men who envy women for these and many other reasons. That might give you some comfort. Keep living your illusion but don't force it on us. You sound like any of the TIM's who think they are entitled to impose their illusion of being women on the rest of the world. Believe what you must and leave the rest of us alone. George was glorified in history because men chose to do that and they like to be very vocal about it especially not allowing any other narratives in their awareness or everybody else's. The biblical worldview is a set of rules and norms to impose a certain hegemony of males, especially white males of any denomination including Jewish men and their wives (only submissive women). A "woke" casting would be that your invisible friend in the sky is a non binary black person wearing lipstick instead of a white beard. Don't get me confused with that type of narrative.
I wouldn't call Tucker an ally. He was the only one to give #LetWomenSpeak any coverage at all, but he did it because it served his anti-liberal agenda. Women are called Nazis and sellouts for appearing on Right-wing media, but the Center-Left treats us as if we're invisible. People need to know what is happening to Women's Rights and about the violence being directed at Gender Critical activists because trans activists openly glorify the brutalization of women and Liberals take part in it.
There are alt males and alt right that is pro feminist but very delicately since they are masculists at heart. But they don't want trannies and don't want their females attacked. So, you need to really realize beggars can't be choosers and this is a GOOD thing.
Can you appreciate a decent turn of events, use it to your advantage and move on? Or shall you subject it to more endless useless leftist ideological litmus tests.
My experience is neither right nor left can actually address the problems. Your emotional biases are too great on both sides.
Let us all pause, take a breath, and step back for a moment. It is truly unenlightening when we write on a subject we no little to nothing about. From what I have read, it is eminently clear that this fault is alive and well. Which is very unfortunate in that our goal (or at least what I think to be our goal) is unification rather than division. The statement, “the Trinity is an exclusively Catholic concept and not Christian,” is patently untrue. Even the swiftest “google” will bear this out.
The term Catholic defines the Roman Catholic Church and literally refers to the whole Christian Church (Body). The term Protestant refers to any of the various Christian bodies, or subsets, (Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc.) that split from the Roman Catholic Church at the persuasions of Luther during the Reformation.
This is merely an issue of being correct with the terms we use. The word Christian means anyone who follows or believes in the deity of Jesus Christ. Thus, the correct hierarchy leaves Christian as a superlative, and a Catholic and a Protestant as subordinate to Christian. Christianity, then, is comprised of two major denominations – Catholicism and Protestantism. And both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge the Trinity and baptize in the “name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
No, no. You are in fact making a very good observation indeed. Three major Christian denominations have long been debatable. Especially for those who live on the East side of the great pond. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church claim to have been found directly by Yeshua (Jesus Christ). Many people defer the simultaneous founding to Catholicism rather than Eastern Orthodoxy, even though its doctrine differs from Catholicism. As a Western, we have been indoctrinated to the idea of two major denominations, actually leaving us less informed than we ought to be. To render the subject comprehensive, I have to say that you are actually far more informative than I. Very well done!
There was no historical Jewsus. Jewsus was created by Paul, who was a Jew. Check Know MOre News, Jesusneverexisted.com, works by Dorothy S murdoch (Acharya S -- wonderful unknown female scholar here). Comes from the SUN GOD who became the SON GOD. Lots of influences. Jews consolidate monotheism for control and power and you see where that is today.
Catholic and Orthodox are two wings of the same original rite, like the Latin and Greek spheres of the Roman Empire. They had a schism. Protestantism is a reinvention entirely, and should be called something else besides Christianity, IMO.
I wouldn’t consider it such, but surely I’m in the minority. I’ve heard many people in my lifetime from other Protestant sects refer to it as a cult. Anyone can invent a religion and call it what they like, but whether it is or not is entirely subjective, I guess. To me, the Christian religion was begun in the ancient Roman Empire, the main character and the events of the New Testament take place there, and it became the official state religion. Protestants are their own authorities of whatever it is that they are, but they’re not the authorities on Christ, IMO. I’ve only recently come to value the rites that people have practiced for millennia, after simply turning my nose up to religion generally for most of my life. I endured evangelical abuse in childhood, and can say that when my sole surviving birth parent left the Catholic Church for evangelical Protestantism, I was subjected to characters like Jim Jones, which I don’t see as an improvement over orthodox Christianity at all. Without the structure of the ancient tradition, American Protestantism in particular has gone in some strange and destructive directions, and most often, isn’t a real improvement upon it, or at least, I fail to see how. Just because I’m socially isolated from these various groups doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t acknowledge and value the rites and traditions of organized religions. They endure not because they are infallible, but because they speak to the emotional and social needs of humans. Just wish more men could see that their fear of Nature is why they are so obsessed with controlling women, and organized religion, especially those which proceed from literature, is a codification of it.
Excuse me for correcting you, but "In terms of number of adherents, nontrinitarian denominations comprise a small minority of modern Christians." And the main nontrinitarian Christian sect named is LDS. Who believe God, Jesus, and the Holy spirit are three separate entities. A quibble I could never get my head around when I was trying to be a believer. (Along with many, many other illogical doctrines which dis-empower women.) Jo is using the trinity as a metaphor to visualize the position that a young woman is in today. Which man made myth should she trust? The answer is none of them. (My source for the quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism)
Homoöusios/homoiousios is a huge division for a jot of a letter; I thought that that had been settled at Nicaea. Cathars, Mormons, Unitarians are outside the strict boundaries of Christianity erected there but it doesn’t really matter for this metaphor of Jo’s: all religions have been made to control females and elevate males. And the men’s rights religion of gender ideology is another such; it’s simply not in women’s interests to go along with it.
I come from a pentecostal background and the Trinity is very much a concept. In fact, I've never heard of any denomination not embracing it. Did you mean Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses not embracing the Trinity?
Excuse me for correcting you, but Catholics are Christians, whereas Protestantism is something invented much more recently. It is akin to the ancient Roman reinvention of Mithraism. Taking another civilization’s deities, rites, and/or scriptures and reinventing them should then rightly be called something else. This sounds like mansplaining, and I request that you lick your wounds elsewhere, sir.
Many believe that Mithraism is what influenced Christianity. However, it's debatable. I looked into it years ago and would have to dig it up again down the road a bit. I do remember that while Christianity has it's issues, I wasn't convinced about the Mithra connection. I'd rather focus on problems I can prove.
Thanks Jo. This is great.
A fantastic overview. Every woman should read this. Oops, I forgot, the trinity controls all communication channels so most women won't even see this.
ha ha
I know. I'm sorry. I realized as a clicked "send" that it was a downer. But it's so bloody true. Have you checked out my substack? I'm trying to sell feminist ideas to Canadians in canada. It's going to be a hard sell.
important to remind us that we have no haven in any patriarchal camp. in the end it is about control of us. they are parasitic whatever clothing they wear, and they are master slight of hand artists.
Great essay. This is one of the reasons why I cringe when feminists delight in Matt Walsh. So what he's against trans ideology, he's also a foe of feminism, radical or not. Being a foe of feminism means a he's a foe of women. This quote from your essay sums it best "The men are not fighting to overthrow patriarchy. They are arguing about how best to run patriarchy."
The religious context of patriarchal control is very apt and applies to nearly all religions - it was analysed in the book the Creation of Patriarchy by Gerda Lerner - In todays context of gender ideology which is promoted as an unquestionable religious cult as Jo shows it is even more relevant
I really enjoyed reading this and it is a very creative way to view what's going on. I feel power struggles happen between women too and between men. Men not only fight for power over women, but power over everything and everyone. It is a ridiculous losing war they wage everyday to rule the world instead of ruling themselves. I tend to disagree with the view on HRT as it is what I'm on and it helps me manage emotions, behaviour, and hot flushes at the moment. But I might be one of those women not to be counted who is struggling with her perimenopause. I don't know how it'll be in full fledged menopause.
Interesting
Brilliant
Wonderful insights.
Thanks
The foundational myth most appropriate to understand in the context of sex exploitation is the founding Jewish myth of Sara and Abraham, wherein Abraham PIMPS OUT SARAI in order to blackmail the Egyptians and start to plunder their land. This is the founding myth of GENESIS in the OT. I refer to a discussion by a Jewish man, Samuel Roth, in Jews Must Live.
This is how women are traded and used and how they are viewed from the earliest Abrahamic perspective. THIS IS THE SOURCE OF THE ROT IN THE WEST. JUDAISM CREATED CHRISTIANITY. ALL ARE ABRAHAMISM. THEY ARE ALL CALLED ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS. ALL RELATED. I can't believe we don't know this in 21st c. But I know why.
This is the origin of Western patriarchy.
Women are used by the intel services in this way today, and we all know this is how politics is done. Trafficking industries including PORN started here and thet have admitted it. I have some guy on the record admitting it. Jewish guy. THere's one.
The perennial Jewish money power originating from Babylon originated this. (This ultimately is responsible for the persistence of patriarchy. The question was not answered correctly, because you can't see the occult patriarchy. You can only see the surface.)
They realized the value of women in sexual blackmale and that is how it is done. Our rights erode not only from the other founding myth (Adam/Eve) but this is the source of USE of women in trafficking. See ROTH Jews Must Live. Roth commented on it 100 years ago. He was a good and honest Jew. Read Chapter 2 of this book.
Agreed and well said! The concept of the Christian Trinity was stolen from women- It can never be the Father, the Son, and the in-living spirit which is a non-male but not quite female ghost. The Trinity for all time is all female, the Crone, the Mother, and the Maiden are the three aspects of life through the generations. The Grandmother, the Mother and the Girl are how life survives. It is life giving birth to itself. Males cannot conceptualize this and create death cults like Capitalism as a mockery to life itself. Males are thieves - every advance has been an idea stolen from women or based on how women communicate to achieve survival. The Unholy Trinity you describe tears down women's ability to function and the earth itself suffers. All of the goodies that women provide are not given value in misogynistic economies which enables males to hoard the earth's resources in order to subjugate women. For example, Oxfam withheld food from girls in order to force them into unwanted sex.
Women now have the technology (created from ideas stolen from women) to create our own currency, economic system and a world wide women's governing system based on "Women's Work" which is the only essential work being done, without which the human species will become extinct. "Women's Work" is not included in any male economy, but without which there can be no male economies, religions or governments. Monetizing women's work at home, as volunteers, or in underpaid care and service jobs and restricting it to women-only usage will enable women to continue to do the necessary work of species survival.
A few years ago I realized this was technically possible, but it wasn't on anyone's radar, so I wrote a romance novel (since women use them to communicate difficult concepts and males don't read what they disparagingly call "chick lit"). What was technically possible in 2012 is even more easily accomplished today. I suspect that if AI were given directions to eliminate unnecessary suffering that its logic would align with that of the Radical Feminists.
Here is a link to that novel:
What would a World Wide Women’s Revolution look like?
Catch! is a history of the future that tells of an economic realignment during the week when women around the world said, “Enough is Enough” and created their own world-wide system of currency.
Set during a Costume Convention, Catch! features a romance between a hunky Men’s Rights Activist and a Radical Feminist Fashionista and their struggles with trauma, internalized misogyny, lust, love, and friendship as she participates in, and he observes, a species-wide recalibration of human culture.
Catch! is available for free on Apple Books:
https://books.apple.com/us/book/catch/id1585707661?ls=1
Flash Fiction updates and details to the story are on
https://connie212.substack.com/p/feminism-in-a-fictional-future
Who runs these organizations? YOu talk generally but do you even know you are tralking about specifically? NO, you don't. You merely generalize to all men when the Oxfam things and all "international" orgs are run by zioglobalist Jews. It's the Kahal of these men. And there are about 300 in the top positions but really it's the freaking Rothschild family.
It's so funny you in the UK sit with the 200-300 YEAR OLD ENTRENCHED ROTHSCHILD TRUST lorded over your country. You don't even know they ran British East India, ran the the British empire, which was not British but Jewish, as is the "American empire", Jewish. Zioglobalist. No one has the right frame.
The kahal is the origin of the corporation. I like your aspirations, we need them. But unless we talk about the Jewish zioglobalism behind all of Western misogyny, and again since they created Christianity they must be looked to. Does your history stop at 2000 years ago? NO! But you'll find any way to blame your own European men over the Jewish men who invaded many many countries and trafficked and raped their girls and murdered them.
Am I excusing European men? Nope. But I am saying they were blackmailed and basically played most of the time, by this patriarchal perennial power extending back to Babylon. And yeah a lot of them, just more male apes, yeah. For sure.
The financial system is a PRIVATE JEWISH ZIOGLOBALIST BANKING SYSTEM -- and actually includes many nonbank IFIs. I suggest seriously starting with Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind (sic) by Stephen Mitford Goodson, former South Afican banking head. He explains the system well but his politics are not desirable. We don't read to agree, we read to learn from everyone, including many men, to learn.
If you understand world politics as rothschild trying to get his banks, yeah, you can see. Hitler printed his own money. Italy did. Japan did. Notice something here? American colonies did at one time too, and were wildly successful.
It's as basic as printing money as a debit or a credit. Roths and friends hijacked state right tp print money and US congress gave it away without consent of the People. because they were blackmailed, just as in Genesis.
We print money as a debit and pay Rothsc rent on it. That's basically you can't have a country. So, I hope you start to understand this. Ezra Pound went out of his mind trying to explain to people. Where he failed I will succeed.
States need to print their own moneys, period. Private banks hijacked this basic state right. First in England B of E. It's not Britain's bank! It's Rothschild's!!
This is the key also to women's emancipation and I am glad to hear people talking econ but yeah you're still looking at the FRONTS AND not what is behind. Stop listening just to Mary Daly. Come on. She can't know the world now.
Great debate. Here's another take. https://youtu.be/rIQI3mZQN0Q
love that
https://ia800200.us.archive.org/3/items/ancientchristia05taylgoog/ancientchristia05taylgoog.pdf
Study of ancient Christianity by a reputable scholar from Archive
If you stop at Christianity, you have not gone far enough.
Definitely, we have Islam following on the same tradition but more brutal. And Hinduism, and Ancient Greece or Hellenistic Astrology, Buddhism, New Age oneness. Judaism is only part of the origins of patriarchy. Some American Indigenous cultures were also part of it, the Chinese and Japanese empires. Babylon, Mesopotamia, the Roman empire... It's been a widespread mental illness for thousands of years
On HRT: This can lead to many cancers, particularly uterine. My mother got uterine cancer from HRT as well as gall bladder removal. THe two are linked. HRT overloads body with synthetic steroid that the liver cannot process. Puts stress on GB. Huge rash of GB removals and uterine cancers. So it's causing disease and cost my mother her ovaries, uterus and gall bladder. DO NOT DO IT!
Also do not just take shatavari or estrogenics unless you are knowingly low on estrogen.Even herbs can imbalance you and cause issues. Everyone's process will be different. I think estrogen supplementation is causing a lot of problems and cancers. Rockefeller MDs are quacks and I hope that is becoming clear. QUACKS like a duck....
My grandmother also had her gallbladder removed but she was never on HRT
How old is your mother? Oral oestrogen does cause cancer. And it was prescribed before topic or vaginal one was used. It seems recent research shows those two ways of administration are safe.
Whatever normal men means. I agree that men are in power and your God is viewed as a man. That doesn't mean I want to trade places either, but you thought I felt envy because of that. I don't believe in any battle unlike you who said war is necessary at times. Another one of your numerous cognitive disonances. The entitlement and arrogance of "most men being gentlemen who deserve the benefit of the doubt"! Metaphysical and phylosophical questions have always been there a long time before Judaism and the bible existed. Educational and morality which were wrong for the most part and killed and tortured many human beings in the name of your invisible friend. Who cares about pretty hair?
Socialism is acknowledging some men exploit everyone around them and wishing to overturn the power of a few to the power of the majority. Then Stalin turned everything fascism and from them on it hasn't changed. It's not envy of wealth. It's wanting to be treated like a human being and being compensated as much for my energy and service to others as the king and ceos. Why is their energy compensated and valued more than mine? It's not envy. It's justice.
Greed is also a sin in your book, but you don't mention it.
Male CEO's being paid more than female midwives who might have been the ones who helped their mothers bringing them into this world safely is just outrageous. I can't feel envy when I'm not a mother or a midwife. But you might be projecting your own emotions on me.
When have I mentioned a heavenly reboot? What are you talking about?
Tell me which war has not killed innocent people. You live in such a world of illusion. It is unbelievable. The law and heroes welcomes are part of the lies men tell themselves and their ridiculous worldview.
The promise of a future makes no man try to actually work towards peace and leave their stupid urge to rule the world and loot it for their own benefit.
I forgot to mention that socialism was seen as the proletariat's fascism which as any fascism goes becomes untenable in the long run. Socialist/communist men are working class men wishing to have the lives of those men exploiting them. They don't think about what women want or need. They like any other men exploit women in marriage, friendship, cohabitation, neighbourhoods, communities, offices, workplaces, governments, movements, organisations, ...
But is it ALL men or just some men? And does that matter? Just asking seriously. My answer is it is some men, although I basically despair daily of my own very intense misandry. But my misandry is not healthy for me either. I mean I have to live in the world. My view is men would have already gotten much better BUT FOR THE MONEY POWER, so yeah I blame the group of Jewish men and I think more people who understand the truth of history will understand this. YES OUR men did try to resist the blackmail. Actually this is blocked out of Judeocentric history but Hitler did not want war and made three peace offers. You Brits probably never heard it. Hitler actually wanted to stop animal cruelty and put herbalism into the medical system. He was a socialist if you didn't know. And no, he didn't do what they said he did. NO way.
I just hope some of those people are feminists. So far, it looks like you are not allowed to speak of such things.
Yeah I probably blew all of your heads up but please don't ban me. Women need me even if you don't see what I am saying is true yet. Maybe you will. I hope you do.
I'm not a misandrist. I just have nearly enough anger and hate to match men's crimes on me and people like me and I'm a woman, a disabled woman, a now middle-aged woman. An immigrant woman. Not British like you assumed. Because my native language is not English, the English speaking world will not consider me nor call me an ex-pat woman which is so telling. The experiments done on people by Nazi Germany are enough to make anyone sick. Jewish men are a great part of the patriarchal burden in the world but so was Hitler, Himler, Menguele, and other German men. I don't care about distinguishing between some or all men. I leave that to the men who know they're guilty of crimes, oppression, suppression, and exploitation. I know it's too many men. And too many women participating and maintaining patriarchy and its tools of power.
I forgot to mention as usual. It's part of my disability. That my anger or hate for men isn't enough to match the crimes they commit on people like me: women. And it goes further because I'm not a native citizen, without disabilities, feminine for the most part, interested in men sexually, romantically, for friendship, cohabitation, or in any other way, thin, young, childlike,... But the starting and central point because I'm a woman and vulnerable. Killing a whole ethnoreligious group didn't solve anything or will solve anything, Hitler is proof of it. He was just another sociopathic power hungry man amongst the many other German men and women supporting his regime at the time.
The concept of the “Trinity” is a Christian one, not solely Roman Catholic. I suggest you read some more.
Radical feminists in many cases are opposed to religious viewpoints for the simple reason that religion is primarily male-centred but exploits women’s socialisation to preserve their religious communities. Very little that religions of any sort have to say supports females’ self-actualisation but actively repress women and girls, in the same old patriarchal fashion.
“The same fantasists women helped to create”? It’s not feminists who have pushed pornography, prostitution and pimping at the young of every society, debasing relationships between the sexes and driving young boys and girls to turn away from the toxic postures and sexualisation that drives them to present themselves as other than their actual sex.
You are not supporters of women speaking for ourselves.
And these religious communities, my darlings they are actual military subversions. Like have any of you heard of the freemasons? Where did you think they went? They exist today but no fems talk about it. YOu talk over the top of reality and miss the machinations screwing your lives.
They are military orders and the Jesuits admitted they are a phallic sex cult. Abbe de Barreul. And also hate to tell ya Loyola (founder of Jesuits) was a Jew. THey admit they are masculist fag cults. And this is the stupid and dark side of the old boys clubs: freemason faggotry.
No religions support female self-actualisation. While some Jewish and Muslim texts seem to support women they do so to maintain male control over females. Radical feminists do not, generally, support mainstream religions. Furthermore radical feminists played no part on promoting gender ideology. Feminism has been combatting “gender” - sex role stereotypes - forever: back to suffragists and back to the earliest struggles of women to loosen the shackles of patriarchy. Religions of all sorts seek to maintain the patriarchy and that is why we reject man-made religion. There are female and male people; that is all. “Gender” has no place in any society that supports equality for women, while gender roles still want to put boys and girls in stereotypical strait-jackets.
No feminist of any sort or female should support this masculist cults of power. That is what they really are. Come on, let's really name it.
"TERFs are self-segregating?" Are you kidding? If you mean Radical Feminists, we've been fighting this fight for decades. What you call self-segregating is our being marginalized by the factions of patriarchy described here and Liberal Feminists (who support Gender Ideology) as well. We are the only group against whom violence is deemed justified. Trans Activists and their "Liberal" allies openly advocate brutality against "TERFs" and act on it, with the help of Antifa thugs ironically acting as Brown Shirts at any gathering of Gender Critical women and allies. Women are swarmed, called Nazis, spit on, and punched, resulting in bleeding and broken bones as police look on and ignore acts of violence against us.
We do work with other groups, but we have no illusions about being used as a means to an end by religiously driven groups who will give us the only platform to reach the public (only Tucker Carlson ever had women from the #LetWomenSpeak events on his show to talk about violence directed against them) while simultaneously blaming Feminists for the beginnings of the Gender Ideology movement. Lesbians, in particular, are vilified by all three factions described here as Lesbian community spaces are being legally prohibited and existence as part of the sex class of women is being erased.
None of the patriarchal threesome cares about the well-being of women. The Right wants physical ownership and control, including slave births; the Left exploits our power as voters and volunteers while comodifying women for prostitution and paid surrogacy; and the Trans Activists want to erase women altogether, stealing the language we use to describe ourselves, stigmatizing words used to describe female anatomy and reproductive processes, ending our legal protections as a distinct Sex Class.
We may have common cause, but our goals are in direct opposition. The one true agreement is the safety of children, who are being harmed by Gender Ideology, with the encouragement of Liberals under the spell of emotional manipulation that claims gender affirming care prevents suicide, in spite of evidence it does the opposite.
The difference is RadFems/Gender Critical activists do not want to eradicate transgenderism. We do not deny or abhor the existence of trans individuals as many on the Right do. Our goal is to preserve women-only spaces and services while limiting gender medical interventions to adults old enough to understand the social and physical ramifications of transition.
You say Liberal Feminists "support Gender Ideology" and "RadFems/Gender Critical activists do not want to eradicate transgenderism".
What do you mean by "Gender Ideology" and "transgenderism"?
Gender Ideology refers to belief in the existence of a gender identity that can exist in variance to an individual's sex. It is being imposed as a sort of state-supported religion in spite of contradicting scientific facts. Transgenderism is the state identifying as trans. Radical Feminists to not want the eradication of trans people. We support their rights to fair housing, education, employment, etc. We do not agree with the belief that "trans women are women" and we object to the policy of Self ID, which opens what should be female-only spaces to men with no restrictions. It is completely possible to support both Trans Rights and Women's Rights, but that isn't happening. Instead, the needs and rights of women are being subordinated to the feelings of Trans Identified Males.
We also understand that no child under 16 has developed the higher brains functions necessary to consent to life-altering therapies and sugeries. We are not "Anti-Trans," we are Pro-Woman and Pro-Child Safeguarding.
Transgenderism is the same as gender ideology. Trans people are gender non-conforming or gender dysphoric people. Radical feminism supports gender non-conforming people not transgenderism nor gender ideology.
I do not support any kind of mentally ill person calling themselves trans. I feel they need help. No they don't have any right to housing or education or anything. YES I DO WANT THEIR ERADICATION. IT'S A PSYOP OR DISEASE, EITHER WAY, NO NO NO. Stop allowing biology to be ruined. You are not even scientifically literate so you are guardian of biology? Nope.
Your position is losing and still supports trans rights against women's existence.
If you conceptualise "transgenderism" as the "state (of) identifying as trans" and that "Gender Ideology refers to belief in the existence of a gender identity that can exist in variance to an individual's sex" that is "sort of state-supported religion in spite of contradicting scientific facts", then how do you contrast people who simply believe in "gender ideology" with people who in addition "identify as trans"?
Using the religion analogy, people who believe in "gender ideology" would be people with a religious belief, eg. Christians, Muslims, Hindus.
How do people who "identify as trans" fit into this? They would not be just adherents of a religion, like those who simply believe in "the existence of a gender identity that can exist in variance to an individual's sex".
Within the religion analogy, are you adopting a sort of "trans as shaman" position? Trans as "touched by the hand of God"?
I have to say that I have not come across "transgenderism" being used in the way that you do, which is partly why I asked the question. It is more commonly used as a synonym for "gender identity ideology".
However, "transsexualism" was/is a medical diagnosis so I can see why you might be using "transgenderism" in a similar way.
Yes, transgenderism is different from transexualism. In order to identify as transgender you have to believe that you have a "gender identity." I think that's a misnomer. It's style, personality, combined with an obsessive need to conform to traditional patriarchal sex roles. Wearing makeup and dresses doesn't define a person's sexual identity. It doesn't change their sex. It shouldn't be taken as a sign that they need SRS. That's concrete, black and white thinking that society had (we thought) grown past in the 60s-70s-80s with the acceptance of androgyny and "gender-bending" led by the fashion and music industries. We've gone from "there are no rules" to "these are the rules, and don't you dare question them!" The medicalization of transgenderism is what's new, and a few people, like the Pritzker family, are making billions convincing unhappy and often mentally ill people, including kids too young to understand an abstract concept like gender, that they can't be happy without puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery. Or worse, that having those treatments will solve their problems. There's a reason so many trans kids are Autistic - they take things more literally than most people. Tell any kid that a boy who likes to play with dolls is a girl trapped in the wrong body, and they take it as fact because they don't yet have the mental faculties to examine the idea critically. The concept should never be mentioned to anyone under 16. Every kid that identifies as trans represents $3.2 million for the medical profession. Ethical doctors in Europe are realizing now that transition doesn't prevent suicide - in fact, it may do just the opposite. There may be a few people who are genuinely helped, but they're rare. What is happening most often is they're sterilizing gay and lesbian kids. This is a medical scandal brewing. The first lawsuits in America are being filed now by biological females who were pushed through transition as early as 13, who claim they were exploited at a time when they were confused, vulnerable, and needed therapy rather than surgery. We need to slow down, do better studies that follow detransitioners, and examine the current narrative that says this is therapeutic.
I appreciate your lengthy explanation and most of it I would agree with as being factually accurate. However, I do not feel that this gets to the heart of what I am querying, which is your position with regard to "gender ideology" which you say is different to your position with regard to "transgenderism".
This was my first reply:
----------
You say Liberal Feminists "support Gender Ideology" and "RadFems/Gender Critical activists do not want to eradicate transgenderism".
What do you mean by "Gender Ideology" and "transgenderism"?
---------
In your reply to me you made an analogy with religion and I replied asking how you see people who "identify as trans" fitting into the idea that "gender ideology" operates as "a sort of state-supported religion".
I possibly threw you off track by mentioning transsexualism.
You say, "transgenderism is different from transexualism. In order to identify as transgender you have to believe that you have a "gender identity." and later "The medicalization of transgenderism is what's new".
I think this is a bit of a red herring.
Firstly, "transsexualism" as a medical diagnosis does not necessarily have anything to do with "medicalisation", ie. body modification using surgery or hormones. The diagnosis of transsexualism, which posits possession of a cross-sex "gender identity", is what justifies access to medicalised body modification. Sometimes "gender identity" is referred to as "sex identity" or "sexual identity" but the concept is exactly the same as "gender identity".
Secondly, the "medicalisation of transgenderism" is not at all new. It has been going on for about 100 years.
The difference now is that it is an extremely lucrative and growing industry that targets children as well as adults, by promoting the notion that "transgenderism" exists, ie. that it is possible to have a "gender identity" and, further, that it is possible for this "gender identity" to be that of the opposite sex - or no sex or something in between.
I am not sure from what you have written whether you really believe that "transgenderism" (as a personal thing) exists. You do not believe that "gender identities" exist but to believe in "transgenderism" you have to believe that "gender identities" exist.
Unless by "transgenderism" you mean "suffering from the delusion of having a gender identity and also that that gender identity is that of the opposite sex or no sex or something in between"?
If so, that delusion seems to cause unhappiness and a wish, even before the Pritzker influence, for extreme body modification to "match" the supposed "gender identity", which in most cases results in even greater unhappiness.
Why then would you not want to "eradicate transgenderism"?
What is happening now has disturbing echoes of the Skoptsy:
Castrating Children in the Service of Male Sexuality
Men's Fetishistic Practices Behind ‘Gender Dysphoria’
https://genevievegluck.substack.com/p/castrating-children-in-the-service
The Bible and your God, a patriarch, as well as Judaism are hateful, pro-war and sexist. The fact that your god is seen as male proves my point. But we only have to look at the bible for contradictions, hate, murder, and torture and domination of women and anything not Jewish. The murders committed at times by god and his angels when not obeyed his premises. Lilith is a prime example
THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY JEWS. Anything not Jewish? Are you a Jew? Wonderful "reasoning" you have.
Your cognitive disonances are numerous in this brief paragraph. I don't have the energy to dispell them all for you. What even is girl-power? War is not murder? God is male and that's the way it is? Plain Jane? the looker? Why are men going to have some advantages over women? You'll find is actually men who envy women because we create life, full human beings, something men have always envied hence patriarchy, sexism, and misogyny. Also being aware of most DNA is produced by the mother and her lineage. Your invisible friend in the sky can be imagined as a man by you and the other men who envy women for these and many other reasons. That might give you some comfort. Keep living your illusion but don't force it on us. You sound like any of the TIM's who think they are entitled to impose their illusion of being women on the rest of the world. Believe what you must and leave the rest of us alone. George was glorified in history because men chose to do that and they like to be very vocal about it especially not allowing any other narratives in their awareness or everybody else's. The biblical worldview is a set of rules and norms to impose a certain hegemony of males, especially white males of any denomination including Jewish men and their wives (only submissive women). A "woke" casting would be that your invisible friend in the sky is a non binary black person wearing lipstick instead of a white beard. Don't get me confused with that type of narrative.
I wouldn't call Tucker an ally. He was the only one to give #LetWomenSpeak any coverage at all, but he did it because it served his anti-liberal agenda. Women are called Nazis and sellouts for appearing on Right-wing media, but the Center-Left treats us as if we're invisible. People need to know what is happening to Women's Rights and about the violence being directed at Gender Critical activists because trans activists openly glorify the brutalization of women and Liberals take part in it.
There are alt males and alt right that is pro feminist but very delicately since they are masculists at heart. But they don't want trannies and don't want their females attacked. So, you need to really realize beggars can't be choosers and this is a GOOD thing.
Can you appreciate a decent turn of events, use it to your advantage and move on? Or shall you subject it to more endless useless leftist ideological litmus tests.
My experience is neither right nor left can actually address the problems. Your emotional biases are too great on both sides.
Let us all pause, take a breath, and step back for a moment. It is truly unenlightening when we write on a subject we no little to nothing about. From what I have read, it is eminently clear that this fault is alive and well. Which is very unfortunate in that our goal (or at least what I think to be our goal) is unification rather than division. The statement, “the Trinity is an exclusively Catholic concept and not Christian,” is patently untrue. Even the swiftest “google” will bear this out.
The term Catholic defines the Roman Catholic Church and literally refers to the whole Christian Church (Body). The term Protestant refers to any of the various Christian bodies, or subsets, (Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc.) that split from the Roman Catholic Church at the persuasions of Luther during the Reformation.
This is merely an issue of being correct with the terms we use. The word Christian means anyone who follows or believes in the deity of Jesus Christ. Thus, the correct hierarchy leaves Christian as a superlative, and a Catholic and a Protestant as subordinate to Christian. Christianity, then, is comprised of two major denominations – Catholicism and Protestantism. And both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge the Trinity and baptize in the “name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
No, no. You are in fact making a very good observation indeed. Three major Christian denominations have long been debatable. Especially for those who live on the East side of the great pond. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church claim to have been found directly by Yeshua (Jesus Christ). Many people defer the simultaneous founding to Catholicism rather than Eastern Orthodoxy, even though its doctrine differs from Catholicism. As a Western, we have been indoctrinated to the idea of two major denominations, actually leaving us less informed than we ought to be. To render the subject comprehensive, I have to say that you are actually far more informative than I. Very well done!
There was no historical Jewsus. Jewsus was created by Paul, who was a Jew. Check Know MOre News, Jesusneverexisted.com, works by Dorothy S murdoch (Acharya S -- wonderful unknown female scholar here). Comes from the SUN GOD who became the SON GOD. Lots of influences. Jews consolidate monotheism for control and power and you see where that is today.
I think your eyes are tuned to the proper perspective. I side for it being a true account.
Catholic and Orthodox are two wings of the same original rite, like the Latin and Greek spheres of the Roman Empire. They had a schism. Protestantism is a reinvention entirely, and should be called something else besides Christianity, IMO.
I wouldn’t consider it such, but surely I’m in the minority. I’ve heard many people in my lifetime from other Protestant sects refer to it as a cult. Anyone can invent a religion and call it what they like, but whether it is or not is entirely subjective, I guess. To me, the Christian religion was begun in the ancient Roman Empire, the main character and the events of the New Testament take place there, and it became the official state religion. Protestants are their own authorities of whatever it is that they are, but they’re not the authorities on Christ, IMO. I’ve only recently come to value the rites that people have practiced for millennia, after simply turning my nose up to religion generally for most of my life. I endured evangelical abuse in childhood, and can say that when my sole surviving birth parent left the Catholic Church for evangelical Protestantism, I was subjected to characters like Jim Jones, which I don’t see as an improvement over orthodox Christianity at all. Without the structure of the ancient tradition, American Protestantism in particular has gone in some strange and destructive directions, and most often, isn’t a real improvement upon it, or at least, I fail to see how. Just because I’m socially isolated from these various groups doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t acknowledge and value the rites and traditions of organized religions. They endure not because they are infallible, but because they speak to the emotional and social needs of humans. Just wish more men could see that their fear of Nature is why they are so obsessed with controlling women, and organized religion, especially those which proceed from literature, is a codification of it.
Excuse me for correcting you, but "In terms of number of adherents, nontrinitarian denominations comprise a small minority of modern Christians." And the main nontrinitarian Christian sect named is LDS. Who believe God, Jesus, and the Holy spirit are three separate entities. A quibble I could never get my head around when I was trying to be a believer. (Along with many, many other illogical doctrines which dis-empower women.) Jo is using the trinity as a metaphor to visualize the position that a young woman is in today. Which man made myth should she trust? The answer is none of them. (My source for the quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism)
Homoöusios/homoiousios is a huge division for a jot of a letter; I thought that that had been settled at Nicaea. Cathars, Mormons, Unitarians are outside the strict boundaries of Christianity erected there but it doesn’t really matter for this metaphor of Jo’s: all religions have been made to control females and elevate males. And the men’s rights religion of gender ideology is another such; it’s simply not in women’s interests to go along with it.
I come from a pentecostal background and the Trinity is very much a concept. In fact, I've never heard of any denomination not embracing it. Did you mean Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses not embracing the Trinity?
Excuse me for correcting you, but Catholics are Christians, whereas Protestantism is something invented much more recently. It is akin to the ancient Roman reinvention of Mithraism. Taking another civilization’s deities, rites, and/or scriptures and reinventing them should then rightly be called something else. This sounds like mansplaining, and I request that you lick your wounds elsewhere, sir.
Many believe that Mithraism is what influenced Christianity. However, it's debatable. I looked into it years ago and would have to dig it up again down the road a bit. I do remember that while Christianity has it's issues, I wasn't convinced about the Mithra connection. I'd rather focus on problems I can prove.