April 17, 2014
March 17, 2014
The following Mansfeminist Manifesto appeared today on “The F-Word” website (the word which cannot be spoken being Feminism, apparently). The guy who wrote it submitted the post FIVE MONTHS past his deadline, which explains the reference to him as being “November’s guest blogger”. The post is “Who your friends are matters” by Charlie Hale. Enjoy!
Who your friends are matters 16 March 2014, 11:01
This is Charlie Hale’s first guest post for The F-Word. They’ll be blogging for us throughout November. Charlie Hale is a Computer Science student and blogger by night and asleep by day. They’re a genderqueer, kinky, polyamorous pan/bisexual who can’t keep their mouth shut.
A recurring theme within a certain sector of feminism, which we might refer to as privileged, professional or media feminism, is the pushing back at criticism based on friendships or political alliances. To critique one’s friends, they argue, is creepy, or scary, even a totalitarian-esque attack on the freedom of association – entirely missing the significance of these associations. No one will find unanimous agreement on everything with everyone; even between friends, there is – and should be – large scope for disagreement. However, there are some issues on which disagreement should be a clear cut deal breaker: I could not, for example, be friends with Fred Phelps, Vladimir Putin or Norman Tebbit, whatever the circumstances.
Why not? Well, because they’re vile human beings. Who would want the company of someone so appalling? However, more than this, it would give endorsement – on both personal and political levels – to their views and actions. My friendship would imply their views were, to me, credible; that I felt these views were welcome in society. This applies to events as well: to invite bigoted and frankly unacceptable views to be aired on your platform is to give them tacit validation and approval. This isn’t a matter of endorsing the truth of an associate’s views, but rather the acceptability of them.
[Now… who are the feminists who are friends with Vladamir Putin, etc, whose associations are of such concern to Charlie? I think you can see where this is going. There are actually NO feminists who are friends with these gents. This is called “building a straw man”. But there are some sort of feminists associating with something or someone that, to Charlie is, (as the kids say) “worse than Hitler”. Ammirite? ]
“This is the primary idea behind no-platforming: the practice of an organisation refusing to give a platform to someone, and/or a person refusing to speak on the same stage or panel as them – something which is the responsibility of any responsible organiser or speaker. Inviting such speakers not only negatively impacts the climate of the movement, but actively makes marginalised people feel less safe and welcome in the event and the movement as a whole.”
[Hmmm. So feminist women who are personal friends with Fred Phelps, etal, (of which there are none) should, if they DID exist, be no-platformed from expressing their own views due to that non-existent association, according to this fellow Charlie, a man who feels comfortable telling women how to run our own liberation movement, and telling women who we can associate with. Okayyy…]
“In many cases, a person’s problematic politics will be dismissed as “not problematic enough” to warrant no-platforming: this, however, is a blatant display of privilege. If you are in the position where you are able to wave away oppressive behaviour with no personal ill-effects, you are almost certainly not in the position where you could reasonably speak for that oppressed group.”
[So women cannot trust our own judgment about which politics a feminist’s friend has, which are “problematic” enough to taint a woman via “contagion”, requiring her to be quarantined using the “no platform” method. (Are you keeping up here laydees?) Moreso, the very fact that we deem something NOT “problematic” should be a giant red flag that we are privileged cunts too stupid to know when something IS “problematic” for Charlie, a man who is oppressed by women. I do sooooo hope you are keeping up here, dear readers.]
“It is never the privileged who suffer from the toxic atmosphere – and, from a platform of privilege, that can be easy to ignore. Active engagement with less privileged members of a movement is the only real way to promote accessibility.”
[“less privileged” than women: Charlie, who needs you to “engage” with him, listen to him, and trust his judgement over your own stupid cuntedness.]
“There is some pragmatism required. It is usually unreasonable to expect someone to call out their boss – as journalist Laurie Penny has been pressured lately to do. I generally don’t expect people to starve for their feminism and we can’t assume that people are always able to actively tackle problematic views from their superiors without risking their own well-being.”
[He doesn’t expect TOO MUCH from you laydees. Charlie doesn’t require you to actually starve for him! He’s a reasonable guy vis a vis you meeting his male feminist needs.]
“However, active endorsements of problematic individuals and groups must be tackled. Feminists who cosy up to TERfs, white supremacists or misogynists for their own advancement – or, as is becoming common, to seek sympathy from problematic groups having been called out – must understand the serious damage they are inflicting. Placing the views of the oppressors above the safety of the oppressed sends a very clear message: ‘my feminism is for me, and my ilk, and us alone’. This is as much a part of the patriarchy as what they claim to be fighting against.”
[Ohhhh… feminists who “cozy up” to “terfs”! Feminists who exchange ideas (or friendship!) with RADICAL feminists, with UNDISTILLED feminism, with feminism that centralizes FEMALE (and not Charlie’s) concerns. Oh thattttt. And the feminists cozying up to white supremacists and misogynists? Who are they? Oh hell, I’m going to guess they are WOMAN-CENTERED feminists TOO! And we’ll just call them “Vlad Putin Fred Phelps Hitler Racist Misogynist-type Feminists” too! Because Charlie!
I love this part: “…as is becoming common, to seek sympathy from problematic groups having been called out”. Ohhh Noeeee! Women become alienated when you try to isolate them, control them, tell them who they can be friends with, tell them not to trust their own judgment, tell them what to think, tell them how to speak, make them perform loyalty tests, threaten to publicly smear them, call them degrading names? Awww. Sorry, Charlie.
Hey wait a minute. Who is this Charlie person anyway and why should women obey him? I’m not questioning, mind- because questioning would be a HUGE red flag that I’m about to do something cuntly and not at ALL prioritizing Charlie’s oppression as a man over that of the women worldwide who are keeping him down! I’m just curious, you see, and trying to educate my stupid cuntly self.
This is Charlie. He says he is genderqueer. You must obey him. If you don’t, he and his friends will rain hell upon you- or at least unload a disconcerting spam-like stream of internet messages to yourself and whatever “platform” you are speaking on, possibly threatening suicide and murder and a shouty demonstration (where only a handful of his peeps will actually show up because they are all anti-social shut-ins who fear daylight).
This is Charlie showing you his kinky polyamorous porn-loving gender-lovin’ ass. “Obey it!” Charlie says. Charlie likes stackable plastic storage basins. Clean your room Charlie. Your mum isn’t going to do it anymore.
So, women have been asking for a follow-up post to THIS ONE which outlined transgender community plans to protest and disrupt a Day of Remembrance of the women maimed and murdered at L’Ecole Polytechnique by a homicidal man who believed feminism was discriminating against him. I was a bit delayed in composing a follow-up post due to mundane work and life demands, then I decided I may as well wait until the video of the flash mob protest was posted.
You will recall trans activist demands that the public library censor feminist women’s speech around issues of concern to women, namely countering male violence and sexual exploitation of women.
You’ll recall Natalie Reed’s plan to stand outside the November 30 memorial shouting through a megaphone along with a group of his fellows, who would “round up better attendance” than the memorial itself.
Then, Vancouver’s Trans Alliance Society, among others, decided to “FlashMob” the solemn memorial for murdered women, a plan spearheaded by Ronan Oger- now calling himself “Morgane”- a middle-aged married heterosexual and the father of small children who works (like many male transgenders) as an IT professional. Mr Oger began “living as a woman” in September, when he took his first estrogen pill.
Transgenders met in private and public on Facebook groups and elsewhere, venting their rage at women holding a feminist event which did not center male issues- and which dared to allow Janice Raymond, who scathingly critiqued the medical “sex-change industry” thirty years ago, to speak on unrelated issues, namely countering male violence and sexual exploitation of women.
Come to find out (!) a lot of people were completely appalled at this transgender anti-feminist activism, so insensitively targeting a memorial event. Lets just say it was a “peak trans” moment for many: that moment when all the heartfelt transgender testimonials and political rhetoric falls away and a stark light shines on the blatant woman-hatred at the heart of the transgender movement. Some transgender activists themselves were horrified at the violent rhetoric and misogyny being expressed by other men. “I hope for all our sakes that the predictions of the groups that were part of the Friday meeting do not come true.” Morgane Oger tweeted. Natalie Reed and Larkin Forestheart abandoned their organized protest, disowning themselves from it, and Reed denounced Oger’s flashmob plans. “I started getting angry messages from trans-feminists around the world about how I was “The Organizer..” a panicked Reed tweeted at Oger.
Alarmed, Oger changed the date of his flashmob to December 5 so as to avoid the public spectacle of his angry male brethren accosting and terrifying women at an event commemorating the actions of an angry violent male terrorist acting on the belief that feminists oppress males.
So what became of the protest(s)? Long story short- the memorial event went off swimmingly with none of the threatened disruptions. About six dudes stood outside with placards whose messaging was unintelligible to the women attending. One of the transwomen- with full beard- carried a sign which said “I am my brain not my genitals” (lol WTF?). At the start of Raymond’s talk one of the men attempted to storm the venue (probably Oger who claims he forced women at the event to speak with him). As individuals were prohibited from entering sessions that were already in process he was cockblocked by a door monitor. One male attendee tweeted back and forth with Natalie Reed during the event. During the question and answer period he rambled on and took up all the time that had been set aside for women to speak. He then uploaded a long long youtube video from his cell phone reflecting cluelessly on his actions which he described as a “dramatic moment” of the event (because attention was centered on him). His actions highlighted the need for women to have women-only space to organize away from male attention-seeking and entitlement. His time-sucking rambling did not mention genderism, which was not discussed at the memorial.
These dudely goings-on were less than a footnote to a successful standing-room-only feminist event featuring presentations and discussions among women on the topic of countering male violence and sexualization of women. Listen to Janice Raymond’s talk at the event here:
It is time to reflect on the attempts by male activists of the transgender variety to silence, disrupt, and prevent feminist and women-only organizing.
The last two years have seen multiple major Radical Feminist conferences in Australia, UK, Canada, and the US. Each has been met with the same violent rhetoric and threats by transwomen, including bomb threats. Transwomen have submitted comments to my blog containing nothing but the names of feminist’s children and the addresses of the elementary schools their children attend. This is the stuff of nightmares. This is terrorism. Yet every one of these events have gone off swimmingly. All the violent bluster, the threats from transwomen and other MRAs, all the terrorism, has not prevented these feminist conferences from occurring. Maybe it is time for men like Ronan Oger to focus on their own events and conferences. The only transgender events that are well attended are those sponsored by drug companies, and all of these events have sex-segregated conferences, and all of these events sponsor public discussions of gender.
Women and our allies, your voices are making a difference. Every time you take a moment to counteract this terrorism it has an effect. Because: you are not alone. When you take the time to comment on a news article. When you write your own article! When you contact your representative about a piece of legislation. When you organize. When you attend. When you donate. When you speak up. Every single time you see feminists under attack for meeting and speaking make sure you take action. It really is making a difference. Congratulate yourself! Keep it up!
Ohhhhh, right right, the great transgender flashmob of 2013. I almost forgot. Here it is. Enjoy.
December 1, 2013
The following review of Julia Serano’s “Excluded” by lesbian Kit Van Cleave was published by Houston’s OutSmart, owned by publisher Greg Leu. In response to complaints by male transgenders, the review was redacted, censored and removed. An apology to men was issued:
November 12, 2013 | Greg Jeu
In the recently released November issue of OutSmart, we published a book review of Julia Serano’s Excluded, which dealt with issues pertaining to the transgender community. Although the piece was run through our normal editing process, the extreme insensitivity of the review did not come to our attention until after publication. For this, we truly apologize.
As soon as we realized we had erred, the review was removed from our website immediately. At OutSmart, our goal is to be informative, not harmful, and to build bridges between members of the LGBT community, not to create divisions. OutSmart aims for the highest level of inclusivity and has utmost respect for all of our readers, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. It is very apparent that this incident does not reflect that goal.
After holding a staff editorial meeting on Tuesday, November 12, we have taken steps to ensure that this type of mistake will not occur again. We thoroughly appreciate the feedback the community has given us regarding this piece. Listening to each of your experiences with the review is the first step to fixing the issue. Whenever we let our readers down, we always strive to use the situation as an educational moment to improve the magazine, its content, and ourselves.
Again, our sincerest apologies to those we have offended. We thank everyone who continues to support our publication and help us grow.
Greg Jeu Publisher
Here is the oh-so-offensive, terrifying (to men) and censored review, published without permission under fair use. Make up your own mind:
“All that aside, some books I just can’t get through, even with sustained effort, like a pair sent to the OutSmart offices. I’ve had to struggle to grasp the authors intentions, and examine why I found these books impenetrable. Sometimes it’s just style- long sentences covering half a page without ceasing, terms created without definition or juxtaposed to other terms so that the two don’t make sense: lack of logic; inability to support an argument; unclear overall goals; ambiguity.
In Julia Serano’s “Excluded”, for example, the first twenty pages is given over to redefining terms, making up new terms, and wrestling terms about the various available “lifestyles” in the gay community. As Serano puts it, “I call myself a woman and transsexual…because I feel those words best describe some parts of my person.” Okay, fair enough, until this comment follows immediately after: “ I do not believe that there is some magical underlying quality all musicians, or all bird people, or all women, or all transsexuals have in common.” Huh?
Another puzzlement is the prefix cis. “It is difficult to discuss trans people without also having langage to describe the majority of people who are not trans.” Serano writes, continuing, so “transactivists often use the word cisgender as a synonym for non-transgender and cissexual as a synonym for non-transsexual.” And that’s all the definiton of cis we’re going to get from Serano. According to other sources, the word actually stands for people happy with the gender and sexuality they feel they were born with. I know gay people reject being called abnormal, but that’s no reason to come up with a new word for “normal”.
Wikipedia attributes “Cisgender” to Carl Buijs, a transsexual from the Netherlands. In April 1996, Buijs wrote in a Usenet posting, “I just made [the word] up.”
As Serano’s book is also a bit of a memoir, I found in Part One, Chapter 2, that this writer, who calls herself a woman, has made the decision to still retain his penis. As a matter of fact, Serano went to a summer camp specifically to protest people with penises not being allowed to attend the Michigan Women’s Music Festival (the sponsors were apparently avoiding “male energy” with this fest.)
I believe I’m lost. If we’re going with the idea that semantics is dead (i.e. “transsexual” doesn’t mean what it means), or no longer useful, then throw out the dictionaries. Until then, I expect writers to try to stay within the agreed meaning of the words we all use. Otherwise, I can call myself a puppy, but no one will know what I’m talking about when I describe my life.”
Transgender Activists plan protest against Day of Remembrance for Women Murdered in the L’Ecole Polytechnique Massacre
November 20, 2013
Vancouver male transgender activists (“Transwomen”) spent today organizing a protest against the scheduled upcoming Day of Remembrance for the fourteen women slaughtered during the horrific 1989 L’Ecole Polytechnique Massacre.
Organizer Natalie Reed previously collaborated with Abuzar Chaudhary (who has a restraining order against him by the University of Toronto Women’s Center for violent behavior and threats) in mounting a public protest outside a Vancouver private residence where women met to discuss feminism.
Reed believes that all males can become female if they simply claim to be, and has lobbied for the right to have a state-funded medical procedure to insert a surgical “neovagina” near his penis, so that he can have the appearance of having two sets of genitals. Reed and his “transwomen” co-organizers are offended by any feminist or women’s event that addresses the issues that affect women because they feel that such events discriminate against them as males.
In a shocking lapse of sensitivity and respect, Reed and co-organizers seek to disrupt a solemn event – one remembering the cold-blooded mass-murder of fourteen women by a man who targeted feminists for death because he believed feminism discriminated against his interests as a male- on the grounds that feminists also discriminate against THEIR interests as males.
From the Vancouver Rape Relief website:
1989 – A lone man walked into an engineering class at L’École Polytechnique at the University of Montréal. He separated the men from the women and told the men to leave. After the male students complied, the man declared his hatred of feminists and began to shoot the women with a semi-automatic rifle. While police forces stood outside, Marc Lépine went on a rampage, shooting and stabbing the women at the school. He then shot himself.
He left behind a note that included a list of prominent Canadian feminists whom he planned to kill. It was clear that these women engineering students symbolized the progress of women’s equality. Lépine’s actions could have pushed back women’s demands for increased equality through social change. However, women organized in defiance of his attack.
Women rose up to demonstrate in towns and cities across the country. They connected Lépine’s acts of violence to the everyday sexism to which women are subjected. Women dedicated themselves to feminist organizing to bring into reality their expectations of freedom for the present and the future.
You can read more here: https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/december-6-1989/
This bizarre upcoming protest may be the most terrifying, grotesque, and shocking incident yet to emerge from the transgender movement’s decade-long war against feminism and women’s rights.
The following post, seemingly lacking all grasp of reality, and without any sense of the basic humanity of the massacred women being memorialized, was authored by Natalie Reed and is being circulated on Facebook and various blogs:
Vancouver Rape Relief invited Janice Raymond to speak at the Vancouver Public Library Nov. 30, 2013
11/20/2013 — Suzan
This is from a Facebook post. More Info will follow
Natalie Reed 11/19/2013
So… VANCOUVER TRANS PEEPS (and allies)… as many of you know Vancouver Rape Relief has invited Janice Raymond to speak at the Vancouver Public Library (presumably the downtown location) on November 30th, as an event memorializing the massacre at L’Ecole Polytechnique. Given VRR’s trans-exclusionist policies, history of trans-misogyny, ongoing support of transphobic feminism, dismissal of Kimberly Nixon, subsequent legal defense, and role in setting legal precedent that permits anti-trans discrimination in Canada, and Janice Raymond’s own history of extraordinary trans-misogyny and central role in the development of transphobia within feminism, we can’t really consider this coincidental or benign, nor can we assume the talk will simply be about L’Ecole Polytechnique, misogynistic violence or women in STEM fields.
In all likelihood, it will almost certainly be an openly cissexist, trans-misogynistic talk, probably based around arguing for trans-exclusionist policy to “protect” the “safety” of “womyn-born-womyn”.
Many folks are trying to prevent VPL from hosting the event, especially given that VPL’s own policies insist upon events being inclusive and respectful towards marginalized groups and identities (and IIRC, gender identity is specifically mentioned). *Hopefully* the talk being prevented from taking place at VPL is what will happen, or at least VPL inviting members of the trans community to respond / debate. BUT IF THE VRR / JANICE RAYMOND TALK PROCEEDS AS PLANNED… I would very much like if we could organize a counter-event to take place at VPL the same day (with or without explicit approval from VPL… library square’s status as public space should permit us to gather there regardless of prior approval- at least long enough to stage the response event- as long as we aren’t being destructive or harassing anyone or anything).
I was thinking of organizing speakers to talk on four topics that would serve as a useful counter-point to the trans-misogyny of Vancouver Rape Relief and Janice Raymond:
1) The consequences of trans-exclusionist policy, and/or trans people being unable to safely access services like rape/abuse/DV support services, homeless and emergency shelters, sexual health services, police services, medical care, etc. …with a definite focus on the rape/abuse/DV stuff (I could take this up as a topic myself, if needed, based on my experiences as a trans rape survivor and my ongoing inability to find any suitable support or resources).
2) The consequences of transphobic, cissexist and trans-misogynistic feminism, as exemplified by writers like Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffries, Mary Daly, etc., and the consequences of exclusion of or unwelcoming attitudes towards trans women in women’s spaces, organizations, communities, etc. (perhaps tilted towards trans women’s exclusion from feminist space and queer women’s space).
3) Trans-misogynistic violence (which can tie into TDoR and recent events).
4) How trans women are impacted by misogyny and misogynistic violence, like that of the L’Ecole Polytechnique shooting, and how trans-misogyny, transphobia, cissexism, etc interrelates with misogyny, patriarchy, etc.
I think these topics will make a compelling point (ideally to ppl who are there for the Raymond talk, or who have uncritically supported VRR in the past, or who are associated w/ VPL, or who are simply unaware of these issues)… particularly if our event manages to round up better attendance than the Raymond talk itself.
If interested in helping organize this event, or interested in speaking, or interested in helping out in any way at all, please please comment or message me or e-mail me at email@example.com Also, even just expressing interest in ATTENDING could help give a good idea of whether this works as an idea.
Hopefully none of this will be necessary, but given that it’s less than two weeks away, we should start organizing ASAP.
(also my FB is being slow so I can’t tag everyone… so help me get the word out?)
Here at GenderTrender I very seldom post asking readers to consider taking a specific action. Generally I feel it is a bit presumptuous to advise other adults on the specifics of their activism. I am going to make an exception here and ask you to strongly consider whether it may be possible for you to donate some funds to Vancouver Rape Relief. Even if you can only afford five or ten bucks. Or collect five bucks from all your friends and send that in. Whatever you can to support them and the work they do against such outrageous assaults. They need support and (apparently) will- shockingly- need security from the transgender community for this memorial service. Please don’t forget. You can send your donation here:
Montreal Massacre Memorial
Saturday – November 30, 2013
10:00am – 6:00pm
Vancouver Public Library (350 West Georgia St. Vancouver, BC)
Professor Collette Oseen – Sexism within the Police Force
Executive Director of Southwest Center For Law And Policy, Hallie Bongar-White – Tribal Law and Vioelnce Against Aboriginal Women
Immigration Lawyer Peggy Lee –The Impact of Recent Immigration Reforms on Women Escaping Male Violence
Professor Emerita Janice Raymond – Prostitution: Not a Job, not a Choice
Family Lawyer Amanda Rose – Battered Women, Child custody and the New Family Relations Act
Professor Elizabeth Sheehy – Defending Battered Women on Trial
10:00 a.m. The State’s Sexist and Racist Response to violence against Women
12:00 p.m. Feminist Responses to Rape on Campus
2:00 p.m. Organizing Women to the Feminist Movement
4:00 p.m. Beyond “Not My Daughter”: How Prostitution impacts all Women.
10:00 a.m. Buying Sex (Canada, 2013)
Formerly prostituted women, policy-makers, lawyers and male buyers present conflicting views on prostitution. watch trailer
12:00 p.m. Status Quo? The Unfinished Business of Feminism in Canada (Canada, 2012)
How much progress we have truly made on key concerns such as violence against women, access to abortion, and universal childcare? watch trailer
2:00 p.m. Power and Control: Domestic Violence in America (USA, 2010)
the film explores the shocking persistence of violence against women, as refracted through the story of Kim, a Duluth, MN mother of three. watch trailer
4:00 p.m. It Was Rape (USA, 2013)
Eight women tell their diverse personal stories of rape, from a Midwestern teenager trying alcohol for the first time to a Native American woman gradually coming to terms with her abusive childhood. watch trailer
October 16, 2013
You will seldom see a more sobering example of the utter disrespect, silencing, censorship and complete removal of women and lesbian representation from public discourse regarding our rights as human beings than you will from the New York Times this evening.
The Times has initiated a male-only “debate” about the impact of attaching the transgender politic (which promotes and codifies noxious social sex roles and sex stereotypes against women) onto the lesbian and gay rights movement. Eliminated from this debate are the women and lesbians whose rights are directly at odds with this movement.
The New York Times culled ALL women from this discussion. They invited six men: four gay, and two male genderists (one gay: drag queen Laverne Cox from RuPaul’s “Drag Race”), and one straight (explicitly anti-lesbian activist Susan Stryker, who has campaigned to outlaw lesbian public gatherings, organizations and activism on the basis that they exclude men) to “decide” whether the LGBT movement should further support the anti-female sex roles and sex stereotypes championed by the transgenderist movement.
Missing from this discussion of women’s rights? Women. Missing from this discussion of the lesbian and gay movement? LESBIANS. All of us. Every single one. Total and complete lesbian and woman erasure.
Much like the recent assembly of all-male US legislators who convened to impose legal limits on our female right to control the reproductive capacity of our own bodies this “debate” will include none of the people involved. WOMEN. LESBIANS.
The “Grey Lady”, once considered a reliable balanced news outlet, has gone full-on …. irrelevant. There is a reason millions of people read blogs like mine while the Times goes out of business. That reason is WOMEN. Keep chatting amongst yourselves boys. Good luck with that bros.
“I don’t care if male privilege dies hard”- Free PDF of J. Michael Bailey’s ‘The Man Who Would Be Queen’
October 7, 2013
“Man Who Would Be Queen” author J. Michael Bailey surfaces to make a rare public appearance on memoirist Christine Benvenuto’s latest, which calls into question the claim of recently hired (white heterosexual male) NewYorkTimes columnist Jennifer Finney Boylan asserting that he is now a member of “one of the most marginalized groups in the country.” Boylan has built a successful career based solely on his transgender identity.
Christine has been censored and harassed (police being called during one bookstore reading incident) after publication of her memoir reflecting on the disintegration of her marriage to autogynephile crossdressing academic Jay (now “Joy”) Ladin. Transgender attorney and HuffPo columnist Dana Beyer, among other prominent individuals, personally campaigned for censorship of Christine Benvenuto’s work, even though they had not actually read it.
Excerpts from Bailey’s comments:
“J. Michael Bailey
I loved your book. So refreshingly honest and insightful. You had the courage to keep your eyes open. In contrast, in the NY Times this week there is a lukewarm review of a sister’s account of her financier brother’s transformation. Sounds like the same ol’.
If you are interested in learning more about the motivations of heterosexual men who become women, you can read my book (third section most relevant) here:
Some transsexual women tried to suppress the book by attacking me. (Talk about male privilege dying hard.) You can read about their attempts to ruin my life here:
“..one of the fundamental insights of the best science on transsexualism is that there is nothing fundamentally different between heterosexual crossdressers (as which many future transsexuals begin) and autogynephilic transsexuals (the kind that is motivated by the erotic desire to become women).”
“..both the fundamental difference and the inevitability of transition are false..”
“…I think that a careful (or even an ordinary without blinders) reading of Christine’s book shows how inaccurate her husband, then ex-husband, seemed regarding his history and motivations. Inaccurate enough to have helped inspire Christine’s book. Was this conscious dishonesty, unconscious dishonesty, delusion, or what? I suspect a bit of each.”
“Autogynephilic men who transition to become transwomen deserve some sympathy, and they have had mine. But their plight is much more akin to a normal heterosexual man’s midlife crisis decision to leave his wife for another woman than it is to their preferred narrative. The heterosexual man in midlife crisis also deserves some sympathy. But so does the family he is leaving.”
Bailey offers a free PDF of his book “The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism”. Click the above link to read it.
Read Christine Benvenuto’s post on the dubious prospect of Boylan’s alleged marginalization titled “Male Privilege Dies Hard” and Bailey’s comments by clicking here: http://christinebenvenuto.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/male-privilege-dies-hard/