September 8, 2014
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 11, 2014
Michfest (Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival) is only “the very tip of the iceberg” says a man who believes that lesbians are “bigots” against heterosexual males, because we won’t sleep with them, invite them to our lesbian potlucks, or allow them to participate in our lesbian feminist political activism as “one of us”.
But mainly, because we won’t sleep with them.
Lesbians are “hostile” to the men who desire sexual access to our bodies, and “dismissive” of male sexual desires, and this man is calling on national LGBT organizations to “take action” against this “problem”.
Before the mind’s eye of the reader (especially those unfamiliar with the current status of lesbians in the LGBT political sphere) travels too far, perhaps imagining a trench-coated sex-offender distributing cum-splattered self-produced pamphlets in bus terminals, or a member of a roving band of Ugandan corrective-rape practitioners, it should be stated that this man is not without influence, in the political left, no less. His call for action was published by the Huffington Post.
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)!