The silencing of feminist creators -especially non-white women- through accusations of "transphobia", "anti sex-worker", or "bigotry" often mirrors older patriarchal strategies used to discipline outspoken women.
Historically, women who challenged dominant social structures were dismissed as immoral, hysterical, selfish, dangerous, or anti-family. The language changes depending on the political era, but the mechanism remains familiar: shift attention away from the substance of a woman's critique and redirect it toward her legitimacy as a speaker.
This dynamic becomes particularly visible when women discuss subjects such as misogyny, pornography, prostitution, sexual violence, female socialization, or boundaries. Rather than engaging with the argument itself, public discours often turns it into an evaluation of whether the woman has violated an ideological line. The result is that women are permitted visibility only as long as their perspectives remain convenient, affirming, or non-distruptive.
For non-white women the pressure can become even sharper. They are often expected to perform a version of political correctness that leaves little room to articulate cultural, religious, or material realities that complicate dominant progressive narratives. When they fail to do so, they risk being cast not only as "wrong", but as morally illegitimate.
What make this dynamic particularly frustrating it has increasingly reproduced itself inside feminist spaces. Women speaking about misogyny are now frequently expected to immediately recenter the conversation around everyone except women. A feminist raises a women's issue and is asked: what about this other marginalized group? A black woman speaks about sexism and is told to prioritize speaking as black before speaking as a woman. Female experience is constantly fragmented, qualified, redirected, or treated as incomplete unless it's filtered through another framework first.
The result is that womanhood itself becomes the only identity category that is never allowed to stand on its own politically.
Of course solidarity matters. No oppression exists in isolation. But solidarity becomes distorted when women are expected to dilute, soften, or constantly justify discussions about their own oppression in order to avoid accusations of exclusion. In practice, this creates an environment where every group is permitted to advocate for its own interests directly, except women.
That contradiction is why many feminists feel alienated from contemporary progressive spaces. The language is inclusive, but the pattern often feels familiar: women can speak, but only within carefully approved boundaries. The moment female experience is centered too explicitly, suspicion emerges. The discussion shifts from the issue itself to whether the woman speaking has failed some moral or ideological act.
The issue is not that marginalized groups should be beyond criticism or debate, nor is it a denial that prejudice exists. The issue is that feminist speech is increasingly treated as conditional: women are encouraged to speak about oppression only when their analysis does not create discomfort or conflict within broader ideological coalitions.
In that sense, the rhetoric may differ from conservative or religious silencing, but the outcome can feel strikingly similar: women learn that speaking too directly about their own material and political interests carries social punishment. It sends a clear message: political empathy is extended to everyone, but women are still expected to negotiate for the right to name their own reality without interruption, qualification, or punishment.
