AS you watched the Oscars last night, did you think to yourself: “Golly, the best Actor and best Actress categories are transphobic towards those with “nonbinary” gender identitays”?
If the answer is no, then you may be surprised to learn that those in the Transgender Movement are complaining the broadcast was one long “triggering” ode to “transphobia”.
First, the Best Supporting Actor winner Jared Leto, who has been attacked for weeks- and even heckled- by transgender activists for his portrayal of a gay male queen in “Dallas Buyers Club”. Leto has been criticized for not playing the character as a “transwoman” (an identifier that did not even exist in the 1980’s era in which the film is set), for not being a “transwoman” himself (strangely it’s okay that he is heterosexual though), and for making jokes about the pain of bikini waxes (because when a “transwoman” gets one it’s a horrible price to pay that no mere woman or man could ever understand).
Not holding back on the anti-gay sentiment, the transgender activists and their supporters are now attacking Oscars emcee Ellen Degeneres for the “transphobia” of a gay woman cracking a gay community drag queen joke. One that heterosexual male “transwomen” found offensive to (you guessed it!): heterosexual males.
If you’ve ever wondered why members of “the LGBT” constantly question the wisdom and practicality of a political alliance with the “T”, the accusations against Ellen ought to help highlight the problem.
The transphobic hate-crime in question was the following joke made while addressing audience member Liza Minelli:
“Hello to the best Liza Minnelli impersonator I’ve ever seen. Good job, sir.”
You can watch Ellen tell the joke in the brief video clip which is helpfully linked here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/03/ellen-degeneres-transphobic_n_4890369.html
Washington Post Style columnist (and clearly not a member of the lesbian and gay community) Caitlin Dewey ran with a headline claiming an “Internet Consensus” ruled Ellen as “transphobic”. Which is incredible. I mean forget the transphobia: this may be the first time in history there has ever been such a thing as an internet consensus! Who knew? The internet is of one mind: one fabulously anti-gay mind. You heard it from Caitlin first.
Should we let Caitlin and the other gender-loving heterosexuals in on the joke?
The humor rests on the ubiquity of male Liza Minelli impersonators in the Gay Community, Caitlin, where Liza is considered a Gay Drag Icon. Sheesh.
I can’t believe I really need to spell that out. Then again I suppose one shouldn’t be surprised.
It’s gotten to the point where Gays and Lesbians cannot even talk or joke about our own community without heterosexual Transgenders and their supporters like Caitlin (and the “consensus” of the entire internet, apparently), accusing us of being ANTI-HETEROSEXUAL-BIGOTS.
Want to mention the fact that lesbians don’t like penis? You are now an ANTI-HETEROSEXUAL-BIGOT.
Want to joke about how Liza Minelli looks more realistic than her best gay male drag impersonator? You are now an ANTI-HETEROSEXUAL-BIGOT.
Want to make a movie about gay culture in the era of AIDS? You are now an ANTI-HETEROSEXUAL-BIGOT.
The WHOLE INTERNET says so folks! It’s a consensus!
Janet Mock on the “Underground Railroad” into Child Prostitution for Transgender Youth- and why he thinks that’s a good thing.
February 2, 2014
“A sense of community, sisterhood, resiliency, resources, strength. It was like our underground railroad of resources to navigate a system not built for us. And for me that’s what sex work gave me.”- Janet Mock on his child prostitution experience.
Janet Mock says child prostitution is “liberatory” and “empowering” for transgender children in an article and series of videos he published this week. He describes an “underground railroad” of adult males that introduce transgender minors, including himself, into sexual relations with adult men for pay, which he celebrates as “making us feel desired”.
It is hard to imagine a public figure celebrating child prostitution and publicly testifying to personal knowledge of an “underground railroad” that coveys minors into sexual acts with adults without –at the very least- being questioned by the FBI. But in this case it is supposedly different, because transgender children are different.
According to trans activist and author Janet Mock (whose adopted name, he explains, is a reference to his desire to emulate musician Janet Jackson) sexual exploitation is not a bad thing for transgender children because an innate desire to experience sexual exploitation is, according to him, intrinsic to the condition of transgender males who want to be perceived as female.
Some excerpts from Mock’s blog and vlog:
*** I was 15 the first time I visited Merchant Street, what some would call “the stroll” for trans women involved in street-based sex work. At the time, I had just begun medically transitioning and it was where younger girls, like my friends and myself, would go to hang out, flirt and fool around with guys and socialize with older trans women, the legends of our community.
The majority of the women I idolized engaged in the sex trades at some time or another – some dabbled in video cam work and pornography, others chose street-based work and dancing at strip clubs (an option reserved for those most often perceived as cis). These women were the first trans women I met, and I quickly correlated trans womanhood and sex work.
I perceived the sex trades as a rite of passage, something a trans girl had to do in order to make the money necessary to support herself. I had also learned (from media, our laws and pop culture) that sex work is shameful and degrading.
Sex work is heavily stigmatized, whether one goes into it by choice, coercion or circumstance. Sex workers are often dismissed, causing even the most liberal folk, to dehumanize, devalue and demean women who are engaged in the sex trades. This pervasive dehumanization of women in the sex trades leads many to ignore the silencing, brutality, policing, criminalization and violence sex workers face, even blaming them for being utterly damaged, promiscuous, and unworthy.
So because I learned that sex work is shameful, and I correlated trans womanhood and sex work, I was taught that trans womanhood is shameful. This belief system served as the base of my understanding of self as a trans girl, and I couldn’t separate it from my own body image issues, my sense of self, my internalized shame about being trans, brown, poor, young, woman.
Though I yearned to be among women like myself, I also judged them for doing work that I swore at 15 I could never do. The work and those women didn’t fit my pedestal perched Clair Huxtable portrait of womanhood.
Yet my economic hurdles were real and urgent, and I couldn’t deny that witnessing the women of Merchant Street take their lives into their own hands, empowered me. Watching these women every weekend gathered in sisterhood and community, I learned firsthand about body autonomy, about resilience and agency, about learning to do for yourself in a world that is hostile about your existence.
These women taught me that nothing was wrong with me or my body and that if I wanted they would show me the way, and it was this underground railroad of resources created by low-income, marginalized women, that enabled me when I was 16 to jump in a car with my first regular and choose a pathway to my survival and liberation.”
“I did work at other places while I was doing sex work. So for me, I worked at a clothing store, I worked at a fast food place, I worked at boutiques and all these kind of things, you know. But nothing would compare to the check that comes from being a sex worker. That money was quick. Quick money enabled me to do things more quickly. And for me my body issues, my body image issues, the way I felt about myself- those were urgent matters. And for me frankly at that time as a seventeen, eighteen year old there was no waiting another year for things. I needed them now. And so for me yeah, there is this shame attached and a stigma attached to being a sex worker for me, but there’s also the other things I got from that. A sense of community, sisterhood, resiliency, resources, strength. It was like our underground railroad and resources to navigate a system not built for us. And for me that’s what sex work gave me.”
When sexologist Michael Bailey published “The Man Who Would Be Queen” which reviewed decades of research on male transgenderism- he was pilloried by transgender activists for publicizing the obvious sex-role basis of male transgender identity. Transgender for males is an embrasure of the sexualized role imposed on females, while transgender for females is an attempt to escape that same role. A photo of Bailey’s five-year-old daughter was obtained by trans activist Andrea James who posted it on the Transsexual Roadmap website captioned: “cocksucker”. Activists hastily set up a panel to denounce both the book and its author.
But the demonized Bailey never in a million years suggested that adopting female sex-roles meant that pedophilia or child prostitution was good for anyone. Janet Mock does exactly that: and is celebrated by the transgender community for doing so.
When 16-year-old Cassidy Lynn was in headlines recently as “the first transgender high school homecoming queen” the media never reported on his sexual exploitation by adult males, even though it was quite public and came up on a cursory internet name search. Cassidy quit school apparently to pursue his involvement in these activities, which we know because he posted about it at length, including multiple video blogs, but the mainstream media deliberately chose not to report. The transgender community also maintained silence, presumably because the truth might undermine the wholesomeness of the “girl-next-door” homecoming queen narrative for the transgender political agenda. But it’s more than just the transgender community turning a blind eye.
As Janet Mock shows us, because the transgender movement frames exploitation as “affirming” of a male sexual identity based on female sexual roles, it therefore considers sexual exploitation a “liberatory”, and “affirming” experience, even for minors.
Janet Mock is a former People Magazine online editor and graduate school alumni of the NYU School of Journalism. When not promoting child prostitution as an affirming experience for transgender youth he promotes his book, “Fish Food”. “Fish” is the transgender community word for actual women and is a pejorative term for how such men perceive the smell of female genitals. Mock’s book has now been re-titled as “Redefining Realness”. “Realness” is the transgender community word for successfully passing as a member of the opposite sex.
You can read the above cited article “Sex Work Experiences” on his Janet Mock dot com website. GenderTrender does not link directly to sites which promote pedophilia and the sexual exploitation of children.
“They Looked Beautiful. They Looked Normal.” Dr. Norman Spack- TED talk on creating transgender children
January 28, 2014
There’s a reason not a single trans website, blogger, or journalist has reported on, commented on, or re-posted the “Dollmaker” Dr. Norman Spack’s recent TED talk. It is, as they say, “problematic”. He is completely clueless about women, sex politics, transgenderism, and the medicalization of gender. Frighteningly uninformed and ill-spoken by any measure.
He extols on various sexist stereotypes then reports how he diagnosed pediatric UK trans “chicken circuit” celebrity Jackie Green as being “destined to become six foot five inches tall”. This caused him to dose the child with cross-sex hormones AT THE AGE OF THIRTEEN, against all medical advice. The child then underwent surgical removal of his testes and inversion of his penis into a cavity designed for other males to sexually penetrate AT THE AGE OF SIXTEEN, with Dr. Spack’s approval, by a surgeon in Thailand, where such procedures were then legal. These procedures have now been criminalized as medical crimes against children.
In related news, Dr. Spack was quoted in an article this week titled “Uncertainty Surrounds Medical Treatments For Transgender Youth” He offered this clueless gem: “The difference between a tomboy and a trans-male who starts puberty is that the tomboy accepts having breasts, accepts having periods.” Has the eugenics doctor never spoke to a single pubertal female, tomboy or not? Has the Docktor never heard of anorexia, bulimia, cutting, breast ironing, or THE ENTIRE ENDOCRINOLOGICAL INDUSTRY marketed to women who DO NOT WANT to menstruate EVER?
Dr. Spack began transgendering children because he “wanted to do something dangerous” with his medical credentials. He has succeeded in that alone, and that is how he will be remembered by history.
November 19, 2013
GLAAD -formerly the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation- is now an organization headed by heterosexual male Jennifer Finney Boylan and representing the medicalization of social sex roles or “Transgenderism”. GLAAD, who have removed “gay” and “lesbian” from their name and now wish to be known by the stand-alone acronym only, has issued the following video in an attempt to persuade New York State to provide Medicaid coverage for “gender treatments” designed to disguise the sex of individuals who would like to appear as the opposite sex, or who would like to use medicine and/or surgery to modify their secondary sex characteristics in some way.
Stephen Ira, the daughter of Annette Benning and Warren Beatty, appears in the video. Stephen Ira is known for her activism against lesbians and feminists, having publicly organized against the rights of women to hold radical feminist conferences, at one point even publishing on her blog that she often thinks about shooting feminists. Stephen Ira is a heterosexual woman who identifies as and calls herself a female “fag”.
The following is a partial list of some of the treatments and procedures identified as “medically necessary” by WPATH, the World Professional Association of Transgender Health:
Synthetic Cross-sex hormones
facial feminization surgery
Laser hair removal,
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.
October 12, 2013
“I knew when she was little. She was I’d say 3, 3 and a half. And like any typical parent we would read the story books and fairy tales and all kinds of stuff. And we ended up reading Cinderella, she wanted to read Cinderella, so we were reading Cinderella and at the end of the story she told me that she was gonna grow up and marry herself a handsome prince. We tried to convince her that she was gonna grow up and marry a princess and she was adamant that no, she was going to marry a prince. So at that point, yanno we’d kinda thought it was a phase and she would grow out of it. And it turns out it wasn’t a phase. So when she came to us when she was seven and said that this isn’t how she wanted to live and if she had to live this way she didn’t want to… we went looking for help. And got in touch with family services of york region, met Barbara, and one thing after another after another and here we are and we have “Danielle”.
We didn’t know for the longest time what we were gonna be faced with. We knew that there was something there. So we chose to basically ignore it for a little while to see where things would go. But she got very behavioral, withdrawn, yanno tended to not wanna come out and play, she just wanted to sit in her room. So we kept trying to talk to her and ask her like what’s going on, how are you feeling, why are you feeling this way, and most of the time it would end up with her in tears shutting down, wouldn’t talk to us. And then the one day I was cooking dinner and she came out and told me flat out- I don’t wanna live like this anymore. I want to be a girl. I am a girl. And so the choice was made to… let her make the choice. You’re either Daniel, or you’re Danielle. You make the choice.
And obviously… what her choice was.
Look how the hack reporter Carys Mills lazily re-frames the actual words mom says into the “typical transgender narrative”, and uses that narrative to shill for the “Sick Children” facility for “Sick Children Who Are Flaming Homos” where Daniel will be “treated” by retarding his pre-pubertal gonads followed by sterilization to correct his defect of wanting to marry a prince. WAKE UP Gays and Lesbians and so-called supporters. WAKE UP. This is happening ON YOUR WATCH.
DO something. SPEAK UP in your COMMUNITY, on websites that post this shit, to your government representatives that you VOTE for, at the BAR, at the bus stop, at your CHURCH, to your family and co-workers, to your BARBER, at the grocery store, at your LGBT CENTER, at your pride march, on your FACEBOOK, to the news agencies.
Seven year old kids ARE NOT CONSENTING TO THIS. It is THEIR PARENTS who are DOING SO. Stop them from transgendering boys who WANT TO MARRY A PRINCE. Speak up for seven year-old Daniel. SPEAK UP FOR DANIEL. This is BULLSHIT! HOMOPHOBIC BULLSHIT! This could have been YOU. And you KNOW it. So STOP THIS SHIT. Fuck some shit up. Do it FOR DANIEL.
Speak up and say “LET KIDS BE KIDS”. And “GAY KIDS ARE NOT SICK KIDS”. Including GAY KIDS who want to marry a FUCKING PRINCE.
September 26, 2013
We’re all familiar with “The Cotton Ceiling” whereby heterosexual male transgenders advocate for the corrective rape of lesbians who “oppress” them by denying them sexual contact. Transgender cotton ceiling rapists hold male-only (Planned Parenthood sponsored) seminars, write books, host lecture tours, and endlessly spam lesbian websites and blogs with rape and murder threats over lack of male “inclusion” in lesbian social gatherings, lesbian organizing, lesbian events, lesbian music festivals, and – most importantly- lesbian bedrooms.
We never see homosexual male transgenders (M2T) hold seminars, write books, and spam rape and murder threats towards straight men who prefer not to have sexual contact with other men.
We never see homosexual female transgenders (F2T) hold seminars, write books, and spam rape and death threats towards straight women who prefer not to have sexual contact with other women.
We never see heterosexual female transgenders do these things either. But we do see straight women who “identify as” gay men try to guilt-trip gays into allowing them into gay male-only spaces. You won’t see hetero females forming “camp trans” outside gay male musical festivals, patrolling the perimeter with weapons, vandalizing them, cutting water lines, and spamming them with photos of their vaginas and text claiming that their ability to produce eggs is “more manly than their pale and flaccid cocks will ever be” (note to John Waters: that was MY script idea bro!).
The transgender heterosexual female meme for inclusion in gay male spaces might best be observed as an emotive appeal for disability rights. The phrase “men born without penises” is frequently seen in these discourses. In fact, the sole female who has placed in gay male “Leather” competitions was also wheelchair-bound.
This week the gay male International Leather Sir organization clarified their rules to specify that competition was open to gay males only. Seems a change of headquarters to Texas has freed the gay men from the California Gender Identity ordinance that had eliminated the rights of gay men to hold gay male only events. Heterosexual transgender females are upset (but still no rape and death threats against gay males as is de rigor against gay women by transgender males).
Reactions on the Leatherati website:
“What if they decided to exclude someone on the national origin? Does the board have the right to do that any more then on there [sic-GM] gender identity?”
“I’ve left the men’s community for my own reasons, but it is a part of my history, having VASM, Tony, my Uncle George (Nelson) and the NLA in my life were a part of making me the person I am. I had hoped the changes in the leather community I had seen would become accepted, but I see there is still an effort to keep the men’s community an exclusive member’s club. I question it when I face the same attitude in the women’s leather community as a trans woman, and I’m questioning it when I hear it from my leather brothers. If we (as trans* folk) honour our identity as members of our communities and live it, are we not worthy of honour within the community we commit to? You don’t get to define anyone but yourself. There is more to a man than the size of his dick.
Danielle Moneer Macdonell (formerly known as Spencer leBear)”
“Not only have you shut out our brothers who are trans, but you are also stupidly ignoring the men on the far end of the submission spectrum. They exist, those who might be modified in ways that make them into men you would not think of as “whole”. [refers to gay males who have undergone back-alley castration surgery as part of their “submissive” sex lifestyle.-GM]
“It’s the equivalent of “go away, you have your own space now, don’t dilute our space with your non-XY chromosome selves”. And it seems similar to arguments I’ve heard in the past against people of color, women, and people with disabilities.”
“Right back of the bus. Don’t drink in my water fountain but you can shine my shoes….know what fuck you.”
“Just because you move the contest to Texas doesn’t mean you can discriminate without consequences. The consequences will be more severe than a tax or legal liability. You will have, if you haven’t already, lost the respect of hundreds of leatherfolks who are transgenders, AND our allies.”
“Taking a page out of Michigan women’s music fest…”
“This dares to be Leather? This exclusionary attitude to people already excluded? Disrespecting identities within a community already identifying differently? Creating an unsafe mentality in a world that made them feel safe?
When you think of the textile of Leather, after time, it is supple and and rich, With time, it becomes better, with the proper care and attention, it is treasured. It takes time and effort to care for it. Each mark of wear is a memory. Leather is alive. It has integrity,
It is synthetic textiles that are easily discarded, their wear, while also representative of memories, cannot be restored. It lacks integrity.
It is my hope that 2013 is not year that the Leather community capitulates to the ideal of a synthetic community.”
“It’s not about competing for a patch, it’s about what that patch represents. And what that patch represents is more than just possessing a cock. I am a leatherboy. I am a gay male. I am trans. None of these are contradictory to any other. I’m honestly surprised with how much this hurts me.”
“The notion that trans* men are not “bio”, much less not able to be “legitimately” gay because of their assigned gender at birth is a hateful, narrow-minded, and privileged perspective.”
“If you identify as a gay man then whether you were born with the chromosomes or with a cock should not matter. You are what you think you are.”
“Is this the same Jeffrey Payne who was IML 2009? Who won the title even though he was hearing impaired? Even though there is an International Deaf Leather contest?”
“To anybody with the opinion that this change is a good idea; top hatin’ [sic-GM] because my beard is more impressive than yours.
-A man with a trans status”
“People who identify as male and stand on that stage are more of a fucking MAN than the bigots who insist you have to have the Y chromosome to compete.”
“This “decision” most certainly is discriminating. Persons who are transgender do not wake up one day and decide to choose to be another gender. It is a lifetime of painful emotional and physical conflict.”
“What’s next – making this “Whites Only”?- Zoe Brain
“Seriously? ILSb wants to be the next MWMF? Welcome to obsolescence.” –Mercedes Allen
“Not only is this change invalidating the maleness of transgender men, it’s saying the sir and boy identities are about what’s between ones legs and about what chromosomes one has, and not about what’s in ones heart and mind.”
“IDENTITY, that which is how a person sees themself and labels themself Is defined BY that individual alone. Yes, they may choose to label themselves with already established defining characteristics or labels, but it is still THEIR definition of what it means to them.
The response you typed about is solely focused on sex. Sex being the.scientific label for what body parts you are born with, NOT Gender, which, I may add,is what this ENTIRE issue is about. Gender discrimination. To call it anything else is.both ignorant and invalid.”
September 22, 2013
August 27, 2013
The following is an excerpt from the 1997 Presidential Address at the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Symposium. This organization is currently known as WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health), and is the preeminent transgender lobbying organization for the medical industry.
WPATH devotes itself to promotion of medical/surgical “treatment” of gender nonconformity, based on the philosophy that females and males who non-perform social roles ascribed to their sex should disguise themselves as members of the opposite sex to prevent corrosion of the gender hierarchy which ritualizes and enforces male domination and female subordination.
Dr. Harry Benjamin, an endocrinologist and sexologist, pioneered this “treatment” and is known as “The Godfather of Transsexualism”.
By Friedemann Pfaefflin, MD
“For a continental European it is a great pleasure to visit British Columbia and to watch the salmon climb the rivers and the salmon ladders to reach their spawning grounds where they fertilize and start their new journeys through the oceans. Just like the tides it seems to be an eternal circuit of being born and dying away. Every individual salmon contributes to it. It goes on and on, although not all salmons reach their places of origin and are able to procreate. Quite a few are caught by fishermen on their journey, and others are devoured by bigger fish or by the black bear. Some grow to an enormous size and if caught they are exhibited as trophies: the salmon king of a certain year or of an individual valley.
It is this picture that came to my mind when I was pondering the prospective topic for the Presidential Address at this Symposium. The journey of the salmons seemed to be a metaphor for our scientific dreams and endeavors. They are born and they die away, and we treat the names of selected individual scientists as trophies. We may call such a person a king scientist, and we admire this person for his or her contribution to the progress in the eternal quest of mankind to transcend its boundaries. The ideas of such a person may fertilize the minds of many others. They also may be treated by the entourage of the king salmon as if the truth had been found forever and as if the narrow stream of the individual valley is just like paradise. The followers thus may never become aware of what is going on in neighboring valleys. That may be one of the reasons why mankind has to repeat itself over and over again, and why every new generation seems to have to invent the same things that could have been known if one looked across the boundaries of one´s own valley.
It is the purpose of this presentation to demonstrate that some of the issues we are struggling with look like second or even third editions of problems our forefathers in the field had already tried to solve. I will use Harry Benjamin, Sigmund Freud and Magnus Hirschfeld, three of the most outstanding sexologists of the beginning of the century, who worked in the field, before the term sexology was known, to exemplify this.
Our Association carries Harry Benjamin´s name in its coat of arms as the name of the physician and scientist who paved the way to a better understanding of transsexualism, and above all, an easier access to cross gender living, cross sex hormonal treatment and sex reassignment surgery. Without his deep caring for far more than a thousand patients, without his engagement in academic and professional organizations, without his numerous talks and writings, these treatments might not have become as easily accessible as they are now. We owe him a lot, and his work has been acknowledged in previous presidential addresses, in the special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior in his memory, published about a year after his death (Ihlenfeld et al. 1988), and in the short portrait of him in the introduction to the abstracts of this conference (Schaefer & Wheeler 1997).
Before he turned to treating transsexual patients and responding to their concrete wishes, he had devoted much of his work to rejuvenating individual life or rather prolonging it. Both wishes, to transcend the time limitations of an individual life as well as to transcend individual boundaries of sex and gender most probably are as old as mankind itself – religious traditions of various backgrounds, myths, philosophies, pieces of art and literature giving testimony thereof.
We know quite a bit about his work and his life, but we are still missing a biography of him putting the roots of his research and clinical work into the perspective of contemporary scientific developments and investigating mutual influences between him and other king scientists and clinicians of his era, an epoque which witnessed an unprecedented development of sex research and sexual science. When he was a young man, the capitals of Austria and Germany, Vienna and Berlin, were the two very places to study sexology. Although he set off very early for the United States, he stayed in close contact with the leading researchers of those places, and he eagerly soaked up every new finding of sexual endocrinology and sexual psychology years before he met the first transsexual patient. Let me highlight just a few examples.
He was an ardent admirer of the work of Eugen Steinach (1940), Vienna, who, together with Magnus Hirschfeld (Steakley 1985, Baumgardt et al. 1985), Berlin, experimented with the transplantation of gonads to cure all kinds of what then was considered a sexual disorder, for instance homosexuality. Like Steinach, Benjamin believed in the beneficial effects of vasoligation or sterilization respectively, to postpone the process of aging and to cure – among other complaints – erectile dysfunctions. For the psychoanalysts among you it may be worth mentioning that even Sigmund Freud underwent such a sterilization operation in the hope to thus defeat his cancer disease and to slow down the process of aging (Schur 1972). This is worth mentioning because so many psychoanalytic colleagues are still reluctant to accept the overall beneficial results of somatic treatment measures in gender reassignment.
On one of his visits to Vienna, Benjamin met Freud and consulted him because of personal problems with sexual potency. Freud, at that time, was still rather inexperienced in his psychoanalytic technique – at least when judged from our knowledge of today – and he gave Benjamin a very primitive interpretation. He suggested Benjamin´s erectile dysfunction was due to his latent homosexuality, and you certainly can imagine that Benjamin did not appreciate this interpretation.
This short interaction between the two great men resulted in a permanent skepticism of Benjamin against psychoanalysis if not a thorough dislike which since then has been replicated in many encounters of transsexuals and their doctors. A prototypical example of it is found in the movie “I change my life” in which Vanessa Redgrave plays Renee Richards and in which the attempt of a psychoanalytic cure of the patient´s problem is profoundly ridiculed.”
Since sexism no longer matters, plaintiffs try using “gender identity” to win relief from sexist injury
August 12, 2013
“I lean more towards the feminine spectrum, but I do ovulate between masculine and feminine. It just depends on the day, girl!” – B. Scott, explaining his gender suit.
There was a time when lawyers filed actions against individuals and organizations that discriminated against their clients based on sex. Some of these cases involved damages caused by institutions or officials who illegally discriminated via enforcement of sexist stereotypes. These cases were usually brought on behalf of women. Examples include women who were not promoted due to their failure to exhibit ritualized behaviors of submission not required of their male coworkers , women who were required to don sexualized uniforms and maintain specific, expensive (unpaid) time-consuming body grooming and face-painting regimes as a condition of workplace readiness not required of male co-workers.
These lawsuits were filed on the grounds that sex-stereotyping is discriminatory against women, and when institutionally or officially enforced, illegal.
The current age of profound political backlash against the rights of women has resulted in a reinvigoration of state, official and institutional codification of sexual stereotypes (“gender”) as a legally protected form of discrimination now framed as a personal belief or “faith”. As such, sex discrimination has been re-classified as a state-protected institutional and personal “value”.
The new form of sex-based discrimination has elevated the sex-stereotype to a protected legal category that eclipses sex itself. Claims of sex discrimination are now opposed by the new protected “right to believe in” sex discrimination. This new protected form of sex stereotyping is called “gender” or “gender identity”. The legal creation of “Gender Identity” is identical to the old form of discriminatory sex stereotyping except that it now protects and codifies the “right to stereotype” while providing limited recourse against sex discrimination to individuals that publicly, formally pledge belief in sex stereotypes. Examples include statutes which allow males to displace females in state education Title IX sports programs on the basis that the males believe themselves to possess thoughts, feelings, and behaviors sex-stereotyped as female.
What then will become of those claims formerly filed under now eliminated sex discrimination protections? Two recent actions provide us with a clue.
Fashion pundit and femme gay male internet personality B.Scott filed a 2.5 million dollar lawsuit against Viacom and the BET cable network last week after an incident which took place during his July appearance on the pre-show for the BET Awards. Scott claims he was pulled off the air and told his clothing did not adhere to the company’s sex-based dress policy. He states that he was forced to change outfits to one that BET producers deemed appropriate for males based on sex-stereotypes. These actions resulted in alleged damage to Scott’s reputation due to an interruption of his performance, wrongful termination, loss of income, and emotional distress due to the unlawful infliction of discriminatory wardrobe policies based on sex. However since sex-stereotyping is now a protected legal category Scott’s attorney recommended filing suit on the basis of “Gender Identity” discrimination. One problem: Scott has no record of ever making public pledge or testimony of a personal transgender belief or “identity”. On the contrary, Scott has always maintained a strong pride in himself as a flaming gay man. As part of his lawsuit, Scott was forced to make a public statement adopting a personal “gender identity” and proclaiming himself to be transgender.
”Over the years my love muffins and strangers alike have questioned me about my gender identity. What IS B. Scott? As a society we’ve been conditioned to believe that a person has to be ‘exactly’ this or ‘exactly’ that. Biologically, I am male — as my sex was determined at birth by my reproductive organs.
However, my spirit truly lies somewhere in between. It is that same spirit that has allowed me to become so comfortable in my skin, choose how I express myself, and contributes to how I live my day-to-day life.
Transgender is the state of one’s gender identity (self-identification as woman, man, neither or both) not matching one’s assigned sex (identification by others as male, female or intersex based on physical/genetic sex). [source]
It is by that definition that I accept and welcome the ‘transgender’ label with open arms.
It is also by that definition that BET and Viacom willingly and wrongfully discriminated against my gender identity during the 2013 BET Awards Pre-Show.”
B.Scott’s announcement did not sit well with many in the transgender community who disputed the authenticity of his newly declared protected gender beliefs. Longtime trans activist and Transgriot blogger Monica “Fishy” Roberts (who believes he is female and refers to his penis as a “six inch neo-clitoris”) tweeted “When B Scott starts taking hormones and calling himself Brittany (or another femme name starting with ‘B’) and declares he’s transitioning then I’ll consider him part of Team Trans.”
Roberts and others rightfully observe that Scott’s sudden public testimonial of his newly adopted Gender Identity beliefs appears insincere and mercenary. However unlike an individual who suddenly proclaims Judaism to access a protected legal right to compel an employer to give them the day off for Passover, the protected legal category of Gender Identity requires no evidence of authenticity. Duration of belief, performance of rituals, membership in a faith affinity group are objective criteria used to parse self-declared legally protected personal belief identities. Gender Identity requires no such objective criteria. Anyone can claim it at any time, even retroactively, purely on the basis of personal report of one’s feelings. Gender Identity offers legal protection to anyone who is willing to declare at any time that they:
- possess intellectual, psychological or behavioral characteristics which fail to conform to social stereotypes based on reproductive sex,
-believe such non-reproductive traits are inextricably caused by reproductive biology,
-draw the conclusion that reproductive biology itself is therefore not objectively observable.
This new protective legal status for “sex-deniers” has undermined, if not removed, the grounds for claims based on sex discrimination, or at least provided cover for the lack of political will to enforce anti-discrimination claims of women, who are overwhelmingly the victims of such sex discrimination. It is little wonder that femme gay man Scott decided not to pursue remedy via sex-discrimination suit although that is obviously what he was a victim of if his account of events is factual.
Instead of asserting his right to dress as he wished regardless of sex, Scott’s representatives found it more advantageous in this legal environment to argue that Scott’s right to wardrobe hinged on his self-concept of himself as reproductively (partially) female.
In Quebec last month, management consultant and butch lesbian Tommi Sojourner filed a Judicial complaint on the grounds of “Gender Identity” after an incident of apparent sex-based harassment that occurred in a bizarre courtroom exchange with a judge who insisted on referring to the claimant as male over and over and over again, even after correction by Sojourner and opposing counsel over a dozen times. Sojourner, who does not perform femininity, expressed that being repeatedly referred to as male – after multiple corrections- based on her failure to conform to female sex-stereotypes was insulting, sexist, and deliberately harassing. Further, she alleges that her case was not given an objective hearing due to judicial bias based on her sex-role nonconformity. This is sex discrimination. It is discriminatory for a judicial official to insist that a woman is actually a male due to the fact that she fails to conform to sex-based stereotypes of dress and behavior and it is harassment to continue to do so after being corrected more than a dozen times.
Sojourner’s claim rests on the fact that she is not transgendered. If she was a genderist she would have been well pleased by the judge’s repeated cross-sex identification of her, based on sex-stereotypical norms. Regardless, in the post-sex legal landscape where “sex-denial” is itself a protected category, her attorney thought it expeditious to utilize a Gender Identity claim vs. a sex discrimination case. By this erasure Sojourner was not discriminated against as a woman based on sex, or as a lesbian, but on the dis-acknowledgement of her own personal free-floating self-concept of herself as (like Scott) inhabiting “femaleness“.
If sex does not exist, sex discrimination does not exist. Class-action litigation based on sex does not exist.
With the elimination of the legal category of sex and the removal of sex-stereotyping as an actionable wrong, litigants have no choice but to seek protection under “Gender Identity” on the basis that formerly discriminatory (now protected) sex-stereotypes are being incorrectly applied to them based on personal testimony of their self-reported, objectively unobservable, sex reproductive “self-concept”.
This is legal political feminist backlash circa 2013.
August 5, 2013
When you hear trans activists and allies define lesbians as “penis-phobic” sexual “bigots” against males, a condition which can be “cured” by raping us: it is pretty clear that the transgender politic is as starkly anti-lesbian and anti-woman as a political agenda could possibly be.
There is an excellent post “There is no T in Lesbian“ over at the Liberation Collective today on the topic of Transgenderism and the ways in which the “T” is at odds with the Lesbian and Gay liberation movement. Critical to the transgender movement is the silencing and censorship of all public discourse around sex stereotypes, gender, and women’s rights, and the eradication of lesbian and gay voices – even on the subject of homosexuality. This is because the goals of the lesbian and gay rights movement are in direct opposition to the platform of the transgender movement. Superficially, and to those outside of these movements, there may appear to be common ground. For example, protecting the rights of LGBT people against discrimination in housing and employment. However, there are other minorities (African Americans, Women, etc.) who seek protection against discrimination in these things, and they have not been merged into the lesbian and gay movement. Nor have lesbians and gays been inundated with rape and murder threats by these groups as they routinely have by transgender activists.
Why then has the Transgender Movement been attached to the homosexual rights movement?
Transgender activists have explained the need for this alliance several ways. They say all sorts of things:
“Our enemies can’t tell us apart- they see M2T as “super-gay” men, and F2T as “super-lesbian”, so we may as well join together since the public sees us as the same thing anyway”.
“Gays owe us support because feminine men who insist that they “are women” suffer more discrimination than feminine men who do not, and men who impersonate women while believing they actually “are women” suffer more discrimination than men who impersonate women (drag queens) without having those feelings.”
“Women, Lesbians, Gays, must serve us and center our needs and concerns because we have high rates of suicidality and psychiatric co-morbidity and criminality and you don’t”.
“A percentage of transgenders consider themselves ex-homosexual but still have social ties to the gay subculture they once were members of”.
“Those transgender men and women who are heterosexual like to call their hetero relationships “lesbian” or “gay”, and refer to themselves as “dykes” and “fags” as part of their heterosexual transgender identity. The majority of male transgenders are heterosexual, which means the percentage of “transwomen” who consider themselves lesbian is exactly opposite to the percentages among actual females. Unlike actual females, most M2T are “lesbian” and since we are forcing ourselves into the lesbian community in droves on that basis anyway, you may as well just include us in the LG movement.”
Shannon Minter, the “ex-lesbian” transgender attorney now heading the mainly transgender, hetero and male legal initiatives at ex-lesbian National Center for Lesbian Rights (which has creepily retained its old name from the days when it did represent lesbians) believes that homosexuality itself is a form of transgenderism and as such the gay rights movement should be re-framed and subsumed under the “transgender umbrella” as a wing of the transgender movement. She believes that homosexuality is transgender, because lesbian and gay sexual relationships are not procreative, and are therefore manifestations of cross-sex behavior. No different than the conservative right wing view of homosexuality, really: a misalignment of the natural order.
Conservative, right-wing, and theocratic views on homosexuality match Minter’s views exactly. We see this in surveys which show that transgenderism is far more politically acceptable to the general public than homosexuality. We see this reflected in places like Iran, which force lesbians and gays into state-funded medical “sex changes” under threat of capitol punishment. We see Minter’s view on homosexuality mirrored in Christian conservative preacher Pat Robertson’s recent declarations that while homosexuality is a sinful abomination, transgenderism is okay. We see this in transgender activist websites like “Lesbimen”, “TransAdvocate”, etc. which aim to prove that lesbians are “actually men”. We see this in the lightning-fast adoption of sweeping legal and social reforms designed to remove feminism’s hard-won gains of sex-based protections and their replacement with “gender identity” protections which accord rights based on one’s fealty to the very sex-based stereotypes the women’s liberation and gay rights movement sought to eliminate.
The elephant in the room is that transgenderism was invented as a “treatment” or medical “cure” of homosexuality. The reason the “T” is included in the LGBT is that it has been historically lesbians and gays that transgenderist cures have been inflicted on. It was upon lesbian and gay bodies that medical experiments were conducted that resulted in what we now call “transgender treatments”: often on lesbians and gays who were involuntarily committed or incarcerated. Just ask Alan Turing. Just ask all the gays and lesbians rounded up and experimented on in “forced sex-change” medical camps in South Africa as recently as the late 1980’s. Just ask all the kids being medical-tracked and puberty-suppressed as guinea pigs in rapidly growing government-funded programs right now.
The act of voluntarily “passing” as the opposite sex has also long been a survival technique for lesbians, gays, and women under oppressive sexist and heteronormative circumstances and regimes. Nothing has changed, except the influx of heterosexual pornography-soaked body-mod kinksters attaching themselves belatedly to the lesbian and gay movement. This heterosexual influx not-coincidentally coincided with the birth of the modern transgender rights movement in the 1990s.
Today’s post at the Liberation Collective includes an interesting PDF chart that attempts to briefly outline “what separates the T from the LG”. Examples include (paraphrasing wildly):
Believes reproductive sex is a feeling or mental state unrelated to biology yet includes a psychological imperative to “congruity” between mental state and the social perception of one’s reproductive biology. Sex changes are impossible, so desires palliative treatment by undergoing various bodily modifications designed to approximate the opposite-sex biology cosmetically on those body parts commonly seen socially by others (genital surgery is not undergone by a majority of transgenders).
Since bodily sex does not exist, homosexuality does not exist, except as a form of bigotry and discrimination against persons with opposite-sexed bodies.
Has exclusive sexual and romantic attraction to those of the same sex.
Requires bystanders to participate in and “affirm” their self-concept of themselves as having an “opposite-sexed brain”.
Has exclusive sexual and romantic attraction to those of the same sex.
Psychological distress is viewed as a natural manifestation of sex/gender incongruence. “Change Yourself”.
Psychological distress not viewed as a natural manifestation of sex/gender incongruence. “Accept Yourself. Change social norms.”
Lobbies for hormone-suppression and sterilization of children below the age of consent.
Against reparative therapies and medical “treatments” of children below the age of consent.
Lobbies for elimination of sex-based protections for women and elimination of same-sex rights of assembly for women and homosexuals.
Does not seek to eliminate feminist gains for women. Supports homosexual and other same-sex gatherings.
And so forth. (Apologies to Liberation Collective for my scattershot paraphrasing).
Allyson Robinson, first Heterosexual Executive Director of a national LGBT Org gets the boot in surprise weekend board meeting
June 24, 2013
As reported by multiple sources, Allyson Robinson was relieved of his duties yesterday as director of OUTSERVE, a “National organization devoted to assisting those affected by “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” in a regularly scheduled Saturday board meeting. Robinson’s appointment as chief nine months ago was celebrated by transgender activists as a historic first for heterosexual members of the “LGBT”. Robinson was the first heterosexual appointed to run the LGBT org by virtue of his transgenderism.
Robinson, 43, who had cosmetic facial surgery to appear more female but retained his male sexual organs, had a 5 year military career, being accepted as a West Point candidate after his application was rejected three times. He served from 1994 to 1999. Then, presumably using VA funding, he obtained his Masters degree in Divinity at Baylor University, a private Baptist college, and became both a “Baptist Preacher” and transgender in 2007. He remains married to his wife of 19 years, Danyelle, and is the father of four, oldest 14.
As the dust settles, the “professional LGBT” community (those making a tidy living working for social justice orgs) scramble for answers. And the heterosexual/transgender wing of the LGBT is already calling conspiracy- against genderist, heterosexual members of the LGBT by homosexuals.
But let’s get real. Let’s talk about the elephant in the room, the reality so obvious only those dullard or delusional could fail to discern it.
GAY PEOPLE HAVE NO INTEREST IN SUPPORTING GENDERISM.
In fact, many many gay people find genderism to be a conservative hetero-centric political platform antithetical to lesbian and gay liberation.
The only reason Allyson Robinson was appointed as head of OUTSERVE is because he was the only one who wanted it. Presumably the heterosexual christianist genderist, as so many outside the gay community do, vastly overestimated homosexual support for heterosexual genderist concerns. Or maybe he is just dumb. Hey, it happens.
NEWSFLASH: “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed in September 2011. Lesbians and gays are no longer hunted and stalked and dishonorably discharged from service due to homosexuality. OUTSERVE is an obsolete organization, as evidenced by their merger with another obsolete organization, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, in July 2012, just prior to Robinson’s appointment.
Did Allyson really believe that gays would continue to fund an org whose mission had “transitioned” from a gay org to one whose platform was now about obtaining the “rights” of heterosexual men like Allyson to serve in the military while injecting mad cross-sex hormones and showering in the female dorms? Did Allyson believe gays prioritized such a venture? Would pay for such a mission? Get real.
The Pew Survey of LGBT Americans released on June 13 shows that 45% of those who now consider themselves members of “the LGBT” are non-homosexual. Even so, transgender concerns were rated dead last by LGBT community members in terms of priority.
Further, the majority of LGBT respondents reported that they shared NO COMMONALITY WITH TRANSGENDER ISSUES OR CONCERNS WHATSOEVER. As in, none. Nada. Nothing. No comprende.
So let’s face it, “LGBT”.
Lesbians and Gays will not be funding the heterosexual transgender movement. We just won’t. The question isn’t why heterosexual Allyson Robinson was ousted, but wtf was he doing there in the first place.
In the meantime, as it all gets sorted, transgenders should support transgender concerns: like this transgender male’s “battle” for his “right” to provide personal care for dependent women patients who don’t want to be touched by him. The Lesbian and Gay community will NOT be supporting him.