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:
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 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.
February 27, 2014
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.
January 5, 2014
Taking a quick glance at last year’s Top Trends list it becomes clear that the overall trend towards reducing the social role of women via the enforcement of cultural subordination rituals (femininity) shows little sign of abating. While there has been notable increased feminist activism and consciousness-raising against gender, the trend continues towards increased sexualization, objectification and dehumanization of women and girls with no improvement in female participation in social, economic and civic life.
Rather, conservative male supremacist power has increasingly targeted for reversal the scant gains won by the “second wave” of the women’s liberation movement, including reproductive autonomy, freedom from beauty mandates, economic parity, protection from male sex-based violence. The sole exception is in the area of women’s rights to legal parity regarding state support for monogamous romantic attachments- an unintended artifact of the successful male homosexual rights movement.
Currently the increasingly subordinate social role of women is being codified into law by the state at the behest of the powerful genderist “transgender rights” movement, a men’s sexual rights movement based on relaxing acceptable male dominance roles for men via the elimination of legal recognition of women entirely. Read the rest of this entry »
January 2, 2014
So, women have been asking for a follow-up post to THIS ONE which outlined transgender community plans to protest and disrupt a Day of Remembrance of the women maimed and murdered at L’Ecole Polytechnique by a homicidal man who believed feminism was discriminating against him. I was a bit delayed in composing a follow-up post due to mundane work and life demands, then I decided I may as well wait until the video of the flash mob protest was posted.
You will recall trans activist demands that the public library censor feminist women’s speech around issues of concern to women, namely countering male violence and sexual exploitation of women.
You’ll recall Natalie Reed’s plan to stand outside the November 30 memorial shouting through a megaphone along with a group of his fellows, who would “round up better attendance” than the memorial itself.
Then, Vancouver’s Trans Alliance Society, among others, decided to “FlashMob” the solemn memorial for murdered women, a plan spearheaded by Ronan Oger- now calling himself “Morgane”- a middle-aged married heterosexual and the father of small children who works (like many male transgenders) as an IT professional. Mr Oger began “living as a woman” in September, when he took his first estrogen pill.
Transgenders met in private and public on Facebook groups and elsewhere, venting their rage at women holding a feminist event which did not center male issues- and which dared to allow Janice Raymond, who scathingly critiqued the medical “sex-change industry” thirty years ago, to speak on unrelated issues, namely countering male violence and sexual exploitation of women.
Come to find out (!) a lot of people were completely appalled at this transgender anti-feminist activism, so insensitively targeting a memorial event. Lets just say it was a “peak trans” moment for many: that moment when all the heartfelt transgender testimonials and political rhetoric falls away and a stark light shines on the blatant woman-hatred at the heart of the transgender movement. Some transgender activists themselves were horrified at the violent rhetoric and misogyny being expressed by other men. “I hope for all our sakes that the predictions of the groups that were part of the Friday meeting do not come true.” Morgane Oger tweeted. Natalie Reed and Larkin Forestheart abandoned their organized protest, disowning themselves from it, and Reed denounced Oger’s flashmob plans. “I started getting angry messages from trans-feminists around the world about how I was “The Organizer..” a panicked Reed tweeted at Oger.
Alarmed, Oger changed the date of his flashmob to December 5 so as to avoid the public spectacle of his angry male brethren accosting and terrifying women at an event commemorating the actions of an angry violent male terrorist acting on the belief that feminists oppress males.
So what became of the protest(s)? Long story short- the memorial event went off swimmingly with none of the threatened disruptions. About six dudes stood outside with placards whose messaging was unintelligible to the women attending. One of the transwomen- with full beard- carried a sign which said “I am my brain not my genitals” (lol WTF?). At the start of Raymond’s talk one of the men attempted to storm the venue (probably Oger who claims he forced women at the event to speak with him). As individuals were prohibited from entering sessions that were already in process he was cockblocked by a door monitor. One male attendee tweeted back and forth with Natalie Reed during the event. During the question and answer period he rambled on and took up all the time that had been set aside for women to speak. He then uploaded a long long youtube video from his cell phone reflecting cluelessly on his actions which he described as a “dramatic moment” of the event (because attention was centered on him). His actions highlighted the need for women to have women-only space to organize away from male attention-seeking and entitlement. His time-sucking rambling did not mention genderism, which was not discussed at the memorial.
These dudely goings-on were less than a footnote to a successful standing-room-only feminist event featuring presentations and discussions among women on the topic of countering male violence and sexualization of women. Listen to Janice Raymond’s talk at the event here:
It is time to reflect on the attempts by male activists of the transgender variety to silence, disrupt, and prevent feminist and women-only organizing.
The last two years have seen multiple major Radical Feminist conferences in Australia, UK, Canada, and the US. Each has been met with the same violent rhetoric and threats by transwomen, including bomb threats. Transwomen have submitted comments to my blog containing nothing but the names of feminist’s children and the addresses of the elementary schools their children attend. This is the stuff of nightmares. This is terrorism. Yet every one of these events have gone off swimmingly. All the violent bluster, the threats from transwomen and other MRAs, all the terrorism, has not prevented these feminist conferences from occurring. Maybe it is time for men like Ronan Oger to focus on their own events and conferences. The only transgender events that are well attended are those sponsored by drug companies, and all of these events have sex-segregated conferences, and all of these events sponsor public discussions of gender.
Women and our allies, your voices are making a difference. Every time you take a moment to counteract this terrorism it has an effect. Because: you are not alone. When you take the time to comment on a news article. When you write your own article! When you contact your representative about a piece of legislation. When you organize. When you attend. When you donate. When you speak up. Every single time you see feminists under attack for meeting and speaking make sure you take action. It really is making a difference. Congratulate yourself! Keep it up!
Ohhhhh, right right, the great transgender flashmob of 2013. I almost forgot. Here it is. Enjoy.
November 15, 2013
“The over-emphasis on sexual activity as an essential part of the lesbian experience is concerning. Most heterosexual women have experienced pressure to be sexually active. We have all been conditioned to believe that sexuality is a major part of intimate relationships or else the relationship is not ‘real’. Few very old people, generally, have an active sex life. They have other challenges to deal with. Lesbians are no different but they don’t stop being lesbians. Celibate older people do not get constantly questioned on their sexuality; it is assumed they are heterosexual. Whether sexual attraction is current or not, should not be the definition of what it is to be lesbian. Being a lesbian is a social construction of intimacy, community and cultures. Usually, initially, it takes a sexual expression but it does not always for all time for many lesbians.”
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]