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)!
The trans male and gay male and drag queen communities have been roiling for weeks over the issue of whether the gay community word “tranny” is an affectionate term with a long history, or a bigoted slur against transgender male “transwomen”. I frame this as an entirely male issue both because the female (F2T) trans community has largely adopted the “affectionate” usage of this term long ago, and also because the transgender politic is a male-centric men’s rights movement, and as such the female opinion is not addressed or given credence in any of the many dozens of articles and opinion pieces generated on this issue in recent months.
This recent iteration of the “Tranny” controversy stems from the use of the word by RuPaul, a gay black man and community icon with a long-running television show featuring female impersonators on the LOGO television network.
Arguably his biggest critic is a former contestant of that show, Carmen Carrera, a man previously featured on this blog when he “shushed” Katie Couric for asking if Carrera had undergone any surgical modification of his dick and balls (he hasn’t, as he intends to persuade an actual female to transform his sperm into a family for him and his gay male partner). Weeks after shaming the journalist and accusing her of asking overly invasive questions about his reproductive sex organs (which he claimed were too painful to answer), Carrera auctioned off photos of his penis for a high-profile HIV fundraiser. Hypocrisy.
This week Carmen Carrera is back in the gay press defending himself against recent revelations that exposed his own long personal usage of the word “Tranny”, referring to himself and others, during recorded public interviews and appearances.
What is interesting is what is not being reported.
Then again, that’s why you read GenderTrender, correct?
What is not being reported in any of these stories about Carrera’s opinion on what constitutes a slur, is his long public use of the word “Nigga” to refer to Black individuals. It’s not exactly a secret. Carrera has been calling blacks “Niggas” for years, and continues to do so. It is interesting that Carrera calls Gay Black men “bigots” for using the word “Tranny” to refer to themselves, as he (a non-black person) calls these men by the racist slur “Niggas”.
When Carrera refused to explain this outrageous contradiction and ignored requests for response by his followers on social media the fans began posting screen caps of his racist slurs by the dozen on his facebook page and in his twitter feed. Carrera finally responded to the furor on May 31 by deleting many of his racist tweets. He then claimed that the racist tweets were “fakes”. Unfortunately (for him) Carerra had failed to delete all of the “fake” tweets from his account, as they spanned over several years. In fact, some of them still remain. His followers became enraged by his blatant lie, and thousands of enraged commenters reacted to his falsified denial by verbalizing their complaints on his Facebook page.
Eventually Carrera deleted his implausible denial, along with many hundreds of the comments, banning hundreds from his page. As people continue to post comments of protest, he deletes them, and bans them from further comment.
Now, it is likely not a surprise to many that Carmen Carrera is demonstrably racist, a hypocrite, an unintelligent man, and a blatant liar whose opinion on any subject is of questionable credibility. What does surprise some is that the so-called “LGBT” (male) media has decided to white-wash these recent developments entirely from their reportage, even though they are all well aware of them.
Since mainstream LGBT outlets like The Advocate have refused to report on this matter in pieces on Carmen Carrera even as recently as today, I am posting some of Carrera’s many racist tweets- (that he has denied making!)- here, below the fold.
Someone tell Katie Couric not to mention this: Carmen Carrera auctions off photos of his dick for AIDS fundraiser
May 13, 2014
Mere months after Katie Couric was roundly castigated by the male members* of the transgenderist lobby for asking a man who claims he is reproductively female about his reproductive sex biology, the man, Carmen Carrera – who “shushed” Couric on her own show, and raised his hand as if to block her query- is now auctioning off photos of his dick for the AIDS charity “LifeBall”.
Photos of Carmen Carrera’s dick below the fold. Just don’t mention it to Katie Couric. Or anyone. Anywhere. Ever. Because that would be transphobic. And you wouldn’t want to be that.
March 30, 2014
Reprinting this blog post for discussion. Nothing groundbreaking here, but not linking to source because there is some confusion over whether author “PlasticGirl” is the violent, deranged anti-lesbian and anti-muslim Dr. Aeryn Fulton of Pittsburgh, PA.
Dr. Aeryn Fulton claimed to be the author of blogger PlasticGirl’s posts in the course of Fulton’s violent gay-bashing death threats against blogger GayNotQueer, and others, who were critical of stereotypical sex roles for gay men, lesbians, and society at large.
Here is the post, open for discussion of transgender POV re: “womanhood”. His post is titled “Can Trans women and Trans-critical Radical Feminists ever be friends?”:
Can trans women and trans-critical radical feminists ever be friends?
Posted on March 30, 2014 by plasticgirl
I first discovered trans-critical radical feminism in late 2010, and since then, I’ve read Betty Friedan, Mary Daly, Sheila Jeffreys, a smattering of Andrea Dworkin, Janice Raymond, and Germaine Grier as well as Julie Bindel and Julie Burchill and every trans-critical rad fem blog I could find, in the hopes of trying to understand.
Setting aside for the moment, the various radical feminist postures on trans, I found my study of radical feminism to be mind-expanding. I lost sleep reading Sheila Jeffreys and Factcheckme. Radical feminism increased my situational awareness of the dynamics of power between men and women. I see media images and advertisements aimed towards women in a totally new way. I found myself in agreement of the idea that women as class: female, are still in need of liberation from the Patriarchy, because I had personally experienced patriarchal oppression as soon as I started presenting as a woman, I just didn’t have a name for it, other than, “welcome to womanhood”.
Then we get to radical feminism and trans.
March 28, 2014
Why aren’t we doing more about sexism? (self.asktransgender)
submitted by lolokreality36 F
I am lucky in that I was able to transition while employed, and everyone at that employer treated me very well (mostly). I left amicably and went to go work in a different town, where I knew nobody professionally, nobody personally, and I pass exceptionally well. I am out to two people, out of necessity (some benefits & legal stuff) at that company.
I have also just had what I consider to be my first incident of actual sexism (in the workplace; that happened long ago “on the street.”).
I am mid-career, and an engineer. I am very familiar with the way people interact with me, as an engineer, professionally. At my previous company, when I transitioned, nothing changed. With one (somewhat notable) exception, there was one date in which my name changed in email, and everyone switched to the new names and pronouns. Professionally I was treated almost exactly the same. In “not-quite-professional” situations, I was treated differently: people now held doors open and smiled more at me. They defaulted to driving on business trips (to the extent I didn’t even need to rent a car; my male coworkers more or less insisted). So those things changed, and I “noticed” them, but it didn’t bother me and I didn’t think much of it other than, “oh, that’s nice, they’re trying to make me feel comfortable/they like me/random vague positive thoughts.”
And I think what happened, as I look back, is I was able to retain some of the – I will say it – male privilege – I had before transitioning. This is to say, nobody doubted the veracity of anything I said because I was a woman, because to them, I was a man, and had thus been vetted and passed all the requirements (that is, maleness) for intelligence, authenticity, and honesty. Bear in mind I worked on two different teams, one of about 100 people that had maybe twenty women, and another of seventy people that had one woman – me (for those counting, that’s 12% or so women, or 1:8). Read the rest of this entry »
March 17, 2014
The following Mansfeminist Manifesto appeared today on “The F-Word” website (the word which cannot be spoken being Feminism, apparently). The guy who wrote it submitted the post FIVE MONTHS past his deadline, which explains the reference to him as being “November’s guest blogger”. The post is “Who your friends are matters” by Charlie Hale. Enjoy!
Who your friends are matters 16 March 2014, 11:01
This is Charlie Hale’s first guest post for The F-Word. They’ll be blogging for us throughout November. Charlie Hale is a Computer Science student and blogger by night and asleep by day. They’re a genderqueer, kinky, polyamorous pan/bisexual who can’t keep their mouth shut.
A recurring theme within a certain sector of feminism, which we might refer to as privileged, professional or media feminism, is the pushing back at criticism based on friendships or political alliances. To critique one’s friends, they argue, is creepy, or scary, even a totalitarian-esque attack on the freedom of association – entirely missing the significance of these associations. No one will find unanimous agreement on everything with everyone; even between friends, there is – and should be – large scope for disagreement. However, there are some issues on which disagreement should be a clear cut deal breaker: I could not, for example, be friends with Fred Phelps, Vladimir Putin or Norman Tebbit, whatever the circumstances.
Why not? Well, because they’re vile human beings. Who would want the company of someone so appalling? However, more than this, it would give endorsement – on both personal and political levels – to their views and actions. My friendship would imply their views were, to me, credible; that I felt these views were welcome in society. This applies to events as well: to invite bigoted and frankly unacceptable views to be aired on your platform is to give them tacit validation and approval. This isn’t a matter of endorsing the truth of an associate’s views, but rather the acceptability of them.
[Now… who are the feminists who are friends with Vladamir Putin, etc, whose associations are of such concern to Charlie? I think you can see where this is going. There are actually NO feminists who are friends with these gents. This is called “building a straw man”. But there are some sort of feminists associating with something or someone that, to Charlie is, (as the kids say) “worse than Hitler”. Ammirite? ]
“This is the primary idea behind no-platforming: the practice of an organisation refusing to give a platform to someone, and/or a person refusing to speak on the same stage or panel as them – something which is the responsibility of any responsible organiser or speaker. Inviting such speakers not only negatively impacts the climate of the movement, but actively makes marginalised people feel less safe and welcome in the event and the movement as a whole.”
[Hmmm. So feminist women who are personal friends with Fred Phelps, etal, (of which there are none) should, if they DID exist, be no-platformed from expressing their own views due to that non-existent association, according to this fellow Charlie, a man who feels comfortable telling women how to run our own liberation movement, and telling women who we can associate with. Okayyy…]
“In many cases, a person’s problematic politics will be dismissed as “not problematic enough” to warrant no-platforming: this, however, is a blatant display of privilege. If you are in the position where you are able to wave away oppressive behaviour with no personal ill-effects, you are almost certainly not in the position where you could reasonably speak for that oppressed group.”
[So women cannot trust our own judgment about which politics a feminist’s friend has, which are “problematic” enough to taint a woman via “contagion”, requiring her to be quarantined using the “no platform” method. (Are you keeping up here laydees?) Moreso, the very fact that we deem something NOT “problematic” should be a giant red flag that we are privileged cunts too stupid to know when something IS “problematic” for Charlie, a man who is oppressed by women. I do sooooo hope you are keeping up here, dear readers.]
“It is never the privileged who suffer from the toxic atmosphere – and, from a platform of privilege, that can be easy to ignore. Active engagement with less privileged members of a movement is the only real way to promote accessibility.”
[“less privileged” than women: Charlie, who needs you to “engage” with him, listen to him, and trust his judgement over your own stupid cuntedness.]
“There is some pragmatism required. It is usually unreasonable to expect someone to call out their boss – as journalist Laurie Penny has been pressured lately to do. I generally don’t expect people to starve for their feminism and we can’t assume that people are always able to actively tackle problematic views from their superiors without risking their own well-being.”
[He doesn’t expect TOO MUCH from you laydees. Charlie doesn’t require you to actually starve for him! He’s a reasonable guy vis a vis you meeting his male feminist needs.]
“However, active endorsements of problematic individuals and groups must be tackled. Feminists who cosy up to TERfs, white supremacists or misogynists for their own advancement – or, as is becoming common, to seek sympathy from problematic groups having been called out – must understand the serious damage they are inflicting. Placing the views of the oppressors above the safety of the oppressed sends a very clear message: ‘my feminism is for me, and my ilk, and us alone’. This is as much a part of the patriarchy as what they claim to be fighting against.”
[Ohhhh… feminists who “cozy up” to “terfs”! Feminists who exchange ideas (or friendship!) with RADICAL feminists, with UNDISTILLED feminism, with feminism that centralizes FEMALE (and not Charlie’s) concerns. Oh thattttt. And the feminists cozying up to white supremacists and misogynists? Who are they? Oh hell, I’m going to guess they are WOMAN-CENTERED feminists TOO! And we’ll just call them “Vlad Putin Fred Phelps Hitler Racist Misogynist-type Feminists” too! Because Charlie!
I love this part: “…as is becoming common, to seek sympathy from problematic groups having been called out”. Ohhh Noeeee! Women become alienated when you try to isolate them, control them, tell them who they can be friends with, tell them not to trust their own judgment, tell them what to think, tell them how to speak, make them perform loyalty tests, threaten to publicly smear them, call them degrading names? Awww. Sorry, Charlie.
Hey wait a minute. Who is this Charlie person anyway and why should women obey him? I’m not questioning, mind- because questioning would be a HUGE red flag that I’m about to do something cuntly and not at ALL prioritizing Charlie’s oppression as a man over that of the women worldwide who are keeping him down! I’m just curious, you see, and trying to educate my stupid cuntly self.
This is Charlie. He says he is genderqueer. You must obey him. If you don’t, he and his friends will rain hell upon you- or at least unload a disconcerting spam-like stream of internet messages to yourself and whatever “platform” you are speaking on, possibly threatening suicide and murder and a shouty demonstration (where only a handful of his peeps will actually show up because they are all anti-social shut-ins who fear daylight).
This is Charlie showing you his kinky polyamorous porn-loving gender-lovin’ ass. “Obey it!” Charlie says. Charlie likes stackable plastic storage basins. Clean your room Charlie. Your mum isn’t going to do it anymore.
December 18, 2013
November 5, 2013
Much discussion has occurred on this and other feminist sites on the attempts by the trans politic to erase female reality under patriarchy by destabilizing the fact that reproductively female humans actually exist, as a class, and are oppressed as a class on the basis of our sex. The trans politic, in part, adopts this tact disingenuously as a strategy to confer authenticity on their gender-based personas, totally disregarding the effect of such a politic on the lives of actual females, which are both unfathomable and unimportant to the men promoting our erasure. In private, among themselves, such men- many fathers and husbands- tend to freely acknowledge, even celebrate, their maleness in male-only groups and seminars and gatherings.
Not surprisingly, very few female transgenders make these claims. Very few females convey a sense of ownership over and entitlement to possessing a male body, even those females who have undergone extensive body mods to “pass” as male. Unlike men, women have always lived in “the background” of women’s lives. Indeed, they were raised into it. They know firsthand the systemic social, political, psychological, and violent warfare conducted against female humans by males based on our reproductive sex. Even the most kool-aid drinking transgender F2T fantasist seldom forwards the idea that humans are not a sexually dimorphic species. F2T drive the “genderqueer” and “agender” and “not 100% a man exactly” arms of the transgender movement. They are the “Zirs” and Zies”. One F2T pioneer described her penis to me in correspondence as “a slab of flesh from my forearm sewn onto my crotch”. I have never, ever seen a F2T insisting her phalloplasty was an actual penis, or claiming that she has a prostate. Females know all too well that they are oppressed on the basis of their reproductive sex, and that there is no way to fully escape from this.
The experience of males- including males that fancy themselves to be actually female- is quite different. These men were raised with the expectation that women exist to serve them and care for them. Even gay boys grow up assuming they will someday own a woman, if they want one. M2T, like all men, are raised as members of the overlord class with little consciousness or interest in the lives and experiences of the underclass which exists only to serve them.
This is how a man who proclaims himself to be female after a lifetime of male-privilege, fatherhood and marriage can not only remain completely ignorant of female reality, but position himself as an authority on it, with the wisdom from “on high” to correct women from making the “silly mistake” in recognizing our sex-based oppression, or even our sex itself.
An example of such a man would be Dana Beyer, the “executive director” of Gender Rights Maryland, a designation and an org of his own invention. In an essay blogged last week on the Huffington Post, Dana describes the women who fail to reject the reality of human sexual dimorphism as “Radical Lesbian Separatist[s]”. I am a gender-critical lesbian feminist, and even I don’t personally know any radical lesbian separatists. I assure you, neither does Dana. But that is how he genuinely perceives actual women that are not serving him. Further, this: “Even the radical lesbians, who base their feminism on their panic deriving from the potential to be forcibly impregnated by men, feed off this male anxiety about those who willingly surrender their male bodies and male privilege.” Our panic! Our sudden, uncontrollable fear or anxiety often causing wild unthinking behavior! The cwazy cwazy reaction women have to fending off violent sexual slavery for their entire lives in a history of reproductive mayhem perpetuated against females for the whole of human history. Now, now, ladies! Don’t panic! Base feminism on something else!
Remember: this perspective on the reproductive caste system (nothing to panic about ladies!) is coming from a man who actually believes himself “to be” female. Oh, and “surrender” your male privilege by calling yourself female and wearing a dress? That is not how things work sir. People only treat you as female if they perceive you to be female, not because you think of yourself as one. No one has ever perceived Dana as being female. No one gets to “choose” their oppression based on their own thoughts and feelings. But men like Dana have been raised with such entitlement that they regard oppression as a series of choices that one can opt into, or “surrender” themselves to by their will alone. Just as female transitioners know all too well that there is no escape from the sex caste, male members of the over-caste see reproductive oppression as completely irrelevant to their lives as men, except perhaps as a palette of life experiences they can tally with, tourist like, as just another of life’s many options.
The reality of female oppression does not exist for men like Dana, except as an inconvenient interruption of his male needs: his gender fantasies. Men like Dana will say and do anything to sustain their fantasies about women -and women better not have a damn thing to say about it. Ironically, this includes female transgenders and males who are trying to come to terms with gender dysphoria in a reality-based way.
Here is retired eye surgeon Dana Beyer MD’s definition of sex as a medical doctor:
“”Sex” includes the cellular materials that make up the sexual anatomy and physiology of a human being, including:
The cellular machinery for controlling the genetic material and its expression as RNA and protein
Other reproductive organs
Secondary sexual characteristics, such as breasts and facial hair
Brain (the most important factor) “
The brain is the most important factor!
Completely brain-dead women kept alive on mechanical life-support have successfully reproduced with no brain function whatsoever. So no, doctor. What this transgender physician means is that his desire to inhabit a series of cultural sex-based stereotypes enforced violently upon women is more “real” than the objective reproductive reality experienced by females and exploited by men like him. So much so that he is willing to “surrender” his medical reputation.
Another transgender physician posted an eerily similar essay on Huffington Post last month, in this case the highly positioned David/Danielle Kaufman, Md, Chief of Radiology at Kaiser Permanente. The essay is titled “Male Organ or Not, This Really Is a Female Body”.
“…I’m convinced, a year out from my trans-woman awakening, that this really is a female body. It may have been a male body once, but I’ve made a lot of changes already, and I haven’t finished. My beard, as well as my chest and abdomen hair, are mostly gone. I’ve had extensive surgery to feminize my face. I’m on estrogen; my body now runs on this female hormone, with testosterone blocked. As a result of the estrogen, I’m growing breasts. About a year into estrogen, my natural breasts are only about an A cup size, but they’re growing; they’re real women’s breasts, and I’ve had my first mammogram. There is real glandular breast tissue in there. Estrogen has shifted fat from my abdomen to my upper thighs and buttocks. I now have thunder thighs. They rub together no matter how I walk, and I’m afraid to go into the woods during the dry season for fear that I’ll start a fire.
So no, penis or not, this is a female body now, if for no other reason than that I’m female and it’s my body.”[*]
Women (“Radical Lesbian Separatist” or not) know that sex-deniers are harmful to those of us struggling against a violent sex-caste system. It is past time for the transgender movement – especially the medical providers who are inextricably attached to it- drop this denialist tact, which is an exercise in delusion and madness.
[* Sadly, Dr. Kaufman committed suicide after the publication of his essay]