metascribe quoted Females by Andrea Long Chu (Verso Pamphlets)
Everyone is female "When I say that everyone is female, I mean very simply that …
[ . . . ] the conscious discovery that being female is bad for you might be described as quintessentially feminist. Perhaps the oldest right-wing accusation brought by men and other women against feminists, whether they demand civic equality or anti-male revolution, was that feminists were really asking, quite simply, not to be women anymore. There was a kernel of truth here: Feminists didn't want to be women anymore, at least under the existing terms of society; or to put it more precisely, feminists don't want to be female anymore, either advocating for the abolition of gender altogether or proposing new categories of womanhood un-encumbered by femaleness. To be for women, imagined as full human beings, is always to be against females. In this sense, feminism opposes misogyny precisely inasmuch as it also expresses it.
— Females by Andrea Long Chu (Verso Pamphlets) (Page 14)
In this case, the conclusion seems like a non-sequitur. I believe my previous analysis of Solanas, together with what was said of her in this book, is closer to establishing a claim similar enough to the one that ends this paragraph. If "femaleness" is a universal (albeit asymmetrically intuited) condition or psychic operation, then to say that feminists necessarily had to see femaleness as bad in order to struggle against or with such a condition and thereby engage in their political projects, is not the same as to say that being a woman is bad, particularly in a sense which would conform with misogyny rather than the real experiences produced for women under patriarchy. The argument seems to rely on equivocation.
That being said, the relationship between such an existential condition and gender suggests that feminisms whose political projects are limited to the politics of gender, or the politicization of gender, can either be conceived as doomed or perpetual. After all, gender is not simply something which exists as a product of patriarchy, as a product of sexual relationships established within a patriarchal logic, but it is also a response to a universal condition or psychic operation of the social human being.
In fact, it may be possible to hypothesize that patriarchy can affect gender only insofar as it constraints and conditions the strategies used to confront this more universal condition or, perhaps traumatic, psychic operation. In this way, in opposing misogyny, a feminism can fall into the trap of condemning people's personal attempts to navigate this condition or cope with this traumatic, primitive psychic operation, thereby reveling in misogyny. The personal coping mechanisms or defense mechanisms of women are "not enough" or an indictment of their character, as they "fail" the cause. In this way, there is an implicit concession that somehow these women are "at fault" for any failures of feminism, hence their own lack of liberation, i.e. at fault for their very oppression. It should be clear how this replicates patriarchal tropes, and seems to potentially idealize the way masculinized bodies implicitly confront the same ontological condition or psychic operation that is "femaleness," especially when those bodies are those of cismen.