Show Notes
There are many seriously insulting things about the transvestification of womanhood - one of my chief beefs is the way the acronym HRT, used to describe hormone replacement therapy for women going through the menopause, has been stolen and repurposed by men who use it for aesthetic enhancement (not that it works). First they hijacked the HRT name, then they hijacked the HRT supply chain; the increased demand for synthetic female hormones has put intense strain on an already patchy supply. In the past few years, hormones intended for sweating, sleepless women have been rerouted to autogynephiles convinced that synthetically-induced breast buds will help them reach that gender high. (They even wrote to the UN high commissioner of human rights to complain about the shortages.) But probably even worse than all that is the way that the most vile trolling of women happens on the day purportedly to be for us and about us. Yes, we've reached the eve of International Women's Day (IWD) and I am already on high alert for all the men in party shop wigs who will appear on panels, in videos, and in newspaper articles, making statements about how the day is for them, actually. The theme of IWD this year is "inclusivity", which almost guarantees a man in a dress will be celebrated as the very bestest of women. Deep breaths, ladies. I feel like this one's gonna be rough. Taking the trolling to never-before-achieved levels, the Irish government and its NGO army announced a few months ago that it was time to excise the Irish constitution of any mention of women - and that the referendum on the issue would be held on IWD. The reason? For 100 years or so, the text has contained a reference to women's "duties in the home", which at first glance seems mighty sexist. I grew up knowing vaguely about misogyny in the constitution. But I was also told that it didn't have any real effect in the real lives of women, and that it was simply - symbolically - not ideal. But as we are learning, the offending text has a progressive interpretation that could have been deployed in legal cases throughout the decades by women who didn't want to be pushed out to work after they had kids. The text actually makes it possible to make the case that a woman's duties to her kids are more important to society than working (hard to argue with that). Tucker Carlson (I know) and founder of the Irish women's rights advocacy group the Countess, Laoise de Brun, explain this nicely here. It certainly seems part of the international effort to chip away at any and all mention of sex in law and policy. The Countess have already run successful campaigns to stop the removal of sexed language in Irish law before, but it's happening in other countries too. Just this week the Dutch government tried to remove mention of mothers from a piece of legislation, claiming they were just cleaning up the grammar, when someone spotted by chance that "mother" had been replaced with "parent from whom the child is born". The pols claimed it was simply a mistake, but it seems like they thought they could get away with it. The backlash unequivocally proved they could not, and the change was undone. I spoke to Sandra Adams, the spokeswoman for the Countess, who told me that the government could have, for example, made the text less sexist by proposing to edit it to simply add fathers alongside mothers. (Another Irish campaigner, Sarah Holmes, combed through the constitution text and found 114 references to male sex pronouns that nobody seems bothered about). So is it really about evening the playing field, about making our founding legal document symbolically more egalitarian? Or does it have something to do with international pressure to gender-neutralise everything, or maybe the upcoming legal changes to surrogacy laws - or something else? Sandra and I thrash out a few theories, and she tells me why, without clarification on a few essential points, the best thing for the people of Ireland to do
More from Peaked
Show notes (AI generated) Episode Overview In this episode of Peaked, Róisín Michaux speaks with journalist and author Jo Bartosch about the growing influence of online pornography on culture, politics, gender identity, and sexual behaviour. The discussion centres around Jo's forthcoming book Pornocracy, exploring how internet pornography has evolved into a powerful cultural force extending far beyond individual consumption. Together they examine pornography's relationship with gender ideology, autogynephilia, gynandromorphophilia (GAMP), online radicalisation, algorithmic recommendation systems, Reddit "egg" communities, fetish culture, masculinity, female objectification, and the changing attitudes of younger generations towards women. The conversation also explores the historical roots of cross-dressing, WPATH, Genevieve Gluck's investigative work, Scottish Government funding, Stephen Ireland's criminal case, and recent legal developments in France concerning violent pornography.
Albanians have reason to trust Brussels more than they trust Tirana. Interview with Esmeralda Petrela.
A backlash and a breakthrough: behind the scenes in Belfast with Nora Calder.
There's no weekly newsletter this week because I've been travelling to Belfast and Amsterdam for TERF-related activities (see below), so here's an interview I did with one of Germany's fiercest warriors against the forces of gender irrationality, Rona Duwe. Rona was sued by a psychotherapist called Sabine Maur because she shared a video in which Maur could be seen telling fellow mental health professionals how to fiddle with insurance forms so that 'gender-affirming' mastectomies get reimbursed for women claiming to be 'non-binary'. While female-to-male breast removal is considered totally sane in Germany, breast removal for female-to-non-binary is not, which is bizarre, to be fair, because neither of these things is actually real. The Maur video was not originally shared by Rona, but she did share it once it was already online. Rona also made comments on Maur's dubious practices. Because she is a known (and much-hated) entity in German feminist/queer circles, Rona was the one who was pursued in court for this already-public video. In the interview we get into the details of what went down during the legal proceedings, and we also talked about Rona's strategy of being gloriously defiant. Like a growing number of women being hounded over this trans nonsense, Rona has decided to take on her detractors rather than slinking away in fear and silence. You love to see it. "Did you consider coming out in defence of those women?" Meanwhile, I spent 24 hours in Belfast on Tuesday in order to cover the Women's Rights Network Northern Ireland non-reinstated Féile and Phobail event. If you missed all that and you have no idea what I'm talking about, I recommend you read this article by Helen Joyce and my running thread of the conference content. Bonus: enjoy this awkward confrontation between myself and Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald, neo-Laundry Nun Ailbhe Smyth (prolific Irish prawn sandwich brigadier feminist), and even the brand new Lord Mayor of Belfast.
🎙️ Peaked — Episode 16 Host: Róisín Michaux Guest: Angeliqa Episode Overview In this episode of Peaked, Róisín Michaux speaks with Angeliqa, a Swedish-American mother who was convicted of defamation after warning parents in her local community about a man exposed by the Swedish watchdog organization Dumpen. The conversation explores Sweden's defamation laws, freedom of expression, child protection, media responsibility, and the tension between protecting reputations and protecting children. Angeliqa recounts two incidents that shaped her decision to speak publicly, including an earlier case involving a suspected child predator near her child's preschool and a later case that resulted in criminal prosecution after she shared information in local Facebook groups. The discussion also examines Sweden's migration policies, political culture, public attitudes toward controversial issues, the work of Dumpen, and the ongoing debate over whether Sweden's legal framework adequately protects children from sexual predators.