Feminists fight back against the present “gender” madness. Don’t let the furious censors win; watch it here:

A few comments & quotes:

The large vs. small gametes distinction seems to sort human beings correctly into the two sexes. But if you want the “common sense” distinction that humans have always known, that doesn’t depend on modern biological knowledge, see this.

“Gender” as social ideas about norms regarding men and women: that is a perfectly good use of the word “gender.” Notice, though, that it presupposes that there is such a thing as sex.

“Sex assigned at birth” as “absolute nonsense.” Correct! We are male or female from the start, and yes, this can be observed (not assigned) even before birth.

Medical science crucially depends on knowing the sex of a person.

“I look back to five or six years ago when this was all new . . . Now, the world is captured by the crazy!”

“Trans women are male people who identify as women . . . female people do not identify as women. Female people are women.”

“The phrase ‘cis women,’ it’s a linguistic trick, because the word ‘woman’ has had a very stable meaning for centuries . . . I’m not ‘cis’; I don’t know any woman who describes herself as ‘cis.’ “

“Gender identity is about queer theory, really.”

“This is an attempt at a wholesale taking over of women’s rights.”

“What we have is male people demanding female people’s rights.”

They effectively address the very real prison issue, that is, men “identifying as women,” often incarcerated for sexual offenses, being housed in women-only prisons. This issue, by the way, illustrates how activist groups deliberately try to capture institutions, leading to the capture of others.

They discuss the deliberate institutional capture of institutions by the activists, particularly in Scotland, where recent “hate crime” legislation ignores biological women. They also discuss Stonewall’s descent into gender madness.

They discuss how present-day academia in these countries treats gender ideology as something that can only be positively presented, but never critiqued or challenged. They rightly ask: what will the next untouchable theory be?

My favourite moment:

“It’s kind of like a spell. I know that part of the brain believes it. But also, on the other hand, I also know that humans can perceive the sex of other humans from like 100 paces away, within nanoseconds, right? And I don’t believe that they can undo that ability. They know, most of the time, they’re just pretending that they don’t know . . . It’s like half their brain is in the spell land . . . People have to agree to go into the spell land . . . and if they don’t agree, then they have to be coerced into pretending to go along with it . . . You can’t enforce reality denial without authoritarianism – it’s not possible.”

“Everything that matters should be up for debate.”

Several of the talking heads express the wish to deny that the radical trans activists are truly “left wing” at all. I think there is a need for serious definitions and analysis here. Philosophers?

“Can a woman have a penis?” as a question that somehow deserves serious discussion.

They point out that the Labour Party stand to lose the support of working-class and other non-elite and non-mainstream women.

One speaker makes the point that just as with lobotomies, a reckoning will come. We will look back on this madness and shake our heads.