August 18, 2014
It’s the “Transgender Tipping Point”, described by transgenderist Jennifer Finney Boylan in his LATimes Op-Ed as:
“…what seems to be the Year of the Trans, a season of great progress in the movement for transgender equality. And yet commentators, both liberal and conservative, continue to struggle with the right words to describe the transgender experience.”
Boylan, a member of the all-male, all-white, all-heterosexual, all-middle-aged transgender leadership that recently took over the formerly gay lobbying group GLAAD, attempts to analyze this roadblock by drawing a comparison with the trajectory of the Gay Rights movement. As a disinterested bystander to the lesbian and gay movement (and quite a homophobic one at that), Boylan lacks insight into the decades of activism that preceded his arrival on the “LGBT” scene (to beg for scraps from bloated and obsolete gay orgs- the rudderless victims of their own success).
“What the trans community needs is its own discourse-changing idiom, in the same way that gay men and women found their lives transformed when the conversation changed from sex to love,” he states.
Boylan suggests that “Gay Marriage” worked as a memetic slight of hand, distracting the straights from all that formerly untoward dick-in-ass activity. He proposes that the transgenderist platform search for a similar, magical linguistic transmogrification- a magic bullet that causes the public at large to buy what his movement is selling. He fails to ascertain that the gay movement ultimately succeeded by clearly outlining the concrete ways in which discrimination resulted in unfairness and inequality: legally, financially, and practically. The gay movement never tried to insist the public applaud guys blowing each other. Indeed, many of those who now support equal rights for gays remain openly repulsed by homosexuality on a personal level, or a religious one. Like the transgender movement, the gay movement was/is a men’s sexual rights movement, ascending concurrent with the age of pornography. This is an era in which the powers that be (men) have no political will to cockblock another man’s hard-on under any circumstance.
“I’d suggest we use the term “equality of identity” going forward.” Boylan weakly suggests. “At its heart, the quest that trans people are on is to have the same thing that straight — and gay — people have: the ability to wake up in the morning and be ourselves, without permission, without apology. Our lives should not be defined by wigs, or surgery, or which bathroom we use. Our lives should be defined by our identities, and the truth we bear in our hearts.”
But that isn’t what the transgender movement is fighting for. Ultimately, no one cares what transgenderists do when they wake up in the morning, or how they conceive of themselves, their taste in wigs, or what they believe “in their hearts”. If that was what the transgender movement was fighting for it would be hitting no roadblock.
Rather, the transgender movement is demanding that we all pretend to agree with their personal, internal, subjective sex-role ideas. Which no one does. And they never will. Hell, even transgenderists don’t believe the shit they’re demanding we pretend to agree with. There are no magic words to be wielded Harry Potter-like by genderists that will cause the muggles to believe… well, that husband and father Jennifer Flynn Boylan is actually a woman, for example. Or that the five year old boy with a penchant for forbidden “pretty princess” swag is actually female, to be recognized via pre-pubertal sterilization and lifetime cross-sex hormones. It’s simply never going to happen. Instead of coming to terms with this, the solution of male activists like Boylan is to “double-down” on the same unrealistic, unreachable goals, using the exact same tactics.
“Gender can’t be Bent: Kellie Maloney Has Always Been Female” declares Transactivist Paris Lees, dubiously, in the Independent.
No one actually believes that aging boxing promoter and father of three Frank Maloney -having been “outed” to tabloids by a fellow member of his crossdresser support group- is now or has ever been female. Even Frank doesn’t believe it. If he actually believed that both he and his wife are female, would he announce that “I still don’t think that children should be brought up in same-sex marriages.’’ One thinks not.
“When you refer to Kellie Maloney with male pronouns, you’re telling me something about yourself and how you view people who change their gender,” Lees chides.
That’s right, Paris. What we’re telling you is that we view you as what you truly are: Transgender. As in: people that would like to occupy a sex-role normally imposed on the opposite sex, for your own enjoyment. Confirmed in the same text here:
“I can tell you what it felt like before I was able to express myself the way that makes me feel happiest.”
And what makes Paris feel happiest is expressing himself “as a woman” by trolling alleys and public parks for lots of sex with other men, and inviting random dudes to grope his moobs on public transport while telling him how pretty he is. Paris Lees doesn’t actually believe that he or Frank are female, and he knows you also don’t. He doesn’t really want you to (what would be special about THAT?) or expect you to. He just wants you to pretend that you do. Just use the pretty words. The magic words:
“Just refer to her as “she”. I’ve done it in this article. It’s not hard.”
Activists of the Boylan and Lees school simply double-down on the magical thinking even as they are mystified, (simply mystified!) why the decades-long tactics of the transgender movement stall the closer they get to the mainstream. Their male brethren continue the “activism” of demanding that lesbians accept the penis as a female organ, and harass and threaten feminists whom they claim diminish their rights as men.
Meanwhile, some other transgender activists are tired of banging that same old broken drum and waiting for the magic to happen. Let’s call this the dawn of Neo Transactivism.
August 7, 2014
July 28, 2014
From the New Yorker:
“On May 24th, a few dozen people gathered in a conference room at the Central Library, a century-old Georgian Revival building in downtown Portland, Oregon, for an event called Radfems Respond. The conference had been convened by a group that wanted to defend two positions that have made radical feminism anathema to much of the left. First, the organizers hoped to refute charges that the desire to ban prostitution implies hostility toward prostitutes. Then they were going to try to explain why, at a time when transgender rights are ascendant, radical feminists insist on regarding transgender women as men, who should not be allowed to use women’s facilities, such as public rest rooms, or to participate in events organized exclusively for women.
The dispute began more than forty years ago, at the height of the second-wave feminist movement. In one early skirmish, in 1973, the West Coast Lesbian Conference, in Los Angeles, furiously split over a scheduled performance by the folksinger Beth Elliott, who is what was then called a transsexual. Robin Morgan, the keynote speaker, said:
I will not call a male “she”; thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman”; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.
Such views are shared by few feminists now, but they still have a foothold among some self-described radical feminists, who have found themselves in an acrimonious battle with trans people and their allies. Trans women say that they are women because they feel female—that, as some put it, they have women’s brains in men’s bodies. Radical feminists reject the notion of a “female brain.” They believe that if women think and act differently from men it’s because society forces them to, requiring them to be sexually attractive, nurturing, and deferential. In the words of Lierre Keith, a speaker at Radfems Respond, femininity is “ritualized submission.”
In this view, gender is less an identity than a caste position. Anyone born a man retains male privilege in society; even if he chooses to live as a woman—and accept a correspondingly subordinate social position—the fact that he has a choice means that he can never understand what being a woman is really like. By extension, when trans women demand to be accepted as women they are simply exercising another form of male entitlement.”
READ MORE HERE:
July 28, 2014
July 21, 2014
From a comment left here.
I cannot believe I found this site! I’ve been reading the archives for a day and a half now, practically crying with joy that I’m not the only woman in the world who feels this way.
I’m not actually a radical feminist; I’m kind of not really a feminist at all (nor am I Christian). In fact, it never occurred to me that there was anything radical or “fringe” in, for example, thinking, “How do *you* know what being a woman feels like?” when a man claims he’s “felt like a woman all his life.” I never thought it was somehow radical to look back at my life and be insulted that some man who never dealt with any of the issues or situations in life that I or any/most/all other women dealt with thinks he knows what that was like, or in the idea that a woman is a collection of life experiences, feelings, and thoughts and not some sort of doll that is created out of the air. I was born a female; _growing up_ female made me a woman. When Julie Burchill wrote her column a few years ago I was thrilled, only to see other women–friends, some of whom were feminists, some of whom were lesbians, even–denigrating her. I agreed with every word she said.
I’m going to try to keep this short. I don’t want to drown you in words. But a member of my family–my stepfather-in-law–decided about fifteen years ago that he was “really” a woman. He claimed to have gotten tests that “proved” this. The effect it had on my MIL was devastating, not least because he had for years led her to believe that all of their problems, sexual and otherwise, were HER fault. That she was somehow inadequate as a woman, that she was unexciting, that she was too sensitive, that she just didn’t have the brains and sharp killer instincts of a man. Then he decided to be a “woman,” and fully expected her to stay married to him. He was very angry that she refused; what was wrong with her, that she wasn’t supporting him by remaining his wife and letting him stay in their marital home and teaching him how to apply make-up? Did she think she had a right not to be forced into a lesbian marriage (nothing wrong with lesbian marriage, of course, but it’s not really what most hetero women look for) or something? Read the rest of this entry »
June 14, 2014
Originally posted on giagia:
On the 30th of July Laurie Penny is taking part in a discussion with Mary Beard entitled ‘Why Are We Afraid of Outspoken Women?’
From the Ancient Roman forum to Twitter, women have long had to fight for freedom of speech. In 2014, women are still fighting for this basic human right. Online abuse directed at women crosses all forums of the internet. Few women writers and campaigners have not had their views or arguments mocked online at some point. More worryingly, women online also regularly face abuse, harassment, intimidation and violent threats. The purpose of this abuse is to silence women and remove them from public debate.
Sadly, I am not immune to abuse, harassment or threats online (hint: I’m female). Because over the past several months I have talked about gender and biological sex, I have got all kinds of crap from trans activists and…
View original 435 more words
Sheila Jeffreys “looks more than a bit like a man. She’s about four shots of testosterone away from passing as one”. When men review ‘Gender Hurts’
June 12, 2014
Two new reviews of ‘Gender Hurts’ today, both from men, one of whom has actually read the book.
The first is from Dallas Denny, who previously campaigned with Jamison Green, the President of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health, a medical lobby funded by the pharmaceutical industry) in an attempt to censor the publication of this book BEFORE IT HAD EVEN BEEN AUTHORED.
Denny opines in today’s first offering:
“[Managing Director of Books Jeremy North of Routledge Press] suggested we could review the book after it was published. And now I’m doing just that. Or, rather, I expect I will, if ever I can bring myself to read it. What follows is not a thorough review, but an impression based on a lookover of Gender Hurts.
Interestingly, the page count of Jeffreys’ book is almost the same as Raymond’s; at 189 pages it weighs in just four pages longer than Raymond’s 185.”
Aah, yes, the page count. And what of the paper quality? How much does the book weigh? Does it have that “new book smell”? What was the cost of the shipping freight?
Angry men should never feel obliged to read a woman’s words before forming strong opinions about them, and subsequently publishing those very important opinions. All that female-impersonator Denny needs to do is look at the book cover to conclude that Jeffreys “adopts a lesbian uniform that makes her look more than a bit like a man. She’s about four shots of testosterone away from passing as one.” How can men possibly take the time to read the books they are reviewing when the author is lesbian, and fails to adopt a distinctly sexay laydee wardrobe requirement?
Read more of Denny’s devastatingly insightful review of a book he has not read here:
Today’s second review is by another man, who in this case claims to have actually read the book he is reviewing. In a New Statesman piece Tim R. Johnston generously offers that feminists have the right to critique males but “that critique must come from a place of established respect.” Jeffreys has dismally failed to respect men in her feminist text, says Johnston. LOL!
“The entire text is a striking example of how not to criticise a group [men] of which you are not a member.” Insensitive, man-hating feminist dyke! In one succinct sentence Mr. Johnston places Jeffreys’ text into the entire canon of the history of the Women’s Liberation movement, on which he claims to be an authority: “The book is poorly researched and argued, and is not a meaningful contribution to feminist theory.” Oh, Okay bro.
Johnston suggests that women abandon women’s liberation and release ourselves from our “attachment to our sex”; By doing so (Stupid cunts! Why haven’t we thought of this ourselves!) we will..something… something …something.
“When we abandon our attachment to either sex or gender identity we can more clearly see the experiences we share and let those experiences form the basis of a coalition.” Okay bro.
The important thing is that men who take pleasure in sex-roles should be prioritized over the actual violence and subjugation of women.
“Trans women [men] may identify as women, but they are not women because they do not have the lived history of having been born and raised as women. Identity cannot replace or change your history of living as one of two biological sexes. Feminists have good reason to be attached to this foundation. Women are violently persecuted because of their sex, and the methods of that persecution, methods like rape and forced reproduction, often involve female anatomy. Uniting in this shared history is an important foundation for feminist consciousness raising and solidarity.
Many [male] people ground their politics in gender identity, describing how this identity is a persistent aspect of their experience. Cisgender people [women] must realise that a [male] woman did not become a woman after transitioning, [he] has always been a woman, and because [he] is a woman [he] deserves access to women-only spaces. Certainly not all [male] people identify as having always been one gender, but focusing on gender identity over biological or assigned sex is an important way to ensure that [male] identities are not discredited, ignored, or marginalised.”
Jeffreys’ work, which is not meaningful to male feminism, discredits, ignores, and marginalizes male feelings and the access to women that males deserve. Oh gosh no!
Okay thanks guys! Thanks for clearing up the whole female oppression thing! Problem solved (for you)!
There is no pressure to transition…There is no pressure to transition…There is no pressure to transition…
June 12, 2014
submitted 6 hours ago by mrhorseass
I’ve always been gender non-conforming, like acting like a tomboy and preferring male clothing. During puberty I felt intense distress about getting breasts and curves. Throughout my life I felt masculine and comfortable with a flat chest so puberty was very hard to go through. As a result of this I wore baggy clothing and jackets during the summers. I have strong feelings of body dysphoria. My body is my main source of distress. Being called female or she does not bother me too much but my real struggle right now is my body. For a while I was convinced that I was trans but after reading a couple blogs from radfems I began considering that maybe trans does not exist and instead these feelings are grown from the gender binary in society. I once believed trans was a medically condition so I had no problem going through with it but now that I feel it is not so I can no longer transition. This is terrible because I still have imtense feelings of body dysphoria and am very uncomfortable in my own skin.
all 79 comments
sorted by: best
June 4, 2014
We’ve received some backlash regarding our recent ad in Bicycling Magazine–some people have wrongly concluded that Ryders is attacking transgender people.
This ad is not, in any way, an attack on transgender people. It’s simply showing two people who are attracted to one another, each with a secret that the other might want to know up front. The person on the left has a secret–he owns an abnormal quantity of cats. The person on the right has a secret–he is actually a man dressed as a woman. We were toying with some of the social constructs that have made gender roles appear as truths, in an attempt to bring some humour to the concept that seeing isn’t always believing.
It’s now been a full day since the first messages arrived in response to our ad in Bicycling and it’s clear that we have offended lots of people. It doesn’t matter what our intention was, the result was anything but humorous. This ad was clearly a failure.
We are sorry. We are sorry to those we have offended and we are sorry for spreading a hurtful message.
Thank you to everyone who messaged us. Without you we would have carried on with this advertisement, oblivious to the harm it was causing. We were ignorant and you have shown this to us.
We have pulled this ad from all of the publications in which it was to be printed in the coming weeks and months. Unfortunately, some have already been printed and distributed. Rest assured, this ad will never be distributed again.
We are also in the process of having it pulled from digital magazines and other web sites. For some sites, especially those of distributors outside of the US and Canada, this may take a few days before it’s entirely cleaned up but it is our top priority to completely remove this image.
Again, we are very sorry. We’ve learned a lot from this.