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 27, 2014
Originally posted on naefearty:
I started this blog mainly so that women who are in, or who are recovering from a relationship with an autogynephilic male can find each other, and to encourage these women to speak out against this abuse. We can be the key to exposing the lies that hide behind the carefully constructed myths that surround these men. The commonly accepted trope that these are “women trapped inside men’s bodies” for example. That it has nothing to do with sexual fetish. That “gender” is an innate “essence”, that must never be questioned. That a “transwoman” is a “woman” because they say so. Yanno. Stuff like that.
I also want to signpost women to authors and bloggers who helped me to make sense of what was going on, and who opened the door to me finding healing, and to turn pain into a righteous anger that fuels my will to devote my…
View original 446 more words
“Ultra Violent” Transgender Teen “Jane Doe” transferred to male facility after assaulting another female victim
July 14, 2014
The transgender male Connecticut teen being called “Jane Doe” has been transferred to a juvenile male facility today after committing another assault on a teenage girl and a staffer on Saturday night in the all-female psychiatric facility where he had been housed.
Readers will recall that the young man, with a history of serial violence against women and girls, had been transferred in April from the custody of the Department of Children and Families to the Department of Corrections, and placed in a private cottage at an adult female prison facility because no juvenile female space was equipped to accommodate violent male offenders. Connecticut State Gender Identity laws prevented the male teen from being transferred to any one of the many appropriate juvenile units because the law makes a distinction between those male teens who may have special vulnerabilities or needs, are gay, are “feminine” or sex-role nonconforming, and those who believe they are “female brained” and identify themselves as transgender. Male teens who declare gender beliefs are offered special dispensation to be housed with juvenile females on the basis of that belief.
Connecticut state juvenile authorities began administering cross-sex female hormone treatments to the troubled young man at the age of 16 in an effort to make him appear more female.
Transgender and gay male activists rallied around the violent teen on the basis of their claim that incarcerated female minors should have no right to safety from his serial assaults. Demonstrations were held in multiple cities calling for the young man’s release back into a general population of potential female victims. Protesters urged authorities to disregard the safety of girls, claiming that the young man’s feelings of wishing he was female would be hurt if he was placed in an appropriate juvenile male facility -and that one violent male teen’s feelings were more important than the physical safety of female teens and staffers. Connecticut resident and gay male activist Harvey Fierstein wrote an OpEd published by the New York Times calling on authorities to prioritize “Jane Doe’s” feelings about his sexual identity over the rights of juvenile females to be incarcerated free from violent male assault. Male activists defended the youth by proposing that targeting women and girls for violence is a natural response for males who have survived abuse by other males. The teen’s previous assaults include multiple acts of battery against juvenile females, stabbing a female juvenile with a fork, breaking a female staffer’s jaw, blinding a female staffer by repeated kicks to the head, and smearing his feces.
Male activists set up “Justice for Jane” websites and mailing lists and an attractive, feminizing portrait was drawn up to represent the serial offender to the public.
As a result of this activism officials transferred the young man at the end of June to Middletown’s Child Psychiatric Institute -in one of its juvenile female units in deference to the teen’s desire to believe he is actually female.
In a development that should surprise no one, providing him with access to female victims has resulted in the violent assault of both a teenage girl and a female staffer in last night’s attack.
From reporter Josh Kovner at the Hartford Courant:
“7:28 p.m. EDT, July 13, 2014
The transgender youth who was imprisoned without charges because of her history of assaulting staff members in juvenile facilities has been accused of assaulting a worker and another youth at a juvenile treatment program in Middletown on Saturday night, child protection officials said Sunday.
State police are investigating the allegations, said Gary Kleeblatt, spokesman for the Department of Children and Families. The youth was moved Saturday night to a single room at the secure Connecticut Juvenile Training School.
The 16-year-old transgender girl had been shifted back to DCF care on June 20 after her transfer to York Correctional Institution for women in Niantic drew outrage from national civil rights advocates.”
“A brief statement from DCF said only that the youth, known in court filings as Jane Doe, “assaulted another youth and a staff member at the girls Pueblo Unit and also destroyed state property.”
The locked Pueblo unit is on the campus of the former Riverview Children’s Hospital in Middletown.
“State police have been notified, and we are confident they will take whatever action they deem is appropriate,” Kleeblatt said.
DCF had been awaiting approval of plans to place the youth in a juvenile treatment program in Massachusetts. It is not clear how the new assault allegations will affect those plans.
Romano said the Massachusetts option sounds to him like “a false promise.”
Initially, DCF opted not to place the youth in the Pueblo Unit, making the case that it had no programs to care for her.
Romano has said he wants to see her go to a foster family.”
The Courant quotes DCF Commissioner Joette Katz as stating that “agency staff searched “for a secure facility that would honor [his] gender identity.”
None of the news agencies have yet reported on the status of the injured female victims. Updates will be posted in the comments section below.
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 »
*Breaking News* Lesbians stage protest of heterosexual male keynote speaker at London Dyke March 2014 , threatened with arrest
June 21, 2014
After weeks of online protest surrounding the controversial appointment of former LibDem Councilor Sarah Brown, a male transgender, as keynote speaker at the London Dyke March, a group of courageous lesbians staged an effective demonstration today at the march, raising awareness of how Dyke Marches worldwide have been aggressively colonized by “male lesbians”.
Many readers will recall former Councilor Brown as the male self-identified “polyamourous dyke with one male partner” who launched a public campaign to name the foul smelling drainage created by his surgically inverted penis (what he describes as “the smegma-like mixture of dead skin cells, gynaecological lube, stale urine (gives it its distinctive smell) and sweat that is sometimes present as a white residue on the end of a dilation stent when a post-operative trans woman withdraws the stent after dilating her neovagina.”) with the name of a prominent Lesbian Feminist anti-trafficking activist. Brown finally removed this disgusting campaign from his blog this spring, and responded to complaints by falsely claiming he had removed it “years ago”. I personally read the above quoted post on his blog at this link (http://auntysarah.livejournal.com/175926.html) on February 24 of this year.
While still an elected official, Councilor Brown made public posts on “The F Word” blog supporting the creation of legislation that would eliminate the rights of women to meet in women-only feminist political gatherings.
Brown, who calls himself “aunty sarah” next posted a series of ugly, misogynist, anti-gay and anti-feminist rants on his twitter account, the full details of which you can easily google, including statements that lesbian bodies are “off putting”, and “political lesbians must be sexually frustrated”, that he is a “better” lesbian than women because men “have longer fingers” (eww!), and telling lesbians to “suck my balls”. When the former Councilor failed to be re-elected this year (along with many others in the LibDem party) he claimed that “lesbian feminists” caused his political loss as well as a “nervous breakdown” by complaining about his grotesque and disgusting public comments. He violently warned that feminists might someday criticize a man “who has entirely the wrong kind of sense of humor failure”.
Sarah Brown’s outrageous behavior towards lesbians and feminists has a long and colorful history. Which is why women in the UK were stunned to discover that the organization of the London Dyke March had been fully taken over by the “male lesbians” that had been aggressively colonizing it for years, AND that they had invited Mr. “Suck My Balls” Brown to appear as this year’s Keynote Speaker! Insult to injury and all. There followed a flurry of online protest from women who were deeply offended, and alarmed that a purportedly lesbian event had become so thoroughly compromised. The male representatives of the now thoroughly male “Dyke March” responded to the outcry by banning all women from their Facebook page for “inferences that trans women are men”. Not only did the Dyke March ban women from discussion of the politics of elevating a male keynote speaker at a lesbian event, now the mere “inference” that transwomen are, well, “transwomen” (ie. male persons!) caused lesbians to be banned from a LESBIAN PROTEST MARCH ABOUT LESBIAN VISIBILITY. Wow!
It gets worse.
The male London Dyke March organizers then issued a statement informing the lesbians that the “male dykes” had engaged a “police liaison” that would arrest any lesbians who made political statements or spoke publicly against male leadership of the protest march for increasing lesbian visibility. Any lesbians who protested would be arrested and prosecuted for “discrimination” against men! Whew!
In this jackboot climate of male suppression of lesbian rights to gather, seek representation at LESBIAN events, and our right to protest the male erosion of LESBIAN VISIBILITY, under threat of ARREST, at a DYKE MARCH (!!!) it is surprising that any women showed up at all. But some did- and they risked the threat of harassment and ARREST by MALE AUTHORITIES and staged a kick-ass protest, complete with signs and informative literature for any other actual lesbians who showed up. KICK ASSSS! Great job LESBIAN WOMEN!
The following is excerpted from a related post at Sisterhood Is Powerful:
“In hindsight, the most powerful step taken by feminists towards liberation in the 60s-80s, was a recognition of the political power of women-only spaces. It began with CR groups. Groups of women recognised that men have made our traditional place in the home and away from societal decision-making. Over these decades, women fought men’s psychological warfare games aimed at stopping them meeting together in women-only spaces. Women were called ‘man-hater’ and ‘ugly’ and ‘lesbian’ (ha!). They steadfastly continued to pursue political goals in the interests of the female class within those spaces.
It always begins and ends with our own political spaces – only there can we think, dream and plan for a future with freedom. The concept of our own space to escape male supremacy was so successful that a whole women’s sector was built by radical (many were lesbian) feminists.
The idea that women could meet to make things better for all women was becoming so well-established that male supremacy found a way to attack, discredit and destroy it. What better way to do that than from an incredibly regressive ideology disguised as the new progressive way forward. We can’t possibly tell who is a man or who is a woman, the argument goes, (without a degrading look at those genitals down there and that’s unthinkable bigotry). We must, therefore, stop “policing” boundaries on gender lines. We must hold lesbian marches that are open to anyone who identifies any way they like, and we cannot have meetings where we ourselves define the boundaries unless men tell us it’s ok and we’re not “bigots” for our attempts to do so. In one short generation, women-only space is under attack again. As (some liberal etc) feminists are beginning to find out, the use of queer ideology in feminist spaces is a way to silence and control all women; not just those scapegoated for naming the way gender hierarchy oppresses women for the benefit of men.
On 21 June 2014 it feels fitting to dedicate this blog post to all the women who marched for their freedoms in 1908 in Hyde Park London, 106 years ago exactly. They believed that the right to vote would end their oppression. We now know it was barely even the beginning of our fight for liberation but it is entirely understandable that they risked so much to achieve that one main goal. It is also dedicated to UK radical lesbian feminists who cannot go on a ‘Dyke march’ around ‘visibility’ (oh the irony) in London today because men are more welcome than us and to the brave radical lesbian feminists who went anyway and demonstrated their concerns. #takebackdykemarch The two events falling on the same day is embedded in irony.”
Read more of that post here:
*Links to further related posts will be added here as they appear.
June 19, 2014
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