Thread by @LaraAdamsMille1

“‘Femaleness is not an anatomical or genetic characteristic of an organism, but rather a universal existential condition.’For Chu, ‘femaleness’ is the urge to be a vessel for another’s desire.”

It’s worse than how social conservatives talk about women.

newrepublic.com/article/155614…

I’m honestly choked with rage over the sexism expressed, how supposed progressives are listening to this with serious interest... I haven’t heard commentary this regressive put forth seriously since my Duggar-esque religious upbringing. This is beyond toxic.

Chu is simply describing pathological codependence, and then claiming it’s the essence of being female. If you want or do for yourself, you’re not being a woman. If you’re acted upon, used & molded, then you’re embodying the “female gender.”

When did it this message become ok?

Victims of abuse spend their whole lives struggling to discover their personal agency and to learn to hear their own voice. This “theory” is romanticizing the disabling psychological damage suffered by victims of physical abuse, sexual abuse, and coercive control.

I wanted to add - I actually appreciate @newrepublic for publishing this. It’s about time someone shone a light on how explicitly disrespectful gender theory is of women. It’s about time someone got high-profile AGPs on the record about what they really mean by “I am a woman.”

@newrepublic presents the content neutrally, which can be read as approval, but I don’t think that was the interviewer’s intent. I think the reporter refrained from commentary because none was needed. The misogyny and danger of these views were sufficiently unvarnished and clear.

For anyone who wants a clearer look at where Chu came from and the kind of regressive indoctrination that shaped his views of men, women, and sexuality.

I don’t know if I’ve ever encountered an AGP who was raised in a progressive environment.

s3.amazonaws.com/oral-history/t…