On 23 April, Helen Zille made a social media post in which she doubled-down on her transphobic stance, chillingly throwing in the word "contagion" numerous times for good measure. Like transgender people are some sort of "disease" that spreads and endangers feminism - and society. Unlike TERFdom of course, whose apparent purpose is to "defend women's spaces" and "feminist gains" over the past century. (Insert eye-roll here).
First I'll repost her statement, and then address it beneath that. Be ready for a long read. And yes, have a "trigger warning" - and another, while you're at it. The last time I was this upset by reading material, it was when I reviewed "The Pink Agenda" and almost ripped the book in half. This cringeworthy post by a leading figure within South Africa's second-largest political party should set off an avalanche of outrage in anyone who doesn't have a zipper running down the backs of their human suits.
It should beg the questions: 1) How did we not notice Zille's lurch toward far-right extremism before now? 2) What does her shift into the realm of red-hat-wearing conspiracy theory and hatemongering populism mean for the Democratic Alliance and its traditional base of liberal, "woke" supporters?
Decide for yourself.
Helen Zille's post transcribed from Facebook:
By Helen Zille, 23 April, 2025:
The "Trans" Debate Revisited.
"As many of my followers on X would know, I have "come out" in favour of the Scottish Court ruling that sex is biologically-based, and that the term "woman" derives from this distinction.
I have also strongly supported author JK Rowling in the debate that is raging in the UK. In comparison, there has only been a ripple of anger here at home. In the interest of a free and fair exchange of views, I express my position below, as fully as I can.
1. I believe gender dysphoria exists. It is a very rare condition. Where it is properly identified and diagnosed, people with gender dysphoria deserve all the support, acceptance and compassion they need. This includes proper gender affirming care and transitioning.
2. I do believe that sex is biologically based. That is obviously true because it requires sperm and an ovum to make a baby. The difference between them is biological, male and female. I therefore support the outcome of the case in Scotland on this matter. Sex is not a social construct. Race is.
3. I also support JK Rowling’s argument that Trans rights cannot be enforced at the expense of women’s rights. Women have fought too long and too hard to be taken seriously as professionals, and for recognition in all spheres, including sport. This has been a battle on many fronts, from the fight against sexual harassment to the right of maternity leave, and even such mundane things as sports bras -- none of which existed during my early years as a professional. Now they are routine, and it is a big step forward, although we have a long way to go. Part of this battle has been the right to “women’s only spaces”.
4. I also think JK Rowling is right that (especially in Britain and the US) the priority emphasis on Trans Rights provides an avenue for men to gain access to women’s spaces again -- from change rooms, to prisons, to sport -- so that they can once again dominate unfairly and make many women uncomfortable (at the very least). There is a growing number of examples of how this had boomeranged badly, starting with rapes in women’s prisons.
5. About ten years ago, I noticed that “Trans” people had become the cause celebre of the Left. People were feted when they “came out” and celebrated as brave and bold. This recognition was a passport to acceptance and “belonging” in a growing (and trendy) community. Trans women demanded to be recognised as biological women, and suddenly no-one was able to say what a woman was. Many of the hard-won rights of women were suddenly being eroded in the name of a “progressive” cause, and women who wanted to defend the gains of the past few decades were labelled TERFS and other derogatory terms.
6. But the greatest danger has been posed to vulnerable tweens, teens and adolescents in general. Most adolescents go through an identity crisis of some sort. Many face deep rejection, marginalisation and loneliness at school, for whatever reason. That is ideal and fertile ground for a social contagion to take root.
7. In our day it was bulimia and anorexia. The role models of the day were Twiggy et al, and that is what sparked the obsession with having stick-like limbs. Now the role models are Caitlin Jenner et al, feted for bravery, along with the slew of attention-seeking Hollywood stars who suddenly have transgender children, from Angelina Jolie to Charlize Theron, to demonstrate how progressive they are -- it comes across as a form of virtue signalling.
8. Now you can imagine a tortured adolescent at school. Identifying as Trans immediately gives you recognition, a badge of courage, acceptance and a supportive peer group. This kind of affirmation is what most adolescents yearn for and the Trans movement today offers that in spades. That is really the only way one can explain the phenomenon of up to five adolescents per school grade suddenly identifying as trans (and children even younger)
9. I read “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shrier and was profoundly affected by it. Enormous harm is currently being done in this field. And it really is irreversible.
10. I know that “Gender Affirming Care” including HRT, is now available at the Red Cross Children’s hospital. Except in profoundly rare cases, I can only see massive harm being done in this field. I support the doctors who have formed an organisation called “First Do No Harm” who are resisting this, because when this phase passes, there will be a lot more irreversible damage in our society.
11. I have no problem with men dressing as women or vice versa. I have no problem with sex between consenting adults in private. I have no problem with Drag -- in fact I had good fun myself in a drag show not too long ago.
12. I do have a problem with some Trans women who act in a way (replete with giggling and fluttering eyelashes) that turn women into caricatures (mindless idiots), but I believe in the axiom “live and let live”, so I generally just ignore it.
13. I have a problem with manufacturers of women’s products (from sports bras to sanitary towels) using Trans women to advertise them. I remember Dylan Mulvaney, a skinny adolescent with a concave chest, being used to advertise spots bras for women. The manufacturers of these bras are making a mockery of all women who have really battled to play many sports because of large breasts.
14. I also have a problem with biological men once again eroding the hard-won rights of biological women. I object to the way society once again immediately believes the rights of the former should trump the rights of the latter.
15. If using bathrooms is an issue then the solution is to provide a third option, or one that does not require women sharing intimate spaces with men.
16. I think in ten years’ time, when this phase has passed, women’s rights will re-assert themselves, but in the meantime these rights have to be asserted kept alive and I am behind JK Rowling on this one.
17. I have never attacked or criticised transgender people But I am deeply concerned by the current wave of young people identifying as “trans” (the extent of which clearly indicates a social contagion of sorts) -- and one that in many cases will do irreversible damage.
18. I recognise that there are many people who do not agree with me, and I will always defend their right to do so and to argue their case. I also expect them to recognise my right to disagree with them. And to argue my case vigorously."
* * *
Well.
Here's my measured response to this shocking display of ignorance about transgender identity and issues as a whole, the character assassination of transwomen, right-wing populism and dog-whistling, and use of political and social power and influence in support of TERF terrorism against a persecuted minority group in South Africa and other places around the world.
I condemn Helen Zille's transphobia and malicious anti-human rights activism in the strongest terms possible.
I condemn Helen Zille's transphobia and malicious anti-human rights activism in the strongest terms possible.
And herewith, my response:
First off, there is no "Trans debate". There, see how I used quotation marks? Not around "trans", but around "trans debate". We exist, we're not some "pretense" like your pretense to be "liberal" or in any way concerned about the welfare of transgender people, or human rights.
Secondly, why are you still on "X", Helen? No self-respecting liberal politician or personality would still waste their time on that platform because since the Muskrat hijacked it, it turned into a swamp crawling with neo-Nazis. People go there to get radicalized in right wing ideology. Is that where you became radicalized by TERF ideology and disinformation?
Thirdly, MY existence and MY right to exist is not up for "debate". How do you "debate" human rights? That is, without invalidating someone's human rights? Without dehumanizing the group you're "debating"? Especially when there is clearly no room in your "debate" for a change in your "opinion" - even when you're wrong? How dare you refer to me and other transgender people as "a contagion"? And then to pretend that you've "never attacked or criticized transgender people"?
To address your points in your posts, as numbered by you:
1. Yes, gender dysphoria exists - it is a very rare condition. Statistically less than 1% of the world's population experiences it. That still doesn't seem to be little enough for TERFs like you to give transwomen a little place in the sun and to allow us to co-exist peacefully beside you as women, does it? How weak must a majority be to be threatened by less than 1% of the global population that actually lives in fear?
2. The belief that sex is biologically based is a misnomer. So is your prejudiced notion that "sex is not a social construct", when sociology confirms that the social perceptions of sex, gender roles, recognition of numerous different genders IS in fact, a social construct. This view is also shared by other social sciences like anthropology - and even history. So "sex is not a social construct", but "race is"? While both have biological bases for the formation of biases and social prejudices like sexism and racism? How is what you've said not minimizing sexism, if not in fact, legitimizing of it? Especially since, while refering to science you seem to think supports your prejudices (and distorting their views to suit yourself), you ignore those that do not - like psychology and psychiatry, various fields of medicine like endocrinology, neurology, and the like? Because they contradict your biases?
Here are a few scientific studies for you:
Brain Structure Differences: Study: "White Matter Microstructure in Transgender Individuals" (2017). Findings: Transgender individuals often have brain structures that align more closely with their gender identity than their sex assigned at birth.
Genetic & Hormonal Influences: Study: "Genetic Link Between Gender Identity and Sex Development" (2019). Findings: Certain genetic variations (e.g., in androgen receptor genes) are more common in transgender individuals.
Gender Affirmation Improves Well-Being: Study: "Mental Health Outcomes in Transgender and Nonbinary Youths Receiving Gender-Affirming Care" (2022, JAMA Pediatrics) Findings: Gender-affirming care (e.g., puberty blockers, social transition) significantly reduces depression and suicidality.
Long-Term Benefits of Transition: Meta-Analysis: "Hormone Therapy and Mental Health in Transgender Adults" (2020, PLOS ONE). Findings: Hormone therapy is strongly associated with improved quality of life and reduced dysphoria.
American Medical Association (AMA): Statement: "Gender-Affirming Care is Medically Necessary" (2021).
American Psychological Association (APA): Guidelines: "Transgender Identity is Not a Mental Disorder" (2015).
World Health Organization (WHO): ICD-11 Classification: Gender incongruence is no longer classified as a mental disorder (2019).
Endocrine Society: Clinical Guidelines: "Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy Improves Outcomes" (2017).
These results are what I found in just a simple five minute search online. Could you not have made the effort to do this search yourself before flinging yourself down the rabbithole of conspiracy theory and transphobia? When you were a journalist, did you not understand the concepts of objectivity or critical thinking?
3. Trans rights are NOT enforced at the expense of women's rights - and to assert that it is, is a flat-out lie. Transwomen identifying as women has never cost ciswomen anything. If anything, the inclusion of transwomen has advanced women's rights and feminism. What do women lose from co-existing with transwomen? If you want to see any negative consequences of the inclusion of transwomen, take a closer look at the effects of reactionary bigotry - and that's where you will see them: women policing other women's right to be regarded as women, or "woman enough" by shallow, meaningless measures such as appearance, beauty, dress, and conformity to outdated standards - and in fact, the whole patriarchal misogynistic package. That's right - TERFs like yourself and Rowling and her cabal of gender-critical reactionary terrorists - are enforcing the same patriarchal rubbish that men enforced on them, on transwomen and each other, and on all women - and then act as if they're "protecting women's spaces". How does that make any kind of sense?
4. This point is a bizarre mix of insanity, ignorance and stupidity. Even I am shocked at you for this one - and embarrased for you. First off, transwomen ARE NOT MEN. Secondly, how does it make sense for you to claim that transwomen gain anything (in terms of "dominating women") by being sent to women's prisons?! Do you know what transwomen inmates AVOID by being sent to women prisons? They avoid getting raped by male prisoners and male prison staff. The same "benefits" I expect, you would hope for ciswomen in any prison system - at least, I would hope. Why on earth would you jump to the irrational conclusion that transwomen inmates are the rapists you refer to in women's prisons? Secondly, since you seem to know all about it, WHY do you assume transwomen should be assumed to be rapists, as you claim? Do you have any evidence to back this up? A single shred of evidence to show that it is a problem in the prisons you're talking about? Or, infact, anywhere else than in prisons? How about in women's change rooms, for example? Let's see an example of a rape by a transwoman taking place in a women's change room? And, even if you do find 1 or maybe 2 examples from the last century or so, how does that compare to rape stats by cismen - or to narrow it down a little more, to rapes committed by right wing politicians or religious clergy? Or did you just pull that stupid remark out of your ass?
Thirdly, when it comes to transwomen participating in women's sport, a lot of ignorant, hysterical nonsense has been claimed about transwomen - that they are "men who transition to participate as women, because they can't hack it in men's sport", and the like. I even lost a friend I'd had for 30 years over that stupid comment, so let me be clear that I take this sort of asshattery and blatant lying very personally. Who in their right state of mind - even a man - would put themselves through an irreversible and physically disruptive, socially traumatic process like medically transitioning genders just for the sake of participating in sport? As a transwoman myself, I think that anyone who believes this happens has got to be clinically insane. Further, on this point, do you even know the percentage of transwomen participating in women's sport today? At least, up until the red-hat wearing Nazis in the US started making transwomen disappear this year from most aspects of American society, including sport? Less than 1%. That's right, you're making a mountain out of a molehill - of 99+% of cisgender female athletes competing against a less than 1% of transwomen athletes. And interestingly enough, all that "male privilege" and "biological advantage" you TERFs like to claim allows them to "dominate women" evaporates when you looks at the sporting achievements of competitive transwomen athletes. Their performance, as it turns out, when competing against ciswomen - is just average.
5. Hoo boy, but this point really had my BP climbing! Firsly, you clearly never stopped to think WHY trans issues came to the fore for "the left", as you right-wingers seem to call it these days. If you had, you would've noticed that "the right" had made trans issues their primary target, rallying point, and scapegoat for all society's apparent ills. Meanwhile, in the real world, transgender people are in fact a persecuted minority. Have you ever looked up the number of transgender people murdered around the world annually - that is, not just incidentally murdered, but murdered FOR being trans? In the USA alone? In the UK? Even here in South Africa? No, I'm sure you haven't, because nobody who know that values human rights (as you claim to) would say something as callously indifferent as that. Do us all a favor and relieve yourself of that ignorance, and look up the latest stats: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/20/trans-day-remembrance-marked-grim-murder-data.
Secondly on this point, TERFs are not "defending the rights of women" - they erode them. They seemingly don't realize that the vilification of transwomen applies to them as well, resulting in increased strife for all women. Don't think so? Then why, as a result of TERF agitation, are cisgender women being ejected from women's spaces - i.e. public toilets because they "look trans"? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10833067/Woman-22-barred-ladies-toilets-M-S-staff-mistook-man.html TERFs are exacerbating misogyny. They're literal terrorists, albeit stochastic ones - they are willing tools of idealogues who engender (pun intended) dogwhistling populism.
If you're wondering why transgender issues have become the focus of "the left", or why these issues SHOULD matter to anyone who has human empathy, it's because to be liberal MEANS caring about what happens to other people - something you, as a supposed "liberal" - seem to have forgotten. But then, you seem to have taken a distinct lurch to the extreme right in the last few decades, haven't you, Helen? Since you're so vocally critical about "Woke", perhaps you should read up on the subject to find out what Woke actually is, where it came from, and what it means - because you clearly either don't know, or deliberately oppose it - which for a politician of your supposed caliber, is deeply concerning. I wrote an article about it the other day, here's the link:
6. Here again you use the term "contagion". I admit, I saw red the first time I saw your use of the word to describe transgender people - it is after all, abhorrent. It is the lingua-franca of eugenicists, or genocidal idealogues like Hitler, Goebels, Himmler - and Mengele. Are transgender people a "contagion" to you, Helen? Am I a disease? Is my existence to be feared and hated and cracked down upon like a pandemic - and eliminated, and society innoculated against? That remark is too sickening for words, and you should be utterly ashamed for even putting that down in public. One would think that someone like you who has had the benefit of an education would know better.
7. Caitlyn Jenner may be a transwoman, but she's a very poor example. Not only is she insulated from the real world's hate by her wealth and influence, but she's so out of touch with the reality faced by ordinary poor people who are trans, that she literally voices support for the politicians who would cheerfully send everyone like her (and me) to one of Trump's new death camps where he's been sending all the US's "undesirables" and "very bad people". It's not lost on me that, again, by comparing being transgender to eating disorders, you're asserting that being trans is a disease - a "contagion". An entirely avoidable affliction. Of course, you're concluding that because there suddenly seems to be so many more transgender people visible in society, and now transgender kids as well, that this must be some sort of fashion statement or passing fad that just doesn't seem to want to go away.
Have you ever considered that a) you're out of touch? b) that transgender people have always existed, even as children? After all, I didn't just wake up one day in my 20s and decide to be trans - I knew from very early childhood that I wasn't living the life I was supposed to. c) that environments of acceptance allows people to feel SAFER in being visible for their authentic selves? This explains the increase in visibility; and d) that because people like you still react in horror and ignorance towards the existance of trans kids - or their acceptance by their parents - parents of trans kids make their support public in order to counteract and reduce the stigma that demonsizes them?
You're being called out for being out of touch with the modern reality. Have you reached the point where you can no longer adapt, or get to grips with changes in society that have seemingly left you behind? Even to the point where, rather than to express support or even empathy for those who face insurmountable odds, and whose existence attracts violent vitriolic hate, then actual violence, you choose to hop on the hate-bandwagon and add your voice (and considerable platform) to undermine what support they do find?
Is that not cruelty in itself?
"Back in your day" people also had more empathy and understanding for those being persecuted. I guess you missed school that day.
How is a politician who is so clearly out of touch with their own humanity, with a continuously changing reality - and their supposedly liberal support base - who demonstrates an inability to keep up with current thinking, and a lack of critical thinking, still relevant in the political landscape? I really wonder.
8. Oh my word! This point left me utterly speechless. I'm shocked that you could actually think this. My gods but you're lost. Let me help you right here. Identifying as trans - for ANYONE - not just a school student, doesn't "immediately give you recognition, a badge of courage, acceptance, or a supportive peer group". Holy fuck, but this is 100% bullshit! Here's the low-down on what coming out as trans for anyone, of any age gets you: a) Rejected. By your peers, by your co-workers. By your family. By your friends. By your church and congregation. By your social groups. By people who see you in public. By people on social media. By people like you, sitting in your lofty perch in your white ivory tower, passing judgement on people like me that you obviously know nothing about. b) Hated. I have a lovely collection of hate mail I received over the last 25 years or so, including threats of violence from co-workers who were ignorant enough to believe that because I "turned queer" I was after their children. I even received a few death threats from transphobes over the years. c) Fear and uncertainty. Fear of losing my job because I'm trans. Fear I would be rejected by my church. Fear of losing my family, fear of being thrown out of the women's change room at the gym - in spite of changing in a stall. Fear of being raped by a man I dated, who when he learned I was trans opted to simply violate and abuse me instead. Fear of getting lynched by a mob of transphobes who consider themselves "doing good". Fear that one of those death threats I receive might one day actually turn out to be legitimate.
Here are the plusses of coming out as trans - and in fact, the ONLY ones: Not being so miserable with the incongruity of your physical body with your mind, and not actually wanting to kill yourself anymore. Finally being able to accept yourself, and eventually, even love yourself for who you are. Living the life you always wanted to, to be happy, whole and authentic, and not having to lie to everyone around you about who you really are inside anymore.
Having walked this whole journey myself, I can tell you with complete conviction that this really is what being trans is all about. That's our "agenda" - to just be true to ourselves, true to who we are as human beings, to be accepted and loved for who we really are - not for how others want to perceive us, and to not be hated, persecuted and even killed for it.
(Take a minute to reflect on this - because THIS is what you're opposing, Helen.)
The "badge of courage" you refer to so flippantly and derisively, is the acknowledgement of those few who don't hate us, that the act of being visible in spite of all the hate we receive for being trans, usually from people who know nothing about being trans, of existing and living life as our authentic selves in spite of it all, is somehow admirable in some way. And you dare to make light of that?
I wonder, would YOU have the courage to come out to the world as transgender, to live as your authentic self - even in the face of all the hate you will receive? Would you? Oh, right, you brag a little later about dressing up in drag once, for shits and giggles, and enjoying it. Well, there's a world of difference between that and being transgender - because one you can put away, and the other you can't.
9. On this point, one thing becomes very clear to me: you've been duped. That book is TERF propaganda, and filled with misrepresentations and psuedo-science. In short, it's transphobic twaddle meant to sway people who are too ignorant about transgender issues to form their own opinions independently. Firstly, "Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria" is not scientifically valid. It's a fraud. A 2022 research study found that "No empirical evidence supports ROGD as a real phenomenon"; it is based on flawed, biased surveys. Just asking a transgender person that in person would've saved you (and us) a lot of trouble.
What transgender person who is serious about transitioning WOULDN'T want transition to be irreversible? What you've described as "damage" amounts to permanent changes we embrace gladly - especially because it is irreversible. The hope of medically transitioning to our correct, authentic physical gender (or the closest to it medical science can get us to today) and achieving it, is the only thing that keeps many of us alive. But then, you didn't think about that did you? You didn't think for a moment that transgender people are SINCERE about their authenticity as women, or as men, did you? No, you just assumed it was all pretense, didn't you? A cunning patriarchal ploy for men to undermine feminist gains over the last century, right? The complexity of the TERF conspiracy theory makes my head spin.
10. Being transgender is statistically ALREADY "profoundly rare" as it is - how much rarer does being trans NEED to be to qualify for gender affirming care in your view? Are the "doctors who formed 'First Do No Harm'" by any chance the same sort of doctors who also espouse religious conservative attitudes about homosexuality, like "Doctors For Life"? Hmm. Food for thought. It's clear that the only real damage being done here is done by the airing of bigoted, uninformed and woefully ignorant opinions such as yours, pretending to know better than a) transgender people themselves and b) trained, experience medical experts who have already validated transgender identity for decades.
11. Reducing the complex identity and issues surrounding transgender identity to "men dressing as women or vice versa" is a stunning display of ignorance minimizing and undermining the validity of those in your target-sight. Yes, so you dressed up for a drag show once. Whoopee. That's like a racist saying "I'm not a racist, I have black friends". You realize that, right? Or you should.
Dressing in drag is not like dressing up and prancing around on stage for five minutes, "wearing drag" as a joke, and then washing it all off again to go on with your life as before. But you see, Helen, that's the point - being transgender isn't something you "wash off" or "put away" afterwards like an outrageous outfit you hope you don't get buried in one day. It's who you are. And it can never be truly put away. That's the entire point.
12. Have you ever observed ciswomen behaving in the way you descibed in this point? Have you ever wondered where the "transwomen" you refer to got that idea from, that that was how ciswomen behaved? Say, for example, by watching "reality TV" shows about the shallow fashionistas and wealthy kugels with two-inch-long fake fingernails and whose gleaming stilleto-heeled shoes never see anything but paved sidewalks and tiled floors? The Kardashians perhaps? The trope of the brain-dead blonde jokes that were the staple of tasteless comedians for decades, many of whom now rage because they can't make jokes about transgender people anymore without getting cancelled? Your outrage on this silly point is as fake as the point itself.
You've clearly confused transwomen with drag queens in any case, because needless to say, transwomen generally don't try to behave like the drag queen trope you describe here - and transwomen aren't drag queens, just to make that clear, although they sometimes start out that way by experimenting with drag. Most transwomen have to learn to modify their physical behavior, since they were raised in masculine environments, and that is a process. Also, to further rubbish your claim, transwomen want to be as natural as cis-women, not parodies of women as you insinuate.
And lastly on this point, you haven't opted to "just ignore it" Helen, neither are you doing the "live and let live" thing - are you? No, in fact, you're actively doing the opposite - working to punish transwomen for existing, and shaming those who allow us to continue existing. You are a bully, Helen.
13. Criticizing manufacturers of products that transwomen ALSO use, for including them in their marketing campaigns is pretty bizarre, don't you thing? Reflect on that for a second - remember "back in your day" when in South Africa advertizers only marketed to white people? As if black and colored people simply didn't exist - or didn't buy tinned food, or sanitary pads, or pencils - and only ever appeared in serving roles, the petrol pump attendant, or the domestic servant or nanny, for example? Ah yes, it's clear to me now - your issue isn't with transwomen modelling bras as much as it is with seeing transwomen who have small titties - even if they're modelling bras in their size, isn't that so? If you believe there aren't ciswomen with small titties, you're even more out of touch than I thought.
14. Can you show me WHERE - in any shape or form - the acceptance of transwomen - or the "entry of transwomen into 'women's spaces'" - "erodes the hard-won rights of women"? Oh, right, according to TERFs, the term "women" exclusively applies to "biological women", not so? How in any way do EITHER the former or the latter "trump" the other? Let me see - ONLY if one separates transwomen from "biological women" AS "biological men" as you refer to both - and ONLY THEN. Because the TERF viewpoint sees transwomen as men invading women's sacred spaces. Because you perceive transwomen as men, not women, not so? Because TERFs have a chip their shoulders against men. That's right - TERF-branded "feminism" is founded in misandry, not feminism. That's what "TERF" stands for: "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism" - they hate transwomen because they perceive them as men.
The gist of this is the implication that you have been captured and radicalized by an extremist ideology, Helen.
And you can't even recognize the truth of that. No, it's just "those rotten transwomen who are being nasty and calling us TERFs for no justificable reason at all - here, have a look at these images of fake women forcing their way into women's sports!" isn't it?
15. What is intimate about a public toilet? Honestly, I've been using public toilets - first men's and then women's, all my life - and honestly, there's nothing "intimate" about going to a public loo. You go there to pee or to do a number 2, sometimes to check your make-up in a mirror, and most importantly, to wash your hands. Women's loos ALL have stalls. So do the men's, although they also have those disgusting pee trough things. Nobody - with the possible exception of chatty teenage schoolgirls - stands around in the communal loo chatting about boys and gossiping, so who is it "the toilet mafia" is supposedly protecting here? Transwomen need to pee too - and for those suggesting they should pee in the men's loo, have you considered the counter-point of having brawny, bearded transmen pee in the ladies?
But I suppose this South African obsession with separate toilet facilities stems from the Apartheid era, and I can remember the white tannies getting all hysterical back in the 90s when the racial segregation of public toilets fell away, and for a while, the burly ooms standing at the door in case some person of color got in the way of their girlfriend or wife's peeing exercise, was a thing. Meanwhile, the real perpetrators of abuses against women and children are the right-wing politicians, Sunday school teachers and religious clergy who point fingers away from themselves and at the LGBTQ+ community, and lately at transwomen.
Sociologists will agree with me on this (and several probably have already) that this obsession of where transpeople should pee - this so-called bathroom politics nonsense - is another projection of fears over lost privilege and evaporating illusions of superiority. It's a moral panic, and like all moral panics, it's built on lies and hysteria - and you're one of the people stoking it.
The logical solution is of course, to replace separate public toilets for each gender with unisex toilets for everyone. And why not? It works at home, doesn't it? How many people have bathrooms and toilets at home separated according to gender? What are toilets for, other than to pee in, to take a dump in, and to (hopefully) wash your hands afterwards? In the last 30 years for example, the only disturbances I've seen news of in South Africa that took place at public toilets relate to nosy parkers querying the gender of those using the women's toilet facilities. The notion that "public toilets are places where predators look for victims" is both paranoid and unrealistic and certainly not based on evidence.
16. In ten years time, hopefully, you will have either seen the light of common sense, the error of your ways, and reconnected with the humanity you seem to have gleefully abandoned - or you'll be on pension. Either of which would be a massive improvement for the cause of both human rights AND feminism in South Africa - and dare I say it, abroad as well.
JK Rowling is a terrorist. Not by bombing cities or flying planes into buildings - or by picking up a weapon, but by inciting and instigating and even financing hatred and violence against transgender people around the entire planet. And make no mistake, that message finds fertile soil where it lands. Words travel far on the internet and via social media. By implication, you are supporting terrorism. If you doubt that, find out how transgender people in the UK feel right now after the legal "victory" you so callously celebrated the other day.
They're terrified, living in fear of escalating violence and criminalization of their existence - as is the trend in the USA, as I'm sure you've noticed. Rowling too espouses lies as facts, refers to distorted misrepresentations of scientific research and presents flawed and fraudulent "studies" and pseudoscience to bolster her populist attack on a vulnerable minority group. Well done to you - I can see your sick pride in that shining through.
Did you know, by the way, that Nicola Murray - one of the "three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women" Rowling referred to - was convicted of child abuse just two days ago? She's a UK TERF activist, described as "a lead voice" in last week's Supreme Court ruling - the one YOU celebrated - that decided the legal definition of a woman should be based on biological sex under equalities law, meaning, for instance, that transgender women can be excluded from women-only spaces. So in retrospect, what you've really done is side with and supported a bunch of predators who based their argument against the inclusion of transwomen in women's spaces on hysterical fantasies about transwomen "grooming children" - who turned out to be the actual groomers themselves.
How does that make you feel? Do you feel anything about that? Or are you still celebrating?
17. Yes, you have attacked and criticized transgender people - you have done so by making hateful statements about us in your social media posts - and none more detailed than in this one, were you have reiterated your transphobia and compounded it by using lies, propaganda and pseudoscience in an attempt to justify your bigoted views.
Again you use the word "contagion" to describe transgender people, like the "spread of a disease" through society. As if there could be no natural or scientific explanation that would legitimize our existence, only some mythical affirmation of your prejudice and ethereal justification for our erradication from society.
Your views are based on ignorance of the topic - the truth is, you don't know shit about transgender people, and it shows with plentiful clarity. You've swallowed every propagandistic transphobic lie, myth and misrepresentation about transgender people as circulated by virulently hateful anti-trans activists - and that too is obvious, even just by all the right wing "talking points" you yourself have regurgitated in this post of yours alone.
18. Spot-on - many people do disagree with you - and they're right to, because you're ignorant about transgender issues, and spreading disinformation and slander about transgender people. And you're wrong on all points.
Yes, you have a right to disagree, even if you're wrong - but what you do NOT have, is the right to abuse your position of influence and power to advocate for the dehumanization, invalidation, persecution, exclusion and erradication of an entire class of people - no matter what you try to justify your position with. How dare you pretend that what you're proposing and advocating for is simply an innocent debate? As though it's just a flippant disagreement about putting pineapple on pizza, or which flavor of milkshake is better - and not something serious that represents a life-or-death issue for the people you're dehumanizing and delegitimizing.
Was the ending of Apartheid and the racist Christian-nationalist Afrikaner neo-Nazism that underpinned it, a matter of "debate"? Was the humanity of people of color a "debate" then? Are the human rights and civil rights of any persecuted group simply a matter of "debate"? Over cheese and crackers? I'd hope you'd say "no, it wasn't" - because the implications of the alternative would be pretty shocking.
To realize that you have come out, as it were, as a transphobe and ardent right-winger who has been captured and radicalized by right-wing extremist views, while in a position of influence in the second-largest political party in South Africa - a party that ostensibly campaigns on "leftist" or liberal principles and appeals to the liberal electorate: human rights and equality for all, and the "open opportunity society" - is simply horrifying.
Your stance also places the Democratic Alliance in the unenviable position of being tarred with the same brush - since their failure to address your public expressions of transphobia as a leading figure within the DA offers only two explanations: either they're too afraid to speak out against you, couldn't care less about justice to bother - or they fully agree with you.
Sadly, and most critical of all, all these options condemn the DA to being totally irrelevant to the causes of human rights in South Africa, and to those who support these causes.
Suffice it for me to say that, if any LGBTQ+ people, or allies, or in fact anyone who identifies with liberal and human rights values, still has any respect for you as a leader figure - or the DA as a serious political party running on a liberal platform - I would be astonished - and disappointed.
But that would not be anything new.
No comments:
Post a Comment