Sheila Jeffreys: the McCarthyism of Transgender and the Sterilization of Transgender Children

April 20, 2011

Sheila Jeffreys Brain

Meghan Murphy has published a wonderful podcast titled “Where have all the Radicals gone? When feminism gets moderate.” She addresses the current backlash against feminism, “funfeminism”, “sexpoz”, the re-writing and misquoting of radical feminist thinkers, the future of women’s liberation, and so much more. The highlight for me was the brand spanking new interview with the brilliant Sheila Jeffreys, which was conducted on April 10, 2011. Do give a listen. Highly recommended.

A brief excerpt from Sheila Jeffreys addressing the McCarthyism of Transgender and the Sterilization of Transgender Children is transcribed below.

———————————————————————————————————-

“Radical feminist theory was and is particularly revolutionary because it means a total transformation of male domination. So it means the removal of it at its most basic level. It means the total transformation of culture. It means for instance no respect for culture.  And I’ve been writing recently about multiculturalism because my new book is on religion, called “Man’s Dominion: the Rise of Religion and the Eclipse of Women’s Rights” (which is coming out later this year).  So I’ve been writing about how multiculturalism becomes multi-faithism and how there’s this  requirement in multicultural society is to respect culture- which is of course completely impossible since all cultures are based upon the subordination of women and the creation of two different  sexes and two different genders and the construction of oppression out of that. And that- if you walk in any street, just look at the way people are dressed , if you look at anything that’s going on on the television, the extraordinary length to which the expression of women’s subordination and men’s domination go is immediately clear to you and that’s in major cities of the western world that I’m talking about. So of course the radical feminist critique is about overthrowing that deep, deeply cultural construction of women’s subordination. Its perhaps clearest on an everyday level, in what women are required to wear. The showing of their bodies: the short skirts, the shaved legs, the high-heeled shoes. The extraordinary lengths to which they have to go to punish and be cruel to their own bodies and be degraded in public places.

Now that’s very very clearly about male domination as far as I can see. But it cannot be recognized. It simply cannot be recognized. So that, there’s a tremendous forgetfulness of the construction of what is these days is called “gender”. Of course I would call it  “sexual oppression”  I think is that is probably a more reasonable way of looking at it.  And its strongest manifestation of course takes place in what’s called “transgenderism” which is a practice  in which persons who do not  adhere to the  correctly gendered practices that have been placed upon the biological sex are considered to have something called Gender Identity Disorder and they’re expected to cross over into the other sex. Not criticize the gendered system as it exists, because that’s unthinkable but to make some kind of “journey” by mutilating their bodies and taking dangerous drugs for the rest of their lives in order to supposedly represent the opposite sex.

Now that shows to us how clearly, and to what an extraordinary depth the idea that there are two genders, with different behaviors, constructed from how different we are biologically  has entered culture. Because of course,it doesn’t make sense. I mean, I don’t have a gender.  I’ve no intention of having a gender. I don’t do masculinity which is the behavior of male dominance, and I don’t do femininity which is the behavior of female subordination, women’s subordination. I hope to engage in human behavior and I hope at some point in the future everybody will be able to do that too, but gender I definitely do not have. I am a conscientious objector to gender as I would be indeed to being drafted into the military – and I see these things as having some connections (laughs).

So, the problem with transgenderism – which is obviously an expression of men’s sexual rights as well of course( it’s very much about the right to be sexually excited by female clothing, and subordination and so on).  But it also comes out of  the gendered system. And it means that in order to support  transgenderism , gender has to be supported. So the subordination of women has to be supported in order for transgenderism to be supported.  Transgender as a phenomenon is the clearest possible indication of the strength of the structures of the male domination going on right now. Of course we know that in Iran homosexuals are routinely transgendered because they’re not allowed to be homosexuals.

I’ve been looking at the stuff on transgendered  kids in the U.S. There are lots of organizations now to support transgendered kids and their families. There’s lots of clinics and therapists, who can identify “transgender kids”. And they’re being recognized as transgender from four or five years old even though the literature tells us, and they tell us themselves, that 70% of those recognized as transgendered  will end up as homosexual in later life. So one of the things they are trying to do is eradicate homosexuality at it’s very possible origin, (or they’ll profer a connection necessarily between homosexuality and gender) but they’re maybe being bullied for having the wrong kind of behaviors and so on.  So what’s happening in the states is that children are now to be identified in school, to be identified by their parents. This is what we – you know in the seventies we fought against the idea that there were “correct” forms of behavior, “correct” toys and so on for children. It wasn’t radical to do so, that was quite mild I thought. Now these children are being put on programs, where- and this is the big demand now- they have drugs to prevent them, hormones to prevent them from developing the body of their biological sex. So they’ve got to be on these hormones for about nine years – you can see how the medical profession loves this: the drugs, the medical expertise and so on, it’s a very big money maker for them. And very conservative that they even believe in gender. So these poor children are not going through puberty in the normal way, they’re not having the ordinary biological changes. Then by sixteen they’ll be put on the cross-gender hormones of the opposite sex which will make them sterile. So they’re actually being sterilized. It’s the sterilization of the “un-fit”. When it happened in the thirties and the Nazis did it , you know it’s now considered that was unacceptable to do it: it went on until the sixties, in America, the sterilization of the disabled , the unfit. It’s happening now. Those who do not conform to correct gender stereotypes are being sterilized and they’re being sterilized as children. At eighteen years old they’re expected to move on to surgery, so parts of their bodies are going to be lopped off. And then they’ll be on these drugs for the rest of their lives.

Eventually I’m sure, within – because things are moving fast and there’s a lot of criticism of this particularly by young radical feminists now- within the next ten, twenty years it will come to be realized as a horrendous human rights violation. But for these children and young people who have been sterilized, this is a terrible, terrible cost. Because they’ve lost parts of their bodies, they’ve lost the ability to reproduce. It really is a human rights violation on a massive, massive scale.

Now, because I criticize this, I am sort of “no platformed” pretty much, by lots of feminist , lesbian and gay organizations who will not allow me to speak. Even in my own city I was not allowed to be invited to speak at the Reclaim The Night  because I was seen as “transphobic”.  A major conference in Britain that invited me to speak this year is basically not going to happen because some others said  that I was transphobic and shouldn’t  speak and everything collapsed and so on. The kind of McCarthyism that’s going on around transgenderism now – if you criticize it , or if somebody who is your friend knows you and you’re known as a “transphobe”, they also are now getting told they cannot speak. So it’s spreading out, and it’s spreading out . The National Union of Students in Britain , their Lesbian and Gay Bisexual Transgender Conference , the agenda I’ve just been looking at actually has a resolution saying that Julie Bindel- who’s also a feminist critic of this practice in Britain and a journalist “is vile”. (laughs) That’s all it says: “Julie Bindel Is Vile”.  This is a resolution of the National Union of Students Conference. And of course she is no-platformed, no students organizations may invite her to speak anywhere because she’s also critical of transgenderism.

So really, gender is of course the sort of last bastion because it is the foundation of the subordination of women. And it’s being defended to the death in this extraordinarily grim way. Which means that any radical feminist critics must not be allowed to speak. A reading group that discussed my book and said online that they’ve done so has been told that they were transphobic and that they should not be allowed to discuss my book, so it is an attempt to eliminate, expatriate, from the public discussion and the public forum, any discussion, writing and so on that could possibly criticize gender. Because that’s what it’s about, really.  It’s criticizing gender.  And that’s the very foundation of feminism and we really have to hold onto that.  We’ve got to claw back the ground now. And I’m very pleased to say that there are quite a lot of radical feminist blogs that are not only being very critical of transgenderism, but even dare I say it, laughing at it.  Which is a very very naughty thing to do.  But sometimes the oppressed and the subordinate have to laugh at the dominant ideology that oppress them.

 ———————————————————————————————————-

This is a tiny excerpt from a long and brilliant podcast that is worth every moment of your time. Thank you so much to Meghan Murphy for creating it. <3

89 Responses to “Sheila Jeffreys: the McCarthyism of Transgender and the Sterilization of Transgender Children”

  1. GallusMag Says:

    My typing and punctuation aint great, so sue me! lol

    • Paul Giffard-Foret Says:

      What I (not to disclose my gender, since that would be playing out the gender trope) do not understand, is how can one not see that transgendered people are some of the most oppressed sections of the population? This sort of ultra-leftism leads nowhere, except towards the Right…It would be more productive I find to rethink the “trans” in transgenderism as a transgressive act disrupting the gender binary, in the same way that Lesbianism was in the 70s. Transgenderism to me is about sexual liberation, the freedom to experience the “Other”, not necessarily colonise it. That pharmaceutical companies make a business out of it is entirely different story, and is by no means counter-posed to right-wing policies discriminating against LGBTIs. The two can co-exist perfectly, just as the demonisation of refugees in Australia does not exclude the need for cheep migrant labour. Not seeing this is to be blind to the real source of oppression in your article: not transgendered people, but those who turn them into Frankenstein-like, passive, submissive creatures with “gender disorder”. Sounds very much to me like masculinist discourses about women. Did it ever cross your mind that transgendered people, too, have an agency, that in fact, some might consciously chose to bear the cost of an operation, at the risk of their own lives, and in order to embrace a new sexuality: “one is not born….but becomes.” Rings a bell?

      • GallusMag Says:

        “What I (not to disclose my gender, since that would be playing out the gender trope) do not understand, is how can one not see that transgendered people are some of the most oppressed sections of the population?”

        Feminists are concerned with oppression against females. Racial oppression, class oppression etc are very grave issues. What feminism does is focus on oppression against FEMALES. Because oppression against females is the most profound oppression that exists in the world, and many facets of race and economic and other oppressions are BASED on female oppression. I encourage you to look into this feminism thing. Google it.

        “This sort of ultra-leftism leads nowhere, except towards the Right…It would be more productive I find to rethink the “trans” in transgenderism as a transgressive act disrupting the gender binary, in the same way that Lesbianism was in the 70s.”

        Excuse me? In what way did “Lesbianism in the 70s” disrupt the idea that humans are sexually dimporphic? And what do you see as unique about “Lesbianism” in the 70s vs. any other decade.

        “Transgenderism to me is about sexual liberation, the freedom to experience the “Other”, not necessarily colonise it.”

        There is no “the other”. There is only sexism, sexist sex-roles, and female-hatred. There are humans. Some are reproductively male and some are reproductively female. None can ever experience the other reproductive capacity. There is no experience of “the other”. What you project onto reproductive capacity is an “otherness” of being beyond reproductive capacity. That’s called sexism. So what you are promoting is the freedom to be sexist.

        Also, there is no way in which a hierarchy does not result in colonization when the dominant group chooses to experience membership into the oppressed group. Google “anthropology” or “blackface”.

        “That pharmaceutical companies make a business out of it is entirely different story, and is by no means counter-posed to right-wing policies discriminating against LGBTIs.”

        How so? Please explain how psycho/surgical/medical reparative therapies for LGBT people, and especially for WOMEN are irrelevant to anti-female and right wing politics. Love to hear it! Very interested, waiting with baited breath.

        “The two can co-exist perfectly, just as the demonisation of refugees in Australia does not exclude the need for cheep migrant labour.”
        One might say that a living wage for all would resolve exploitation of migrant workers. Look forward to hearing how that is not so. Waiting patiently to be educated!

        “Not seeing this is to be blind to the real source of oppression in your article: not transgendered people, but those who turn them into Frankenstein-like, passive, submissive creatures with “gender disorder”. Sounds very much to me like masculinist discourses about women. Did it ever cross your mind that transgendered people, too, have an agency, that in fact, some might consciously chose to bear the cost of an operation, at the risk of their own lives, and in order to embrace a new sexuality: “one is not born….but becomes.” Rings a bell?”

        Well I hear you bastardizing a De Beauvoir/Monique Wittig quote about how female-hating is projected onto those of us born female and then reversing it as some sort of call to freedom. The truth is that those born female will be oppressed on that basis regardless of any “agency” they exert. Google “feminism” and “female.” And De Beauvoir/ Monique Wittig.

      • Bev Jo Says:

        You answered him so well, Gallus Mag. It’s the same old re-writing reality. And the patronizing to feminists is so typically male (“rings a bell?”).

        Take an anti-feminist, sexist, Lesbian-hating man or their women supporters and pretty much everything they say is the opposite of the truth. It’s trans cult politics that is extremely right wing. “Sexual liberation,” as opposed to Women’s Liberation, was about conning women to being sexually available to men whenever they demanded it (which the men in the guise of women are still doing with their pressure for Lesbians to let men have sexual access to us against our wills.) Instead of women getting at least some compensation (through the marriage contract of money provided for sexual services or immediate payment in prostitution), “sexual liberation” was a mind-fuck and physical-fuck for women.

        None of the trans cult seem to be aware that most feminists who oppose them first were open to some extent, not wanting to hurt their feelings. It was how they acted on every level that quickly proved to us that they were very much men, even with surgery and hormones. SCAMs (Surgically/chemically altered males) indeed. THEY caused us all to realize no male can become female. And it’s just a matter of time before all females realize this. The only thing delaying that is their intense propaganda and privilege, which they use to confuse and bully well-meaning women. But just look at them and hear them, and it is so clear. That’s why your work is so important, Gallus. You show them to everyone and the truth is inescapable.

  2. FAB Libber Says:

    Thanks for the transcript Mag, brilly-brill :P


  3. Oh YAY! Thanks, Gallus.

    I downloaded the podcast to my phone, then listened to it in the car on my commute to work– perfect! I recommend this method to all!

    Because that’s what it’s about, really. It’s criticizing gender. And that’s the very foundation of feminism and we really have to hold onto that. We’ve got to claw back the ground now. And I’m very pleased to say that there are quite a lot of radical feminist blogs that are not only being very critical of transgenderism, but even dare I say it, laughing at it. Which is a very very naughty thing to do.

    She’s reading. And laughing along with us. HAPPY DAY!

  4. Sargassosea Says:

    Wow, Gallus! Thanks for this labor of love; you’ve done a lovely job of it!

    And it occurred to me that the transjacktivist *laydeecott* against our radfem gender critics is ALSO a kind of sexual discrimination in the workplace. So not only is cogent criticism silenced but these women have been denied a gig that would have paid some bills, I should think.

    Who is oppressing who again?

  5. Noanodyne Says:

    I <3 Sheila Jeffreys and Gallus Mag.


  6. Thanks for the transcription, Gallus Mag.

    I listened to the entire interview last night, and I swear, it is listening to women such as SJ talk with such total confidence that gives me the ability to keep journeying on.

  7. yttik Says:

    That was great! I listened to the podcast, thank you! I love the confidence in her voice, her clarity of thought.

  8. Lukas Romson Says:

    Just out of curiosity, how would you all explain my existens, acording to Jeffreys book?

    I`m a feminist, and I work as an equality consultant. I´m gay. And I do very much critizise the gender system, in fact I do not accept the binary gender system at all.

    But…..
    I do have a gender identity. I´m a man. And, I´m a man with transsexual bakground. For me (as for everyone of the at least hundred transsexuals I´ve met) my journey had nothing to do with my “right to be sexually excited by female clothing, and subordination” of women. Neither had it anything to do with any wish to escape from a homosexual identity. I´ve always been interested in men and still am, so I was considered heterosexual when living as woman.

    If gender identity doesnt exist, if the scientists and the transmovement is wrong and you can´t be born in the body of the wrong sex, there´s simply no explantion for me and others like me.

    And if gender has no importace, me identifying as man or woman would not matter. But it does, doesn´t it? I would not be so disturbing if I was a biological woman not claiming she was a man.

    So, if the map and the reality doesn´t match, what to change? We do exist, and Jeffreys has not got a clue about what she´s talking about.

  9. GallusMag Says:

    @Lukas-

    How would I explain your existence? I assume you were born the same as anyone else. But that’s not what you mean is it? You’re not talking existentialism. What you’re doing is invoking the common transgender trope that sex role=existence. A variation of self-concept=humanity. Well I hate to break it to you but you continue to exist, and you continue to be human, even if we all acknowledge the reality that you are female. A female who has injected herself with a whole lot of synthetic hormones.
    Why do females like yourself do awful things to their own bodies? Self-hatred, internalized misogyny, addiction, social custom. But I would not equate self hatred with “existence” because one exists with or without the self-hatred.

    “I`m a feminist, and I work as an equality consultant. I´m gay. And I do very much critizise the gender system, in fact I do not accept the binary gender system at all.”
    You are a gender fundamentalist- a gender essentialist. That is, you believe that sex roles are innate and not culturally created. Right? Well I know it’s right because you have made great effort to modify your female body to appear male, based on your belief in your internal immutable gender identity. You did this to obtain congruence of your desired sex-role with your physical sex, which you believe should conform to one another- the gender and the sex- at any cost.
    Gender essentialists cannot be feminist. To quote the brilliant Sheila Jeffreys (did you actually read the post you are responding to, Lukas?) “…in order to support transgenderism , gender has to be supported. So the subordination of women has to be supported in order for transgenderism to be supported.”

    You are the opposite of a feminist. You really should read up on feminism because you have not got a clue about what you’re talking about.

    “If gender identity doesnt exist, if the scientists and the transmovement is wrong and you can´t be born in the body of the wrong sex, there´s simply no explantion for me and others like me.” Why not? That’s like saying if Jesus doesn’t exist there’s simply no explanation for Christianity.

    “And if gender has no importace, me identifying as man or woman would not matter. But it does, doesn´t it?” Who said that? That sex roles have no importance? You just read (one hopes) a long eloquent description of the importance of gender. Honestly, I’m mystified by the cluelessness of your comment. I don’t mean to be insulting but you not only appear to have zero awareness of the movement for women’s liberation, but it seems you have not read the post you are commenting on. I suggest a re-read, because your questions are good ones.

    “So, if the map and the reality doesn´t match, what to change?” Hmm I’m not sure what you mean here- common sense would dictate that if one has a map that incorrectly reflects reality, one should change the map. It’s a lot easier to cross-off a line on a map than build a highway so the map will be correct. Or one could of course draw a new map.

    Hope this answers your questions, and I’m sure further reading into sex roles and feminism would be enlightening to you.

    • FAB Libber Says:

      GM, I read Lukas as being MAAB > M2T > reapproximate back to original format (m).

      I liked your:
      common sense would dictate that if one has a map that incorrectly reflects reality, one should change the map. It’s a lot easier to cross-off a line on a map than build a highway so the map will be correct. Or one could of course draw a new map.

      • GallusMag Says:

        No she is F2T.
        “I’m a man with a transsexual background” is cult-speak, as is “I’m a gay man”. She is a heterosexual female.

      • Lukas Romson Says:

        Sorry not to be able to contribute to your little conspiracy theory, but I do not know who you are talking about. And I´m fairly easy to find by google, if you would like to veryfie who I am. But, I would warn you, any spam or harassments (Yes, I´ve been dealing with rabid transfobic radical feminists before, I´m sorry if I judge you as hasty as you judged me…) will be notified and in the end sent to the police.

      • FAB Libber Says:

        ah, it was the word “background” that I think threw me.

        But following the tranz logic train is a sure way to get derailed. :P

      • GallusMag Says:

        @Lucas- She’s saying she took your statements to mean you are a de-transitioned male, and I was correcting her. It’s no “conspiracy”.

        Your paranoia is absurd. I have never seen a single instance of a radical feminst hacking a trans website or blog, or posting photos of a transgenderists children online with pornographic statements overlaying them, or setting up fake twitter accounts in their name with photos of pornography. But I have seen transjactivists do all this and more in attempt to silence and harass feminists. I haven’t seen feminists travel around protesting transgenderist conferences. You have come to MY blog and posted three comments, all of which have been answered respectfully and thoroughly.

    • Lukas Romson Says:

      “Self-hatred, internalized misogyny, addiction, social custom”

      And you are qualified to say it must be beacuse of that? Without knowing me, without havent even met me, you do give yourself the right to judge me. I´m sorry to disapoint you, you´re wrong. But I suppose these reasons serve as good as any to why you are so full of hatred to transgenders.

      “You are a gender fundamentalist- a gender essentialist. That is, you believe that sex roles are innate and not culturally created.”

      Have you read what I wrote? I DO NOT accept the binary gender system! And of course that comprehend the idéa that gender roles are merely socialy constructed, anything else would be ridicully! BUT, I do also think theres more into gender than many radical feminist tend to think. I do belive in an inner gender identity. If it´s essential or contructed, biological or social I do not know. And I don´t care.For me it´s enough I do know it´s there, and that I have the right to be myself. Without you calling me woman.

      “You did this to obtain congruence of your desired sex-role with your physical sex, ”
      No. I suggest you read a little more about transsexualism. We need congruence of our inner gender identity and our physical sex.

      “Gender essentialists cannot be feminist.”
      I do agree. But since it´s obviosly very possible to both acknowledge the fact taht gender identity exist, and acknowledge transgender rights, AND being a constructionivist talking about gender and feminism, I´m am a feminist.

      I got the impression you do actually not understand what I´m talking about when I´m referring to gender identity. The thought that there is an inner gender identity is not my own idé, it was first suggested by Stoller, I think. As it was a way of explaining why perfectly healthy persons felt like they were trapped in bodies of the wrong sex. Your explanations (and Jeffreys, based on Raymonds thesis) is to say that science is wrong and every transsexual all over the world are simply delusional, mad or deceived.

      I do not say that it´s impossible that a person could get so messed up by heteronormativity that she think she´s a man and even want surgery. It might even be posible she can decive not only herself but also several doctors, or these doctros might also be so decived by heteronormativity they cant see she´s just delusional. But your, and Jeffreys, thesis need this to happened not only once or twice, but in every case. That means litterally thousend of cases. It simply not probable.

      So, Occam´s razor says it is possible to be born in the body of the wrong sex. And that there is some sort of gender identity, thats so important that people need to corect their bodies. Intersexualism do exist, why shouldn´t transsexualism exist? Before Copernicus mankind thought of earth as the center of the universe. Maybe it´s time to realise radical feminism isn´t the center of gender knowledge. There are other feminists, they don´t have to be wrong.

      • Loup-loup garou Says:

        Robert Stoller’s views are arch-conservative. In the sixties and seventies, he was involved in research on how to correct gender non-conformity in children, which he viewed as a disorder. He blamed such non-conformity at least in part on the mother’s not behaving in an appropriately feminine manner.

    • Noanodyne Says:

      You thoroughly schooled Lukas with this, Mag. But you can bet that narcissism will continue to blind her to the truth (because you can’t actually take in what anyone else is saying when you’re staring at and talking to your own navel). But there are others out there who CAN appreciate and think about what you’ve said brilliantly here. Cheers to that!!


    • A poster on Dirt’s blog did a good job of explaining why a straight woman would want to be a gay man without any airy-fairy “gender identity” nonsense:
      “Rayne…
      you say you have sexual feelings for men, but that straight sex disgusts you. It’s no wonder. I’m a heterosexual woman and what passes as straight “sex” in patriarchy disgusts me too. The obsession with penetration, and men being dominant, and the shaming of female bodies and desires, and so on.

      I used to admire male/male relationship, for the equality. A real intimate sexual relationship, being seen as an equal person – that was what I wished for. I thought I might be a gay man inside because I didn’t accept the submissive girly female role.

      But the female role is not the truth of what women are. We are just people with a certain type of body – who happen to be opresssed and unvalued in this patriarchal society. I’m getting the feeling that many ftm’s just want to escape this opression, and gain more freedom via the male role.”


  10. Hi friend,
    Thanks for all your transcribing work!! I’m so glad you enjoyed the podcast.

    All the best,
    Meghan

  11. Dan Bledwich Says:

    This IS vile. I want to projectile vomit, it’s so vile.
    Also, where exactly is Sheila pulling her statistics from? Her arse?
    Is this evidence based research??? From who? I don’t see any referencing.

    What she IS doing is attacking people based on their identity, regardless of their gender (of which many trans* folk do not identify with the gender binary anyway), and attacking marginalised groups to score feminists points (only redeemable with anti-sex work and anti-trans* feminists).

    Seriously, I want to puke so hard that my ass hurts.

    • GallusMag Says:

      @Dan- What do you find so objectionable exactly?
      What statistics are you talking about? I didn’t see where Jeffreys mentioned statistics, but if you clarify what you are talking about perhaps I can help.
      Where do you see people being attacked? Do you think protesting the sterilization of children is attacking them? It’s interesting that you equate transgenderism with prostitution, why do you do so? I can’t address your vague concerns without clarification. Or did you just come by to projectile vomit out of your ass all over my blog?

      • yttik Says:

        “she IS… attacking marginalised groups to score feminists points..”

        Well then, the feminist mother ship that hands out feminist points might need to up their game, because all you really get for speaking the truth is a constant barrage of threats, attacks, and being ostracized from many feminist groups who falsely accuse you of being a hater.

        Anyone who would accuse somebody of “scoring feminist points” by speaking up on this issue is completely out of touch and marinating in male privilege.

  12. GallusMag Says:

    @Lukas-

    [“Why do females like yourself do awful things to their own bodies? Self-hatred, internalized misogyny, addiction, social custom.”
    “And you are qualified to say it must be beacuse of that? Without knowing me, without havent even met me, you do give yourself the right to judge me. I´m sorry to disapoint you, you´re wrong.”]

    Well why do you think females do awful things to their own bodies Lukas?

    [“ But I suppose these reasons serve as good as any to why you are so full of hatred to transgenders.”]

    I don’t hate women who harm themselves due to internalized misogyny, I don’t hate those with self- hatred or addiction. Why do you think these are “good reasons” to hate people? That is an awful statement for you to make. Calling any critique of the system of women’s oppression “Hatred” is the most women-hating thing I have ever heard. Disbelieving the essential nature of sex roles is not the same as hating gender fundamentalists. Any more than critiquing religion equals hatred of people of faith. There is not a speck of hatred in Jeffreys’ statements. Nor is there a speck of hatred of transgenders on my blog, or in my heart. Only a fundamentalist such as yourself would characterize unbelievers as being “hateful” of the truths you hold so dear. Because any critique at all, or any discussion of gender is unacceptable to you, and terribly threatening. That doesn’t mean anyone hates you. It only means that you have zero tolerance for critical discussion of your tenuous beliefs.

    [“You are a gender fundamentalist- a gender essentialist. That is, you believe that sex roles are innate and not culturally created.”
    “Have you read what I wrote? I DO NOT accept the binary gender system!”]

    Then by your standard you are being hateful to transsexuals by not respecting their chosen gender. You are saying you do not accept the identification of binary-identified transgenders. By your standard withholding validation of another’s self-identification is an act of hate.

    Gender = Sex roles. Sex roles are assigned based on biological reproductive sex. That’s why you’ve changed the appearance of your body to approximate the opposite sex- so that your gender and your sex appear to be aligned.

    [“I do belive in an inner gender identity. If it´s essential or contructed, biological or social I do not know. And I don´t care.”]

    You don’t know and you don’t care. Well is it okay if some of us do care? Would it be okay if we were allowed to discuss things that you don’t care about? Or must we be silenced because you are not interested in the subject. If you don’t care then why are you commenting? Just because you choose to forgo any analysis of gender doesn’t mean the rest of us have to, does it? Is it okay if some of us care about the hundreds of children being sterilized in the 21st century due to gender? I get that you don’t care, but is it okay if some of us do?

    [“For me it´s enough I do know it´s there, and that I have the right to be myself. Without you calling me woman.” ]

    Of course you have the right to be yourself. And you have the right to be free from discrimination and male violence. What you do not have the right to do is dictate to other people the thoughts or discussions they are permitted to have about the cultural forces impacting their lives and the lives of others. You do not have the right to have your beliefs affirmed by those who do not share them. You do not have the right to silence women and feminists who choose to discuss the system of female subjugation (gender). You do not have the right to force me to define an adult female as something other that woman.

    [“You did this to obtain congruence of your desired sex-role with your physical sex, ”
No. I suggest you read a little more about transsexualism. We need congruence of our inner gender identity and our physical sex.]

    That is what I. Just. Said. You believe gender and physical sex should be in alignment and have modified your body medically and surgically in accordance with your belief.

    [I do not say that it´s impossible that a person could get so messed up by heteronormativity that she think she´s a man and even want surgery. It might even be posible she can decive not only herself but also several doctors, or these doctros might also be so decived by heteronormativity they cant see she´s just delusional. But your, and Jeffreys, thesis need this to happened not only once or twice, but in every case. That means litterally thousend of cases. It simply not probable.]

    Not probable that thousands of people and doctors can be incorrect? Then how do you explain eugenics, lobotomy, the diagnosis of hysteria, cold bath treatments, ECT, the hundreds of thousands of hysterectomies performed on women with no medical purpose, the multiple personality fad, and so many other examples? We know hundreds of thousand of people have been misdiagnosed and mistreated by often well-meaning professionals. Sometimes in horrific ways. It’s not only probable, it’s a proven fact.


  13. I listen to a very popular “trans” podcast sometimes, to keep up with what the gender-lovers are doing.

    Today I heard one of the MTFs say, “6 and 7 year olds” transitioning (he may not have used the word transition, but it was along those lines) is the wave of the future.

    If I was a young kid today, I’d be scared…really scared.

    • Loup-loup garou Says:

      Some young kids might also be thinking, “Gosh, now I have a watertight argument to counter all that pressure to act like a typical girl or boy! It’s my gender identity, even the doctor agrees! And there are shots for it, so it must be real!”

      The girls, especially — they know their status in the world will go up if they adopt the male gender role:

      “Sure, I hate getting shots, but I hate being forced to wear a dress even more. Also, if taking puberty blockers means I won’t end up spending an hour a day putting on makeup, whispering with my friends about blowjobs, getting sexually harassed in school, and being completely sidelined in most normal human activities like my big sister and her friends are now that they’re thirteen, then by golly, bring on the puberty blockers! And the boy shots, so I can grow up to be human, like my brother! I mean, come on, Mom, it’s so obvious, Steve and I both like muscle cars, Sam Peckinpah movies, and Batman! I’m a guy, like him! Sometimes I feel vaguely attracted to Batman, and I think I have sort of a feminine SIDE, so maybe I’m a gay guy, but I’m still a guy! Also, I have never wanted a pony (that’s totes a girl thing), and I feel really uncomfortable around Ms. Yuiopasdf who lives down the road, you know, the one Dad’s always making jokes about because she’s Lebanese or something and those women always have fat asses. Anyway, the doctor says you need to acknowledge my Transylvanian identity and treat it like the serious medical condition that it is. Because I’m sick of those fucking frilly dresses and of being treated like a criminal by my second grade teacher who thinks I act too much like a boy.”

      Kids pick up on this stuff at very young ages.

      • FCM Says:

        and I feel really uncomfortable around Ms. Yuiopasdf who lives down the road, you know, the one Dad’s always making jokes about because she’s Lebanese or something and those women always have fat asses. Anyway, the doctor says you need to acknowledge my Transylvanian identity and treat it like the serious medical condition that it is. Because I’m sick of those fucking frilly dresses and of being treated like a criminal by my second grade teacher who thinks I act too much like a boy.”

        bahahahaha! omg you radfems ARE hilarious! SJ is right. you are naughty, too. ;)

    • yerb Says:

      “…I’d be really scared.” So true, womononajourney.

      I remember at age 5 sitting in the bathtub with my older brother one night, and his pointing out to me that I was a girl, and why.

      I was devastated. I had thought I was a boy. (I had been cast in a community college play as a boy, because I had very short hair, and my parents sometimes dressed me in tom-boy outfits and advocated in some regards for female equality.)

      In that moment, in the bathtub, I was devastated because my father had constantly told us about how great he was, doing such important and exciting work as an engineer and “scientist” (developing highly toxic solid rocket fuel for what I just found out yesterday(!) were nuclear missiles. ‘Til yesterday, I thought they were non-nuclear. It wasn’t until after high school I learned that a missile was actually a bomb. I thought they were rockets for placing satellites. I grew up with photos of dad’s missiles/bombs proudly on our coffee table and walls.) He told us how he had all sorts of doors open to him to great, important, exciting things with his life and work.

      Meanwhile, he constantly told us our mother was “just a dumb housewife,” doing meaningless drudgery of no value to us or society. Actually, he screamed that at her on a nightly basis.

      So I was absolutely crushed to learn at age 5 that I was a girl. Heartbroken. My life ruined: I was destined to drudgery and misery, like my other.

      If I were 5 today, I might have been one of those children slated for “gender reassignment.”

      **
      What is particularly frightening is that since the 1970s, there have been so many parents who have intentionally *tried* to raise their kids in a non-sexist manner, and to eschew sex roles.

      It may well be many of these kids or young people who have been misled by trans activists into now believing they were “born into the wrong body.”

      So what is to happen to parents who try to not raise their kids in a sexist, gendered manner? And what will happen to their children?

      Are parents going to be pressured or forced to return to raising and socializing their kids into extreme sex-roles? Or else the kids will be picked out by their peers, schools, and doctors as needing sex reassignment drugs and surgery?

      Are parents and children going to be coerced by trans politics and trans medicalism back into the gender conformity of the 1950s?

      I have been trying to warn feminists in my N.O.W. chapter (I know, I know, but there is almost nothing feminist going on in my county now!) that the trannies that N.O.W. officially sympathizes with could very well be the biggest threat to much of the feminist progress we’ve made over the past 50 years.

  14. FCM Says:

    i listened to the whole thing…thanks GM and meghan. i loved how SJ talked about the “young” radical feminist blogs…i still cant believe shes reading…AND since she particularly mentioned that we are laughing, very very naughtily, at the trans shit, i also came to the conclusion that she is reading “gendertrender” in particular. thats kinda your thing GM. so, good on you!

    she also mentioned PIV criticism…so she must also be reading feministing. (thats a little joke). LOVED THIS, THANKS!

  15. FCM Says:

    and OMG the dworkin speech gave me chills. were there people LAUGHING in the background?? it wouldnt surprise me if there were, she says the most uncomfortable shit possible, and without a HINT of sarcasm either. which is actually very difficult to do. they probably didnt get that she wasnt fucking kidding, about any of it. and women often giggle when they are talking about the ways they are abused, and she didnt. if they were laughing at her, i can only assume they were cueing her in to what they expected her to be doing. and she didnt even mirror them. which is also very difficult NOT to do. jesus she was amazing!

    i am reading her book “life and death” right now, and she mentions in one essay how she is a “very serious woman” and she is very serious about exposing the harms done to women. i often dissolve into hilarity, i cant help myself. im not kidding either of course, and i love the humor on these blogs, i really do. but its got me thinking about being serious, and how serious women are absolutely unnacceptable. funny women suck too of course. i dont know, i am just thinking about it.

  16. noanodyne Says:

    Sexual Politics was the first feminism I ever read and it completely blew my mind and changed my brain and my life. Millet has had a place in my heart ever since. I’ve always been amazed that many feminists have pretty much forgotten it or never read it. And reading her book about being obsessively in love with a woman (Sita), as disturbing as it is, was also transformative for me. I always wanted to go live at her artists’ colony.

    Anyway, in the interview, Jeffreys references a statement by Paglia about Millet. It’s in an article on Salon about Millet and I just read it. In there it also says this:

    The women’s movement turned on her when she was outed as a lesbian. ‘The disclosure,’ said an article in Time, ‘is bound to discredit her as a spokeswoman for her cause.’ Indeed it did. The gay movement lashed out at her for not coming out sooner.

    Lesbians may have been frustrated with her, but certainly got over it and many of us were thrilled to have her be one of us. It was gay men who hated feminists and didn’t want them in the “movement” and thus helped mightily to disrupt the connections between the movements. And this continues apace with the trans movement. They hate women. They hate girls. They hate feminism. They hate feminists. They’d gladly erase us all and they’re doing their damnedest to do just that.

    • FCM Says:

      you just reminded me…when i was listening to the podcast, i opened another window in my browser and bought a used copy of “sexual politics.” i am looking forward to reading it. i did the same thing when mary daly spoke so highly of “the first sex” i purchased it. she said in her day, you couldnt even buy it, it was out of print and out of reach, but that it changed everything. i believed her, and i wanted to make sure i had a copy. havent read it yet.

      • Mary Sunshine Says:

        :-D

        you just reminded me…when i was listening to the podcast, i opened another window in my browser and bought a used copy of “sexual politics.”

        :-D

        Hah! I did that too. It goes to a UPS Store that i have to get to by bus. I’m hoping it’ll be there Wed.

        I bought one when it first came out. Geez, what a year. Kate Millet, the Scum Manifesto, Sisterhood Is Powerful. Yeah, it changes you bodily. You can never go back.

      • jilla Says:

        Simone de Beauvoir, Kate Millet, Sisterhood is Powerful, The Female Eunuch. I remember reading them voraciously. I remember I couldn’t wait to get home to read into the night. I remember I knew no-one else who read them.

        I don’t remember a word.

    • lishra Says:

      Oh, that is just too weird. I just received my used copy of “Sexual Politics” on the 19th! Haha! There must have been some cosmic rad fem energy goin’ around. A few months ago, I also came across a used copy in a thrift store of “Sisterhood is Powerful” haven’t had a chance to read much in it yet. Gah, I have too many books. Oh, what am I saying… that would be impossible :)

  17. jills Says:

    We need women’s communities. Homeschooling. Teaching survival, practical and physical, and strength of mind and purpose.

    “Today I heard one of the MTFs say, “6 and 7 year olds” transitioning (he may not have used the word transition, but it was along those lines) is the wave of the future.

    If I was a young kid today, I’d be scared…really scared.”

  18. Cizzir Says:

    “Today I heard one of the MTFs say, “6 and 7 year olds” transitioning…”

    Wow, that’s insane. Seriously these guys get worser and worser.
    Dr. Mengele would be proud.

  19. Frances Blaikie Says:

    This is a brilliant podcast, and expresses something I’ve thought for a long time. I often hear transgenders say “I feel like a woman.” But that makes no sense: what does “a woman” feel like. I have no idea; I know what *I* feel like. I’m biologically female, therefore I’m female.

    Biological sex is real. Gender is a cultural construct.

    • Collaterly Says:

      yeah here’s a shocker things like “I feel like a woman” are shorthand for more complicated feelings that aren’t even entirely transparent tot he person saying it GUESS TRANNIES AREN’T REAL GUYS

      • rebel13 Says:

        Well I know *I* always make decisions about medical treatment based on feelings that are not entirely transparent to me.

      • collaterly Says:

        People don’t work like that. Science doesn’t work like that. Sometimes it works pretty well and gives us a good picture of ourselves and the world we live in. Sometimes it doesn’t. That’s part of why people try to use shorthand instead of exhaustively walking you through their best effort. We see through a glass etc etc blah blah bah. Burma Shave.

      • GallusMag Says:

        A true expression of the convoluted genderist thought process. From an individual who is actively involved in lobbying for the sterilization of gender non-compliant children.


  20. [...] “issue.” If you don’t believe me, look at how writers and academics such as Julie Bindel and Sheila Jeffreys are simply banned from conferences for critiquing a [...]

    • rebel13 Says:

      Funny, I can remember the day when womon/womyn used to actually mean something. Guess that just makes me old and out of touch.

  21. E Says:

    I have a question I’d like to ask, I’m coming with the best of intentions, because this is something I’ve always been curious about. I’ll supply the reasoning for my confusion as well.

    Why is it that gender identity and gender/sex roles are necessarily the same thing? As far as I know, a trans person doesn’t actually have to immerse themselves in performing the “opposite” gender. They can behave how they like, the more theory-aware ones that I know adopt the trappings of masculinity or femininity mostly out of a desire to blend in and not cause of a huge fuss over the incongruence of their appearance. This doesn’t seem unwarranted since trans people are at risk for violence. They undergo the procedures themselves because of the deep discomfort they feel with their bodies, not because of the desire to project a different set of behaviours, socially.

    Therefore it seems to me that the two are only loosely connected factors: the existence of gender informs a trans person’s aspirations, as it does for most people in society. I can see how your point of view would come about, transgenderism has been heavily medicalized, and the patriarchal discourses imposed on it by the medical establishment are often really scary, and it does seem that many trans people go a bit over the top in seeking validation of what they earnestly believe ought to be their physical sex through a parodic adoption of gendered characteristics. But while the medical establishment conflates sex and gender, or views them as critically linked, I don’t see how that’s necessary for gender identity to exist as concept. The theory-aware trans women (MAAB) I have spoken to, who are able to articulate their feelings most clearly, definitely want to be FEMALE – not “women”, per se. Being a woman, or trying to be a woman, is a side effect. Clearly their being female isn’t actually possible, but even still, it seems to me that the “gender identity” – feeling revulsion at their own body and desire to possess the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex – is different to performative sex or gender roles.

    Now, I don’t know that this alone is enough to say that you ought to RESPECT this identity (I personally choose to do so, but that’s a whole other discussion), and I suspect as trans writer Kate Bornstein argues that as patriarchy is overcome trans people will probably mostly come to occupy an indeterminate position between sexes, since the motivation for transition ultimately seems to be largely negative – not wanting to be physically female, or not wanting to be physically male, rather than a positive one. Or maybe by then there’ll be a cure for their dysphoria and we won’t have to worry about it :P

  22. Cathy Brennan Says:

    You get a mention on Pam’s House Blend: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/19666/

  23. Bev Jo Says:

    I don’t believe trans have “gender dysphoria.” I think the FTMs understandably don’t want to behave the way men say they should behave, but instead of joining with those who are fighting sexism and Lesbian-hatred, they go for male privilege.

    And the MTFs have watched too much “lesbian” porn made by men and have bizarre fetishistic, objectifying, and, frankly, disgusting ideas of what it means to be a woman. They hate us. I’ve yet to see any treat women with anything other than contempt. Women’s worship of men and self-hatred explains why women support these men against any women who object to them

    These men cannot become women any more than they can change species. Why do so many support and feed their hateful fantasies?

  24. Zimbel Says:

    I think that the author may have understudied this issue; while I find genderless feminism to be a useful model, there’s plenty of evidence that it isn’t a universally applicable model.

  25. yerb Says:

    This sounds an awful lot like concerned, “well-meaning” parents and doctors agreeing on sex-assignment surgery for intersex babies in the past (and present, still?) Hoping the kids will have a better life if they are helped to be gender-conforming. Better living through chemistry & surgery. Man over nature, doctors playing “god.”


  26. [...] lesbian feminist Sheila Jeffreys once stated succinctly : “…in order to support  transgenderism , gender has to be supported. So the subordination of [...]


  27. The very word “feminism” and all of it’s constructs simply reinforce the gender binary, and thus despite any of your claims to the contrary you are mentally subscribed to it and are promoting its existence.

  28. Auntie Punktastic Says:

    So she’s all for radical transformation of the human psyche but still is a natalist who thinks that making babies is the most important thing in a female, male, or othertype life?

    Huh. Go figure.

    Look, evolving past binary gender also means evolving past basing ANY decisions on gender-based matters. Reproducing is a gender-based matter by definition. We are a sexually reproducing species–one female germ cell, one male. And then someone with female apparatus has to carry the gamete to term. In biology the “female” reproductive cell is called that for no particular reason other than it’s the bigger cell and mythically was assumed to be receptive to the “active” “male” cells.

    But back to why it’s wrong to “sterilize” non-bipolar-gendered kids. She hasn’t really made an argument, but dodged it by diving into the emotional cesspit of asserting that breeding is everybody’s right.

    Is it? Just how. I mean it’s no longer necessary to the survival of our species that each and every person have the “right” to breed. We only need so many people–how many, and which ones, is a question yet to be asked never mind answered. Seems to me the mass democratization of breeding has been one of the most dysgenic forces imaginable…and the most ecologically destructive. Way more than “patriarchy.”

    Jeffreys simply will not engage why she STILL thinks that “sterilization” is such a bad thing. If she buys at base (and she does) into the Victorian and religious traditionalist view that all we’re about is males knocking females up, and females pumping out babies, I don’t see how that’s a radical view.

    • GallusMag Says:

      “Look, evolving past binary gender also means evolving past basing ANY decisions on gender-based matters. Reproducing is a gender-based matter by definition.”

      Err, no. You are incorrect. Sex is not Gender. One cannot perform or imagine oneself out of pregnancy, impregnability, or sperm production. One does not “evolve past” biology by one’s imagination. If one could, I would never have fucking cramps again.

      “Gender” is a cluster of stereotypes culturally assigned to sex in order to enforce a hierarchy where males dominate females domestically, socially, politically, and violently.

      Why is it wrong to target children assumed to be lesbian, gay and sex-role non-compliant for eugenic sterilization? Seriously? That’s what you’re asking? The answer is that children assumed or perceived to be lesbian gay or gender-non-compliant should never be targeted for any “corrective” medical treatment or eugenics. Do you understand what eugenics means? Are you aware of the history of eugenics? I assume not. I HOPE not, considering your queries.

      You state: “Jeffreys simply will not engage why she STILL thinks that “sterilization” is such a bad thing. If she buys at base (and she does) into the Victorian and religious traditionalist view that all we’re about is males knocking females up, and females pumping out babies, I don’t see how that’s a radical view.”

      WOW. This is a lie, and also kind of gross. Sex is not a “value”. Sex is not a “view”. Sex is not a victorian view, nor is reproductive biology a “religious traditionalist” view. Sex: Reproductive REALITY exists REGARDLESS of any value or view we hold. As stated above, ones values, views or beliefs have no impact on one’s sex, any more than one’s views hold sway over the force of gravity. One can not remove a pregnancy by imagining it so. I cannot “identify out of” cramps when I get my period,- which I also cannot “identify” out of (or I WOULD seriously- call me “Jim Bob” and let’s be done with it).

      Arguing against sex-role non-compliant children being singled out for eugenic medical reproductive infirmity has absolutely nothing to do with your awful female-hating characterization of natural organic reproductive maturity being “all humans are about”. Why do you think reproduction is “all humans are about” under any circumstance? That is a very distorted and skewed view of human life. It is actually kind of disturbing that you frame “males knocking females up, and females pumping out babies” as the normal state of humans who are not reproductively altered as children on the basis of sex-role nonconformity. Very disturbing view you forward: one that presents natural development of humans as bad. I would suggest that your personal genderist faith has caused you to advocate medical eugenics on children and caused you to advocate medical disabling of children based on sex-role conformity. This is a horrific position and the exact medicalized horror that Jeffreys advocates AGAINST.

      Normal human maturity does not equate “males knocking females up and females pumping out babies”. Selecting sex-role non-performing children for medicalized experimentation and sterilization is not a good thing. Medically disabling reproductive maturity is not good for any kid under any circumstance. Why am I even explaining this? It is unbelievable that I would need to explain why eugenics against gay and lesbian kids is bad. Lord. Oh well, I do this so readers can see the level of madness that I call my in-box every day. Sigh.

      • BadDyke Says:

        Yep, replace gay or lesbian or non-gender conforming with ‘poor’, or ‘the criminal classes’ or ‘retarded’ (or jews, gipsies or any other term that has been used to label the undesired ‘other’), and we’ve seen it all before.

        Yep, seriously, WHAT DO THEY TEACH kids about our very recent history, if NOT sterilizing people is supposed to require an argument!

        So, zero knowledge of history (and we all know what happens to those who don’t learn from history), plus almost zero thinking or reasoning skills, all to support the unquestioned and unquestionable gender BELIEF system — looks more and more like a religion every day.

        GM, how you survive the bombardment of idiocy without going totally loopy amazes me — it makes my brain hurt!

      • Adrian Says:

        I think people far too often confuse the issue of voluntarily sterilizing YOURSELF (which plenty of adults do for various reasons and it can be a problem when the medical establishment says “but no, I know better, you as a woman will eventually want a kid, so I can’t do that for you”) and sterilizing someone ELSE. So they’re quick to run to the “you don’t like to approve blockers/HRT/SRS in kids? That means you think women should only be valued as babymakers” argument.

        But heck, if we minimize things and just think of SRS as cosmetic bodymod surgery for a moment, this population (kids) we don’t usually even let them get a tattoo (“because it’s permanent and you aren’t old enough to really know what you’ll want yet, you’re only 14!!”), and yet now we see pressure to “allow” them to get what is probably the most extreme bodymod practiced anywhere?

        (But of course if they don’t do it before puberty their odds of “passing” go down, that’s the whole conundrum right there.)

        All I can say is though I’m very very glad I did not get any tattoos at 14…

  29. Marie-France Lesage Says:

    What kind of monster thinks that sterilizing biologically healthy youngsters is in any way ethical?

    It’s not like these kids have ovarian cancer or testicular cancer and need life-saving surgery.

    This is STERILIZING KIDS for no other reason than to uphold the anti-female mythology of “gender”.

    Sick, sick, sick, sick, sick.


  30. [...] radfem Sheila Jeffreys (made by another great radfem, Meghan Murphy) on the anti-radfem backlash. The quote pertains to Jeffreys’ analysis of transtheory, which is pointed and logical. She also [...]

  31. FeistyAmazon Says:

    Without having read everything, except the original article, Gallus Mag’s and Bev Jo’s responses (which are wonderfully right on), I am terribly afraid for children in these times. I WAS that child. I questioned being a girl, as roles for girls were laid out. In fact I hated being a girl. NOT because I wanted a penis(gross NO I did not) but because I didn’t want to be forced to wear dresses, play with dolls, play at domestic chores, do housework or be stuck in the kitchen. I did not like other femmy girls into all this stuff(which is what pretty much all girls did then in the ’60s.).

    I wanted to play outside, and did, ride my bike, explore the alleyways, play baseball, swim in the ocean and pool, and do ALL the fun adventurous stuff boys did. I hated dresses, I hated my hair messed with, I hated going out to dinner with my family because they’d always pressure me into wearing a dress or skirt to go out, and I much preferred wearing my shorts or pants or culottes which I did not feel vulnerable in.

    I’d argue and argue I was a boy, and my family of course did not believe me, but they did have me in therapy….but mostly because I didn’t want to do the ‘girly’ things. I didn’t want to get married (to a man), or have babies or any of that….

    Thank goodness I only had to go thru therapy(but it was never clear why), and even though they pressured me to be more girly, it never worked. Finally they came to a resigned tolerance of my rejection of femininity, and I was allowed(after much begging) to play ice hockey like my brother did, (the only girl in the entire league) and then got into karate after that, which stuck with me all my life.

    I would have been one of those prime candidates for those hormone blockers, and then to the opposite sex hormones, and following surgeries. I think that’s an incredibly frightening thing, for a child to anticipate life altering genital and breast surgeries…..much less be put on deadly hormones that could have real consequences and life shortening capabilities,ESPECIALLY the earlier you are put on them! It’s just like Genetically modified foods. Fake foods, fake people, things we were NEVER meant to have in our bodies!

    I like the allegory of how she compares it to the Nazi medical experiments, because to me it IS as much of that sort of experiment(and we know behind it is the elimination of Lesbianism, Butchness, and for males, homosexuality and effeminancy) to alter these young people in a way society sees fit, doctors and psychiatrists get to make boatloads more money, the pharmeceuticals, and a similar vindication of the Iran government in their policies….theirs are life or death: one partner or another either submits to the surgeries, or both face death…..the child themselves in the long run here has little choice…..from pressure from family, doctors and therapists to ‘gender conform’. And gender conformation has NOTHING to do with ‘sexuality’ so this individual is thoroughly confused about their sexuality.

    Perhaps they don’t want to be ‘homosexual’ so to them it’s preferable to transition so they can be with a dude as a ‘woman’. But changing your ‘gender’ is very different than changing sexual orientation…and really, so many get so confused once they GO through the process, that I’ve seen many FTM’s in particular who were Lesbians beforehand, question their sexual orientation as well, and start dating/having sex with ‘gay’ or bisexual men. Course if they still date Lesbians, or ‘queer’ women, that would bring great danger to the Lesbian population by potentially introducing A.I.D.S. and other STD’s into our population, direct from the gay/bisexual male one.

    In fact, that’s what this whole ‘queer’ phenomena is about: to break down these barriers between sexes, ‘genders’, and sexual orientations. Call yourself ‘queer’ and you can date anyone you want, same sex, opposite sex, bisexual, and/or trans in either direction. One big muddied unboundaryed mess, and make it ‘uncool’ to be a Lesbian anymore(unless of course if you’re an MTF with a ‘ladystick’.)

    So Lesbians (who are truly Lesbian) look like a bunch of baddies because WE HAVE SEXUAL BOUNDARIES, and we CHOOSE not to date bio men or wanna be men period! Or even women who want to be with men. Cuz in this day and age ‘anything goes’ and we just can’t say no to the past, present or future males. NOT.

    Thank you for this article, and for your very intelligent response!
    -FeistyAmazon

  32. shona menzies Says:

    Jeffreys talks so much total garbage about transexualism that it is extremely easy to see she doesn’t know the first thing about it.
    What a pathetic excuse she is for a so called radical,a dimwit talking falsehoods to get attention.
    People who have transitioned to male or female are *NOT* forced to do anything or are we excited by some stupid skirts or feckin bras…never mind being supposedly “subordinate”.
    I transition a long time ago and am female,a strong female who takes no shit from *anyone* male or female,rich or poor,strong or weak.
    I dress in jeans and tee shirt 365 days of the year,work in a factory full of men,who love me but are scared as F if i kick off.I’m also a revolutionary Communist and trade union member who fights for womens as well as workers rights with every breath i take.

    Jeffreys! …. a radical ?

    My F’in arse she is a pathetic joke.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 525 other followers

%d bloggers like this: