1. It would be absurd to define racism as “a system of power which exists to create conflict and division, not to celebrate creativity and diversity”, right? One’s immediate response would be, why did you gloss the historical factors? Why did you gloss colonialism and slavery? And yet people (including Alok, though they are far from the only offender) do exactly this re: gender. Gender is a hierarchy formed to naturalize the sex-based oppression of women, which also has the effect of oppressing gender non-conforming individuals of both sexes. The fact that we find the same issues of sex based oppression, homophobia and transphobia in societies with ‘third gender identities’ (nb: in some cases, these forces were critical to the creation of these identities in the first place), speaks to the fact that simply having more recognized gender identities is not at the root of the problem. Anyway, this abstracted 'the gender binary exists because people hate creativity' approach leads to Alok's claim that a person being prejudiced against gender non-conforming people is a reflection of that person's own insecurities. I find this a fairly irritating concept. It may be true in some cases, but it's certainly not true in all of them. Sometimes prejudice is intentional and calculated.
2. “The most lethal part of the body is not the fist but the eye. What people see, and how people see it has everything to do with power.” The use of the word ‘power’ in statements like this makes you think that there is some type of analysis here, but there really isn’t. I can look at someone, make false or negative assumptions as to their life, being etc, and they are not affected by virtue of the thoughts in my head. What matters is the actions which follow - do I dismiss, demean, harass, abuse, ignore etc. And the power that these actions have will be a direct reflection of my power in society. Am I a famous writer who can share bigoted rhetoric on a wide platform? Am I a landlord who can deny applicants based on their gender non-conformity? Being able to have that impact on someone’s life, able to define them, deny them rights, deny them services etc is what power is about... Simply looking at them and thinking thoughts in my head as an inherent exercise of power? No. I can think negative thoughts about Jeff Bezos all day but something tells me he'll be fine. Catharine MacKinnon: "Having power means, among other things, that when someone says, ‘This is how it is,’ it is taken as being that way. [...] Speaking socially, the beliefs of the powerful become proof, in part because the world actually arranges itself to affirm what the powerful want to see.”
3. It’s odd how Alok continually speaks about legislation targeting gender non-conforming people when the legislation (as far as I’m aware) is all targeting trans people. While there’s certainly overlap re: gnc and trans people, and also overlap re: the people who are affected by some of these laws, it is fundamentally about limiting the rights of trans people and that should be said.
4. "Gender neutral language like people who give birth, not women who give birth." Big sigh. Why raise this issue specifically if you're not going to talk about why it is so contentious. Of course, we need to respect people's identities, and it is critical for health-care providers to know about trans men and have respect for them in order for trans men to access proper care, but there are reasons why we frame abortion and pregnancy and birth control as women's issues and not gender-neutral issues. Gender neutrality can be a boon to women, and it can also erase our historical and continuing oppression. What is required is nuance and respect when writing on these issues.
5. "The idea that humans have a binary sex is a recent idea from the 1700s." Thomas Laqueur wrote Making Sex in the 1990s. Please read Katharine Park and Helen King and all the other scholars who have explained the problems in his work. The idea of binary sex existed in Ancient Greece, in pre-1700s Europe. And it is absurd to say that scientists believed that only white people had binary sexes.... which scientists? And why does the opinion on these scientists matter? And to what effect? Even if we accept the women are failed men model was the only model anyone had heard of till the 1700s - this model is founded in misogyny. And men still knew that only women could reproduce and so controlled us and our bodies. This belief that white people invented sex-based oppression as part of colonialism is a claim so ludicrous, so ahistorical, so divorced from women’s history and mired in noble savage-ism that I don’t know where to begin in response.
6. "For a long time, and even sometimes today, women were incorrectly seen as innately prone to hysteria." This sounds like the author believes the known misogynistic nonsense condition hysteria actually exists and that not what hysteria actually 'was' because yes, of course, it was only about women.
7. "A wealthy white woman has a fundamentally different experience of womanhood than a working class woman of colour. A man born in Paris, France has a different experience than a man born in Paris, Texas." Women across the world, across time have been subjected to sex-based oppression, ergo have created a movement to deal with women's subjugation. Do the man in Paris France and the man in Paris Texas suffer from historical born-in-a-place-called-Paris oppression? For that matter, does anyone say that rich people of colour have different experiences than poor people of colour ergo anti-racist activism is meaningless? No. We know why this only happens with feminism and feminism alone: because sex based oppression is not taken seriously, because no one wants women to have consciousness of the global reality of sex-based oppression. I wouldn't describe my experiences as a woman as being fundamentally different from white women. I wouldn't describe my mother's experiences growing up in the third world as fundamentally different than my own. While some women might depending on their circumstances, it is not on Alok, someone who does not identify as a woman to say that fundamentally, this is the case.
I believe Alok has said that feminism that doesn’t center trans and nonbinary and intersex people of colour isn’t feminism... people of colour, not women of colour. If feminism isn’t a movement for women, then why call it feminism? Scrap it and call the new movement anti-patriarchy. I believe Alok had the same issue with the Women's March; Alok would prefer it be called the Anti-Misogyny March. I guess this is where we are at.