April 23, 2014
Hey social justice activists!
Are internet flamewars bumming you out?
Do interactions on social media sometimes make you feel like you’ve entered a fighting pit?
We’re tired of the lightless heat, too. That’s why Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) has arranged for a public dialogue on two of the most controversial issues facing modern feminism, abolishing prostitution and ending gender.
On Saturday May 24 we will honor Memorial Day weekend with a political ceasefire and call for the opening of peace talks. In the spirit of honest, respectful engagement, you are invited to come ask radical feminists any questions on these subjects you may have wanted to ask but were too intimidated by rancorous internet interactions.
Please join us for what will be a thought-provoking day for everyone who wants clarification on what radical feminists really think about prostitution and gender.
April 17, 2014
Originally posted on Liberation Collective:
Janet Mock is a transwoman author who has strong opinions on gender and the sex industry shared in this memoir. Mock discusses many topics, but this review will cover five: essentialism, the term “cis”, the term “fish”, hormone blockers for children, and the sex industry.
View original 3,081 more words
April 4, 2014
The following is an excerpt from the forthcoming book “Gender Hurts: A feminist analysis of the politics of transgenderism” by Sheila Jeffreys.
Gender and women’s equality
Transgenderism cannot exist without a notion of essential ‘gender’. Feminist critics argue that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is founded upon stereotypes of gender, and, in international law, gender stereotypes are recognised as being in contradiction to the interests of women (Raymond, 1994; Hausman, 1995; Jeffreys, 2005). The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979) was drawn up before the language of gender and the idea of ‘gender identity’ came to dominate international law discourse and to stand in for women as a sex category. It spoke instead of ‘stereotyped roles’ and recognised these stereotypes as the basis for discrimination against women. Article 5 says that States Parties should take ‘all appropriate measures’ to ‘modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudice and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women’ (CEDAW, 1979: Article 5). The idea of ‘gender identity’ relies on stereotypes for its meaning and is in conflict with the understanding in CEDAW that such stereotypes are profoundly harmful to women.
The term ‘gender’ itself is problematic. It was first used in a sense that was not simply about grammar, by sexologists, the scientists of sex, such as John Money, in the 1950s and 60s, who were involved in normalising intersex infants. They used the term to mean the behavioural characteristics they considered most appropriate for persons of one or other biological sex. They applied the concept of gender when deciding upon the sex category into which those infants who did not have clear physical indications of one biological sex or another, should be placed (Hausman, 1995). Their purpose was not progressive. These were conservative men who believed that there should be clear differences between the sexes and sought to create distinct sex categories through their projects of social engineering. Unfortunately, the term was adopted by some feminist theorists in the 1970s, and by the late 1970s was commonly used in academic feminism to indicate the difference between biological sex and those characteristics that derived from politics and not biology, which they called ‘gender’ (Haig, 2004).
Before the term ‘gender’ was adopted, the term more usually used to describe these socially constructed characteristics was ‘sex roles’. The word ‘role’ connotes a social construction and was not susceptible to the degeneration that has afflicted the term ‘gender’ and enabled it to be wielded so effectively by transgender activists. As the term ‘gender’ was adopted more extensively by feminists, its meaning was transformed to mean not just the socially constructed behaviour associated with biological sex, but the system of male power and women’s subordination itself, which became known as the ‘gender hierarchy’ or ‘gender order’ (Mackinnon, 1989; Connell, 2005). Gradually, older terms to describe this system, such as male domination, sex class and sex caste went out of fashion, with the effect that direct identification of the agents responsible for the subordination of women, men, could no longer be named. Gender, as a euphemism, disappeared men as agents in male violence against women, which is now commonly referred to as ‘gender violence’. Increasingly, the term ‘gender’ is used, in official forms and legislation, for instance, to stand in for the term ‘sex’ as if ‘gender’ itself is biological, and this usage has overwhelmed the feminist understanding of gender.
In this book I have chosen to use the term ‘sex caste’ to describe the political system in which women are subordinated to men on the basis of their biology. Feminists have disagreed over whether women’s condition of subordination is best referred to in terms of ‘caste’ or ‘class’. Those who use the concept of women as a ‘sex class’, such as Kate Millett, are referencing their experience in leftwing politics and see the idea of ‘class’ as offering the possibility of revolution (Millett, 1972). Millett did, however, use the term caste as well, speaking of women’s ‘sexual caste system’ (Millett, 1972: 275). If women are in a subordinate class in relation to men, as the working class is in relation to the bourgeoisie, then women’s revolution can be conceptualised as overthrowing the power of men in such a way that sex class ceases to have meaning and will disappear as a meaningful category (Wittig, 1992). It also implies, as in left theory, that women’s revolution requires the recognition by women of their ‘sex’ class status as the basis for political action. Nonetheless, the term sex class can be problematic because it implies that women could move out of their ‘class’, in the same way that individual working class people could change their class position by becoming embourgeoised. The term ‘caste’, on the other hand, is useful for this book because it encapsulates the way in which women are placed into a subordinate caste status for their lifetime (see Burris, 1973). Women may change their economic class status with upward mobility, but they remain women unless they elect to transgender and claim membership in the superior sex caste. Both of these terms can be useful in articulating the condition of women, but the term ‘caste’ offers a particular advantage in relation to studying transgenderism. The very existence of transgenderism on the part of women demonstrates the stickiness of caste subordination. The marks of caste remain attached to females unless they claim that they are really ‘men’, and only a very significant social transformation will enable change in this respect.
Postmodern and queer theorists share with transgender theorists the idea that ‘gender’ is a moveable feast that can be moved into and out of, swapped and so forth. Gender, used in this sense, disappears the fixedness of sex, the biological basis that underlies the relegation of females to their sex caste. Female infants are identified by biology at birth and placed into a female sex caste which apportions them lifelong inferior status. The preference for biologically male children and the femicide of female infants, for instance, which has created a great inequality in the sex ratio in India and other countries, is based on sex and not ‘gender’. Female foetuses are aborted and female infants are killed because of sex, not ‘gender’ discrimination (Pande, 2006). Foetuses do not have ‘gender’ or ‘gender identity’, because the forces of a womanhating culture have not had a chance to affect the way they understand themselves. The inferior sex caste status of women is assigned with reference to their biology, and it is through their biology that their subordination is enforced and maintained through rape, impregnation, and forced childrearing. Women do not pass in and out of wearing ‘women’s’ clothing, as cross-dressers may do, indeed they may reject such clothing as inferiorising, but still suffer violence and discrimination as women. Though individual women may be successful in roles more usually arrogated to men, they are likely to be treated as interlopers and receive sexual harassment, as happened to the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard (Summers, 2013). Her caste status was continually thrown in her face by hostile male commentators, politicians and cartoonists. Women do not decide at some time in adulthood that they would like other people to understand them to be women, because being a woman is not an ‘identity’. Women’s experience does not resemble that of men who adopt the ‘gender identity’ of being female or being women in any respect. The idea of ‘gender identity’ disappears biology and all the experiences that those with female biology have of being reared in a caste system based on sex. Only one book-length critique of transgenderism was written in second wave feminism, Janice Raymond’s deservedly well-known tour de force, The Trannsexual Empire (1994, 1st published 1979). She usefully sums up the difference between feminist understandings of women and that of men who transgender thus:
We know that we are women who are born with female chromosomes and anatomy, and that whether or not we were socialized to be so-called normal women, patriarchy has treated and will treat us like women. Transsexuals have not had this same history. No man can have the history of being born and located in this culture as a woman. He can have the history of wishing to be a woman and of acting like a woman, but this gender experience is that of a transsexual, not of a woman. Surgery may confer the artifacts of outward and inward female organs but it cannot confer the history of being born a woman in this society. (Raymond, 1994:114)
“Gender Hurts” will be released on April 17. Order your copy here:
Denver State Women’s Wellness Center now to offer cervical cancer screenings to men who feel like they are female
April 3, 2014
“DENVER — A state-run women’s wellness program now provides breast and cervical cancer screenings for transgender women, announced the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Wednesday.”
“THE advertising watchdog has been called in to investigate Queensland Health’s latest anti-skin cancer commercial amid claims it ridicules transgender women.
One of the complaints to the Advertising Standards Board said the character – who berates young people about their inadequate sun protection – “just adds to the material that the lowest denominator has to use to ridicule trans women”.
In their defence to the ASB, Queensland Health said Sun Mum was developed alongside more traditional sun safety concepts, and tested on a target audience.”
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!
February 18, 2014
February 12, 2014
It’s amazing how much political and media traction one man’s penis can get if that man claims to feel “psychologically female”.
What does it mean to be psychologically male or psychologically female? For the transgender lobby it means that certain thoughts, emotions, preferences, and intellectual abilities are tied to one’s reproductive capacity. This is called “gender”. If an individual’s “gender” does not match one’s sex, the trans politic insists that this “incongruence” represents a life-threatening social, psychiatric, and medical disorder- an emergency whose only cure is disguising one’s body using various modifications into appearing like the other sex.
Transgender people have every right to believe in this. Feminists and most lesbians and gays would instead characterize this belief as extreme sexism and homophobia based on sex-stereotypes that expired decades ago.
One might think that Transgender Rights would revolve around the right to live unaccosted while freely exercising one’s personal beliefs, as with religion. Instead, the transgender movement lobbies for the right to compel non-believers to act as if they also believe in “psychological sex” stereotypes and to re-structure their own lives, and society, accordingly. This seems like an absurd and overreaching goal, one that Christianists and Islamists have been failing at for ages, but the trans lobby has made surprising inroads at installing public policies enforcing their “psychological sex” stereotypes into law.
Transgenderism has succeeded where religionists (who also subscribe to “psychological sex” beliefs, not incidentally) have failed because the Transgender Rights movement is a men’s sexual rights movement based on expanding the rights of males to sexually exploit and control women.
Patriarchal religions merely seek to uphold male domination over females, to maintain the conservative status quo, while the transgender movement expands on the ability of men to subordinate women. In this sense it is an evolution in men’s rights. This expansion and evolutionary quality accounts for its popularity and rapid adoption by male power structures such as government, medicine, law.
A story you may have seen in media headlines this week shows just how incredibly powerful one man’s penis can become under the social movement of “Transgender”.
“My penis is more powerful than the cocks of a million alpha males all put together. ” – Cocky, by Julia Serano
Avery Edison is a young man who believes in “psychological sex” and believes himself to be “psychologically female”. His activities include attempting to become a stand-up comedian and writing blog posts expressing his anger at women who refuse to let him insert his penis into them.
Avery went to Canada on a student visa to take a college program on stand-up comedy, an endeavor funded by the parents of one of his girlfriends. He overstayed his visa before eventually returning to the UK. This week, for unknown impulsive reasons (perhaps because he felt like it and possessed enough incredible white male privilege that he had the expectation that his every magical wish would be accommodated), Avery decided to try to get back into Canada without first going through proper channels, even though he knew it was unlikely he would be let in.
He flew into Toronto’s Pearson International Airport somehow hoping to persuade officials to bypass immigration laws and allow him, unannounced and on the spot, to enter the country and visit his girlfriend. Not surprisingly (to anyone but Avery), his desire to enter the country did not override Canadian immigration law and procedure. Much like his anger at women who enforce a boundary against Avery’s right to stick his dick into them against their will, being subjected to Canadian border regulations (like everyone else) made Avery angry. Avery is a very entitled young man who does not anticipate being told “no” under any circumstance.
Avery began to tweet messages from the airport to his fellow “psychologically female” mates, conveying his upset at having his desires thwarted by the expected border regulations. These mates had a shared experience of being frustrated by common social boundaries that others accept as a fact of life: they were fellow members of the transgender political movement.
Avery was told that he had to turn around and fly home. But he was so angry! And so close to meeting his goal of seeing his girlfriend! He realized that if he refused to leave he would be incarcerated, which would allow him to receive visitors, including his girlfriend. So his goal could be met after all. Which is what he chose to do. But he wasn’t going to let this go without kicking up a fuss. Which is what he did.
Avery started tweeting about how bystanders were refusing to act in accordance with his personal belief that he is “psychologically female” and instead were perceiving his sex objectively –as evidenced by his body- as male. He would be housed during his chosen incarceration with other male-bodied individuals, regardless of their psychology or beliefs. Equal treatment regardless of psychology or belief is considered an assault on one’s ego equivalent to physical battery, according to the transgender adherents. Referring to a “psychologically female” individual as a male-bodied person “is an act of violence”, stated keynote speaker Laverne Cox (himself a male by any objective measure) at last month’s Creating Change conference. NOW Avery’s twitter mates had something to sink their frustration into.
Within hours, a #FreeAvery twitter hashtag was created. Dozens of newspapers and websites worldwide ran headlines on the incident. Several Canadian MPs made public comment and pledged their support. Calls were made for Canadian legal reform: to allow any man who defines himself as “psychologically female” to be housed in female facilities (which are sex-segregated for the protection of women against the overwhelming tide of male sexual violence conducted by males who refuse to respect the boundaries and humanity of women). A public protest and rally was scheduled for this weekend to highlight the “unfairness” of all males being treated equally regardless of their personal psychology or belief. A fund was started for people to donate money to Avery. Pro bono legal representation was arranged.
All this, on the basis of one male’s “psychological sex” beliefs and his desire to bypass all the same rules that apply equally to everyone else. One heterosexual white man’s thwarted impulse. One man’s penis.
February 11, 2014
“Last night a friend and I were discussing the rise of SWERF and TERF, insults that are increasingly used against feminists who attack, not sex workers nor trans people, but gendered structures of oppression. Fear-based feminism would deny that these are insults at all. It would argue that the word “exclusion” is never used in vain. It would send tweets to itself and the world at large, using capital letters: TERF IS NOT A SLUR TERF IS NOT A SLUR TERF IS NOT A SLUR. It would say “it’s descriptive,” all the while making note of the latest unsayables (gender is a construct, reproduction is a feminist issue, misogyny is associated with hatred of the female body). It would watch as all space for discussion and compassion collapsed in on itself. It would think “as long as I am safe. As long as I am neither SWERF nor TERF.”
Fear-based feminism is all about attacking individuals, not intersecting structures of oppression. “Kick up, not down.” Just as long as you’re kicking someone, and as long as the person being kicked isn’t you. As long as you are the one saying “STFU” and “sit down” and “cis white feminist tears” and shaking your damn head at someone else’s supreme ignorance. As long as you are not creating (because you might create the wrong thing!). As long as you are knocking down.
A critique of gender, objectification, sex work and reproductive oppression within the context of “being a woman” should be within the scope of anyone’s feminism. And yet, if I were a younger feminist – if I didn’t already have the support of other feminists — I would be too frightened to have written that sentence. I would think it was easier left unsaid. Best focus on the surface and the individual. I would not trust myself with more, and I’d be scared of ever wavering from this. I would want to be a good girl, one who swears and fucks in all the right places, wishes suffering on the right people, says “sorry” to those she fears and “die, scum” to those whom she doesn’t want to be. I would tweet SWERF IS NOT A SLUR SWERF IS NOT A SLUR SWERF IS NOT A SLUR. I would have no faith in my own ability to listen and make my own moral judgments. I’d be bloody terrified of ever getting this wrong, and I’d be right to be.”
Read the rest of this post by clicking the link above.
A woman in Oregon is suing an employer for financial compensation to repair her emotional distress after co-workers used female pronouns when referring to her instead of the unique pronoun she requested.
Plaintiff Valencia Jones is a female genderist. Genderists are social conservatives, religious fundamentalists, or transgender individuals who believe that reproductive sex should be defined not by biology but “Gender Identity” based on one’s belief in antiquated social sex roles. Pink princess for girls, monster trucks for boys.
Most women who reject sex-roles for women would be considered feminists, or gender abolitionists. Instead Jones, as a transgenderist, believes that cultural stereotypes linking certain behaviors, emotions, and abilities to reproductive function (Math for boys, English for girls) should form the basis for sex designation, not objective biology. By the genderist view, if a woman rejects a subordinate social role she is no longer reproductively female. She can either adopt a persona which pantomimes male dominance over other females and try to have her sex designated as male, or she can reject her subordinate role without adopting an oppressive male persona and try to have her sex designated as “anything but female”. That is what Valencia has tried (and failed) to do.
The problem with Valencia’s genderism is that one cannot “will away” sex-based oppression of females because our oppression is based on our biological reproductive function which is static and cannot be “identified away”. Valencia could try to disguise her biology and “pass” as male to avoid reproduction-based oppression. She could even have her reproductive system surgically removed, but this will not eradicate the social sex-based class status “female”. She will retain the pre-intellectual social conditioning she has been indoctrinated with since birth and she will also be placed back into the subordinate female caste whenever her actual sex is known.
Transgenderism is a political movement based on relaxing the social norms required by men to maintain social dominance over women. It is an adjustment of social norms designed to allow men greater freedom: the freedom to perform male-designed “femininity” (subordinate status inflicted on females by male violence) for each other, for sport, for shits and giggles, for sexual excitement, for unrestricted access to female spaces, while maintaining strict superiority over women.
Women and girls cannot identify our way out of sexual oppression by males. We can try to hide our reproductive capacity by disguising ourselves as male but once that disguise fails we are back to being members of the sex oppressed class. In the same way, men disguised as women can access their dominant male birthright at any time of their choosing merely by revealing their actual sex.
Fealty to gender (“Gender Identity”) will never benefit women, only men. Subordinate female social roles will never benefit women, only men. Women seeking to “other” themselves from the female sex caste by embrasure of male social roles of dominance over females will never benefit. There is no escape. There is no “identifying out of” or rejection of sex for women, only for men, at their leisure.
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.