May 5, 2013
Motherboard: When does a paraphilia become a disorder?
Blanchard: There are two ways by which a paraphilia could be converted into a paraphilic disorder: the individual is distressed by their desires, or they are acting in a way that is noxious to people. So a pedophile could have a pedophilic disorder if the guy is tortured by the fact that he is a pedophile, or he is perfectly happy with the fact that he is attracted to children, and he is molesting a lot of them.
So if someone cross dresses and they are cool with it, then they don’t have a disorder, correct?
Yes, under my proposal you can now be a happy transvestite, or you can have a transvestic disorder.
You coined the term autogynephilia, which refers to a man who is aroused by the thought of himself as a woman. This term is kind of your baby. Is it going to make it into the DSM-5?
That comes under the heading of what I can’t tell you, because of the confidentiality agreement I signed with the APA.
Do you think autoandrophelia, where a woman is aroused by the thought of herself as a man, is a real paraphelia?
No, I proposed it simply in order not to be accused of sexism, because there are all these women who want to say, “women can rape too, women can be pedophiles too, women can be exhibitionists too.” It’s a perverse expression of feminism, and so, I thought, let me jump the gun on this. I don’t think the phenomenon even exists.
Some trans activists object to the inclusion of transvestic disorder in the DSM because they feel it pathologizes gender non-conformity. How do you respond to these criticisms?
To say that transvestic disorder pathologizes all trans people is rhetoric with no logic behind it whatsoever. If you actually open the DSM-4, it’s very explicit that it applies to people who get sexually excited by dressing in women’s clothes. They really object to the fact, (which is a fact established beyond any conceivable doubt), that in a lot of men there is some connection between cross dressing and sexual excitement.
Is the objection based on the idea that it fetishizes gender non-conformity?
Some activists are trying to sell the public on the idea, “We really are women where it matters–in our brains–and women don’t get sexually excited when they put on their bras and panties, so we don’t either.” And for a lot of them that’s just a lie.
So you don’t see a male-to-female transsexual as being female?
I think that a transsexual should be considered as whatever their biological sex is plus the fact that they are transsexuals. That’s how you would do research on them. There’s no other way to do it. If you’re interested in whether the brains of transsexuals are different in some way, you’re interested in seeing if they differ from other individuals with the same biological sex.
So in a way psychiatric research is inherently gender normative?
I would say medical research is inherently gender normative.
Some members of the trans community object to the stigma they feel accompany DSM diagnoses, but because of the impact of the DSM on insurance payments, it’s necessary they be labeled mentally ill. To what extent is a diagnosis from the DSM necessary to receive reimbursement for gender reassignment therapy?
In the US I would say most insurance companies probably require a DSM diagnosis. The point that sticks in the craw of a lot of activists is that in order to get sex reassignment surgery paid for by a third party, it has to be deemed a disorder. The transgender community has tried to get around this in a way that they seem to think is very creative.
Their argument is, “Well, public health insurance plans pay for the cost of child delivery in a hospital, and childbirth is not a disorder. Therefore transsexualism could be covered under public third party health insurance payers without it being a disorder.” That’s how they’ve tried to square the circle.
And have they been successful?
No. How many people do you know regard sex reassignment surgery as part of the life cycle like having a baby?
Do you think that classifying transgender people as having a disorder does contribute to stigma against the trans community?
No. I mean how many people who make a joke about trannies consult the DSM first?
Do you think that transgender identity might get to the point where homosexuality is now, where it is considered offensive and inaccurate to call it a disorder?
I think there are some glaring differences between acceptance of transsexualism and acceptance of homosexuality. Let’s say that a friend comes to you and says she’s a lesbian, you aren’t seeing your friend performing cunnilingus on her girlfriend. All this requires is acceptance of what you don’t have to see.
With transsexualism, if a friend comes to you and says I feel like I’m actually a woman, and starting tomorrow I’m going to be showing up wearing dresses, this is not happening offstage, you are now part of their movie.
[Images added to this post by me- GM]
ENDA the Employment Nondiscrimination Act was intended to be a Federal protection against employment discrimination against individuals who were fired- or not hired- by employers on the basis of homosexuality.
ENDA was passed by the House of Representatives in 2007 but transgender activists mounted a protest against it. They claimed the act did not support the rights of transgenders: those who believe conservative social sex-roles including behavior, interests and psychology now widely regarded as sexist and oppressive to females are instead biologically based on reproductive function and located in some scientifically yet undiscovered portion of the human brain (perhaps located near the “Negroid brain” of years past).
Legal protections for homosexuals contained the dangerous idea that female relations could be accorded the same legal status as relations accorded to men. This was an accidental and unintended byproduct of the male homosexual rights movement. Genderists protested (and sought to correct) this female right, and gay males supported them. Further, they claimed that females should have no legal status at all. Less than what they came with. They sought to undermine all political and legal rights for women.
They proclaimed that females didn’t actually exist. There was no such thing as a female human, even as those humans were being raped, enslaved, and thrust into a social caste system worldwide. They forwarded the political ideal that female was a state of mind. Females weren’t those fighting oppressive discrimination, violence, and sexual slavery based on their reproductive capacity. Rather, females were any individuals who enjoyed embodying or playing out the sexualized stereotypes forced onto women (even part time as a fetishized sexual role-playing leisure activity).
The men leading the gay rights movement were okay with this. Women were there to make the coffee and provide support (and be grateful) as far as men were concerned and if other guys wanted to support the male sexual rights agenda well then hell, the more the merrier. But they ran into the same political sticking point as they did with gay male sexual rights activists Harry Hays and Allen Ginsberg in their support of NAMBLA: Other fucking men. Hetero men.
Hetero Men didn’t like NAMBLA. Some men didn’t like the idea of other dudes sticking their dicks into male children. The Gay Rights movement crossed a line. Female children are fine – it’s accepted all around the world with nary a male shrug- but males? Some guys objected to male children being treated like female children.
Gay men were fine with the trans thing philosophically. What the hell do they care? Drag is da bomb. Fish is fish. And the whole “females don’t exist” thing is cool. Whatever! But some Hetero bros get upset when other dudes shower naked with their impregnable livestock. Because females actually do exist as impregnable property owned by men. Just like goats! Ixney on the IxDey on my wife dude. Keep your impregnator stick away from my livestock. Thems are mines to impregnate. I’ll be in charge of the animal husbandry, thanx.
Mara Keisling, the heterosexual running his National Center For Trans Equality explained the whole dicks in showers with your wife and daughters thing with the due diligence warranted. The whole right of women to say NOOOOOOOO to a dick-wielding dude in female spaces where exposure is unavoidable (showers, locker rooms) is a simple matter of a “small technicality”. That’s right bros. Small technicality. Get on board.
Keisling, a divorced father who followed the typical road to male womanhood (investment of 60 grand into facial feminization surgery from his savings as a middle aged man after a lifetime of sexualized crossdressing fantasy life) described the new penis in women’s showers version of ENDA as follows:
“There are small technical changes made to ENDA since it was last introduced in 2011. ENDA is being introduced in substantially the same form as it was in both 2009 and 2011, but there are some technical changes meant to reflect legal and other advancements that have occurred in ensuing years. The most significant change for transgender people is that we fought for and won removal of language that clarified use of showers and locker rooms “where being seen unclothed would be unavoidable.” None of the states that have passed and successfully implemented a gender identity anti-discrimination law includes such a provision, and neither should ENDA. NCTE will work tirelessly to make sure that members of Congress stay focused on the important and core issue of job discrimination and do not get sidetracked with extraneous and discriminatory issues like restroom use.”
That’s right folks! You won’t see this being reported by (male) LGBT sources. ENDA2013 is now officially PRO dick in women’s showers. Minor technicality of no consequence to those that matter: Men.
"But there's no such thing as autogynephilia!": Phone Sex, the Male Gaze, and How Blanchard and Trans* Activists Both Get It Wrong
May 3, 2013
Whenever radical feminists and trans* activists clash about trans* issues, there's a major divide on the issue of something called "autogynephilia."
Autogynephilia is often advanced as one of two forms of transsexuality for men--the other involves a very feminine homosexuality that manifests as transsexuality. I don't buy into Blanchard's easy two-part typology. But at the same time, it's ridiculous for trans* people and their allies to claim that autogynephilia isn't real.
May 3, 2013
Cristan Williams is a man who hates women, who hates lesbians and gays, who hates feminists most of all. He hates them because he feels they interrupt his relationship with the object of his greatest desire: His sexualized image of himself “as a woman”.
Cristan is what is known as a “Men’s Rights Advocate”. Such men believe that women prevent men from realizing their true potential. In Cristan’s case, that “potential” is his right as a man to become a sexy lady. Women get in his way because their existence- as actual female humans- interferes with the male definition of woman as “person who embodies sexualized porn stereotypes of females”.
Cristan has spent years authoring various widely unread blogs and vlogs where he posts overly-long MANifestos explaining how women, lesbians, gays, and feminists have deprived him of his entitlement to womanhood. Also trolls reddit under various names including “GroovemasterGeneral”, “Two”, and “I’mNotanMRAbut”.
He recently inherited the TransAdvocate website from retiring trans MRA Marti Abernathey. TransAdvocate is an aggregator site for anti-woman, anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-feminist trans bloggers. The site is entirely male except for occasional re-posts from sole token female Matt Kailey, a heterosexual “ex-fag-hag” F2T.
This hilarious exchange took place in comments on this post, and is illustrative of the total lack of awareness of actual women’s lives so prevalent in today’s trans politic. Not only is this funny (in a sad and awful way) but exposes the ignorance and disconnect from actual women’s lives and experiences that informs the “womanhood” of the sexual fetishists like Cristan who are spokesmen from the men’s transgender rights movement. Also on display in the rest of the exchange (not quoted here- hit the link for more) is the incredible mean-spiritedness of transgender males towards female reality: a reality that would destroy the male-centric entitlement and fantasy of “womanhood” if such everyday truths of female lives were ever acknowledged and respected.
Without further adieu. GH in this exchange is the sister of a Canadian transgender pioneer now profoundly disabled due to blood clots caused by his pharmaceutical estrogen “treatment”.
gh : stop this nonsense with the prefix, cis. a woman is a human being born with the reproductive capacity to reproduce, intersex people are a rare and wonderful exception. i was born a woman. pure and simple, my transsexual sister was not born a woman. she is a MtF woman. no need to address or apologize for what you are when you are born. it is the trans community that makes the addition…. the number 1 is not 2 minus 1, just 1…we get to 2 by adding. we do not get to 1 by subtracting. don’t apologize for the way you are born….
Cristan Williams : I’m guessing that you’d assert as fact that there’s no cis-privilege, amirite?
gh : so what is cis-privilege? this is not about privilege. i remember telling a friend about my brother/sister and her reaction was: who the hell wants to CHOOSE to be a woman??? sexual harassment from a young age? menstrual pain and bleeding (and embarrassments) when we are twelve? worry about birth control? pregnancy? lower pay at work? sexual harassment at work? no promotions because we need to go home to the kids? childbirth, which is a wonderful miracle but takes a toll on our mental and physical health? excessive bleeding? worries about breast and ovarian cancers? other womanly health concerns like yeast infections, std’s, aids, infertility, or fertility? sexual harassment and assault on the streets, even as we age? menopause for years, night sweats, hot flashes, depressions? sexual disinterest as we age from our lovers? rape on buses, in parks, in our homes, in public washrooms? domestic violence? the beauty industry making us feel insecure and ugly? anorexia? all of these are privileges? to you maybe….but then when a man becomes a woman she does not have to deal with the same types of problems…they are kind of edited out of the equation for you??
Cristan Williams : Cis-privilege refers to a set of unearned advantages that individuals who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth accrue solely due to having a cisgender identity. Cisgender (AKA: Cis, cissexual) is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of people who are not transgender. For example, this term is used to refer to someone who was sexed male at birth, subjectively experiences their sex to be male, identifies as a male and expresses his identity in a manner consistent with a cultural male gender role.
gh : rubbish. this is an invented term by translobbyists…bullying in the washroom does not imply that another group enjoys a privilege…it only says that one person is bullying another. designating a washroom for example for the sole use of one sex or another, (after the fight for women to have bathrooms in certain workplaces, dining establishments, schools, etc.) does not imply that women enjoy a privilege…it was fought as a right, and won as a right….it is not beyond the advantage of most…there are men’s washrooms, so there is no special privilege….this was about equality, not privilege. this is only one example….i am never cis-gendered…i am a woman. transpeople are the “deviation” from the norm, thus are the transsexual, intersex people are not included as they have their own considerations…why have political interests muddied the waters and made this issue into a binary? priv·i·lege [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, priv·i·leged, priv·i·leg·ing. noun 1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privilegesof the very rich. 2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them fromcertain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit. 3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions. 4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities. 5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy theprivileges of a free people.
Cristan Williams : Here’s a few real-world examples of cis-privilege:
1. You can use public restrooms without fear of verbal abuse, physical intimidation, or arrest.
2. Strangers don’t assume they can ask you what your genitals look like and how it’s possible for you have sex.
3. If you are murdered (or have any crime committed against you), your gender expression will not be used as a justification for your murder (“gay panic”) nor as a reason to coddle the perpetrators.
4. You have the ability to walk through the world and generally blend-in, not being constantly stared or gawked at, whispered about, pointed at, or laughed at because of your gender expression.
5. Strangers call you by the name you provide, and don’t ask what your “real name” [birth name] is and then assume that they have a right to call you by that name.
6. You have the ability to flirt, engage in courtship, or form a relationship and not fear that your biological status may be cause for rejection or attack, nor will it cause your partner to question their sexual orientation.
7. If you end up in the emergency room, you do not have to worry that your gender will keep you from receiving appropriate treatment, or that all of your medical issues will be seen as a result of your gender.
8. Your identity is not considered a mental pathology (“gender identity disorder” in the DSM IV) by the psychological and medical establishments.
9. You are not required to undergo an extensive psychological evaluation in order to receive basic medical care.
10. You’re able to assume that everyone you encounter will understand your identity, and not think you’re confused, misled, or hell-bound when you reveal it to them.
gh : Here are a few real-world examples of women’s experiences in the world:
1. You can’t use the public restroom without fear that a sexual predator is waiting in the stalls. If you live in the developing world, you fear going out to collect water, or using the outhouse, or taking a public bus because you fear rape.
2. Strangers come up to you, from infancy onwards, all the time, and ask to have sex with you, or wolf whistle or touch you inappropriately because you have a female body.
3. If you are murdered or have any crime against committed against you, the likelihood that the perpetrator is a close relative or friend is increased monumentally because you are a woman. You learn to trust no man.
4. You walk down the street and are victimized because you are a woman.
5. If you are like me and have a foreign name, you are constantly assumed to be a Mr., or if you are young, a Miss, or old, a Mrs., but you learn to deal with it!! Boy named Sue.
6. If you are a woman and are having a heart attack, your case is not taken seriously because you are a woman…or if you suffer from migraines that look like a stroke, you are considered by the neurologist that you are like other of his female patients to be fat, housewives with nothing better to worry about….BTW, I was having a stroke.
7. You go our on a date and because the man thinks you are flirting because you want sex, he rapes you….your sex has everything to do with it…you learn to question your sexuality, or repress it so as not to be victimized again….
8. Hysteria is/was thought to be caused by a woman’s uterus and other physical attributes. Women have been categorized as crazy for suffering the hormonal storms that accompany menstruation, childbearing, menopause….look at the so called humour industry….
9. “Mother’s little helper” aka Valium was given to women who faced the daunting task of staying to care for and cook for men in the suburbs. Maybe they need to fight for equality? We were not crazy, just victims of a paternalistic society.
10. I was told to leave the law school studies to my brothers. My identity as a strong and intellectual woman was not understood and was denigrated. I have been put down numerous times by men and women for wanting the liberation of women in the world…
Cristan Williams : Eh, Oppression Olympics? Nope. Won’t play.
Lawrence University invokes shocking last minute BAN on Earth Day Keynote Speaker Lierre Keith due to her Feminist views on Gender
April 22, 2013
In a shocking last minute decision Lawrence University representatives no-platformed Deep Green Resistance founding member Lierre Keith from her scheduled Earth Day appearance due to previous feminist comments she has made about gender. Specifically, she was banned from speaking at the university due to her belief that Gender is socially created and not biologically innate.
Keith is the author of The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice and Sustainability and a well known writer, Radical Feminist, food activist and environmentalist. Her scheduled speech “Stopping Civilization’s Violence to the Earth” was booked as part of Lawrence’s Greenfire Earth Week Speaking Series.
An event organizer contacted Keith on April 11 with the disturbing news that Lawrence University faculty lecturer Helen Boyd (pen name of Gail Kramer) who is identified in emails as “Professor Helen Boyd-Kramer, a well-known transadvocate” was organizing a campaign to censor Keith’s environmentalist lecture. Boyd-Kramer is the heterosexual wife of transgender and long-time crossdresser, actor Jason Crowl. Boyd-Kramer is the author of “My Husband Betty: Love, Sex and Life with a Crossdresser” and appears on the transgender circuit as a paid speaker describing her experiences as the wife of a transgender man, as well as lecturing in the Gender Studies and Freshman Studies departments at Lawrence. The organizer informed Lierre Keith that Boyd-Kramer was threatening to mount a public protest at the Earth Day event as well as publish an article in the Lawrence University newspaper damning the event unless Lierre agreed to meet with her “in order to have a private conversation about the issue”. Although Keith’s scheduled Earth Day talk had nothing to do with the transgender issue, the organizer stated his fear that “They would diminish the impact of your talk by making you look close-minded and mean, and by shifting the focus of discussion and re-framing your appearance completely.” Lierre was repeatedly asked if her feminist views on gender had “changed”: “we’d love to hear that and the issue will end there.”
No stranger to controversy, and with the strong support of those in the Wisconsin environmentalist community Keith intended to proceed with her appearance as scheduled on Sunday April 21. Two days before the event she was informed that her environmentalist program had been no-platformed at Lawrence University due to her unwillingness to retract her previous, unrelated feminist statements expressing her belief that gender is socially constructed and not biologically innate.
Lawrence University Earth Day organizer Adam James Kranz posted the following message on the event Facebook page announcing that he would personally replace Keith as speaker and present the aspects of Keith’s ideas that he finds “compelling”:
by Greenfire (Notes) on Friday, April 19, 2013 at 2:06pm
From their website “Deep Green Resistance is an analysis, a strategy, and a movement being born, the only movement of its kind.” DGR’s writings have strongly influenced my perspective on environmental issues, and I think their ideas have a lot of valuable contributions to make. They draw deep connections between violence against the land and violence based on class, race, gender, etc. Their analysis puts modern ills in historical context, comparing the tribulations of agricultural life to the hunter-gatherer systems dominant for most of human existence. They make incisive critiques of mainstream modes of activism and reform. Their appraisal of reform-based activism asks us whether we can afford to wait, and, if not, whether we have any alternatives.
There are plenty of intellectual critiques one can and should make of DGR – I did two independent studies last Spring doing just that. However, I feel that DGR’s perspective is very valuable and poses some tough questions to the conventional brand of activism. Lierre is one of the three main leaders and authors behind DGR, and I hoped her lecture would provoke some interesting discussion. The broad, inclusive resistance to oppression and hierarchy that DGR advocates was my own entry point into activist causes beyond environmentalism. I largely relied on their positions on issues I hadn’t bothered to study myself – especially feminism.
This is why I was so disappointed and betrayed to learn that Lierre doesn’t support the trans community in their fight against the same oppressive forces Lierre spends her life combating. In fact, Lierre’s views are deeply offensive and actively transphobic. If anyone is interested in reading her hate-speech, it is quoted here:
and a deconstruction/rebuttal:
Lierre’s views are products of an old trend in eco-feminism that I can’t claim to understand. However, it is not defensible under the shield of intellectual freedom of thought. Her statements go well beyond an analysis that is merely wrong to a level that is actively offensive and disregards the lived experiences of millions of people.
Greenfire is committed to maintaining a safe space for everyone on campus. Hosting Lierre, knowing her opinions and knowing that members of the community know them as well, would disregard the feelings of members of our community, and this is unacceptable. I personally apologize for not making this decision sooner.
Instead of Lierre’s lecture, Greenfire will now host a lecture and discussion forum on radical environmental activism. I will present aspects of DGR’s ideas that I find compelling and try to ask questions that create a productive dialogue about our own tactical choices and analyses. Everyone is welcome to join us. The event will still take place on Sunday, 4/21, at 1 PM, in Steitz 102. Adam Kranz
Lierre has issued the following statement directed at the President of Lawrence University:
I am writing to tell you about an incident on your campus about which you should be concerned.
I am the author of multiple books on environmentalism. A student at Lawrence, xxxxxxx (cc’d here), invited me to speak for Earth Day. The lecture was scheduled for tomorrow, April 21. Yesterday, I received an email from Mr. xxxxxx (pasted below), canceling my appearance because some students take issue with my ideas.
I will get into the content of this disagreement later. My overwhelming point of concern is the purpose of higher education and the defense of the liberal tradition itself. I don’t know if I can state this strongly enough. Universities are supposed to be institutions founded on the bedrock principle of an open and robust exchange of ideas. I am appalled that anyone would be barred from speaking at your school over a disagreement. Intellectual engagement is the entire reason universities exist. It’s also why institutions of higher learning are vitally important to a pluralistic society. The young adults in your care need to understand this principle. If they learn one thing at your school, it should be this: ideas qua ideas are our only defense against the human tendency to fundamentalism with all its attendant horrors.
Mr. xxxxx’s email (pasted below) stated my appearance would be “threatening” and “offensive” to some students. Given that I have threatened no one, and that I am a middle-aged woman with a degenerative disease and no upper-body strength, I think we can set aside the notion that I pose a physical threat to anyone. What they mean is “uncomfortable.” But people don’t go to college to feel comfortable. They go to be challenged. They go—or, they should go—to learn to engage with new ideas, to examine themselves and the world, to interrogate their beliefs and the society around them as deeply as possible. Some of your students are not preparing themselves for citizenship in a pluralistic democracy, which by definition means a civic society of people who hold differing–often, profoundly differing–beliefs. The entire project will rise or fall on how we as a society negotiate those differences. That some of your students don’t understand this–and are, in fact, actively rejecting it–leaves me gravely concerned for the future. That is why I am bringing this to your attention. I hope you share my concern.
To the details of the disagreement. I will try to be brief. I am a feminist. I have spent three decades fighting male violence against women. My analysis is informed by a century and a half of feminist theory and activism. My views are in no way unique. I believe that a social system of male domination starts with human beings who are biologically male or female and creates two social classes of people: men and women. Socialization to either group can be a brutal process.
Men are made by socialization to masculinity. Being a man requires a psychology based on emotional numbness and a dichotomy of self and other. This is also the psychology required by soldiers, which is why I don’t think you can be a peace activist without being a feminist.
Female socialization is a process of psychologically constraining and breaking girls—otherwise known as “grooming”—to create a class of compliant victims. Femininity is a set of behaviors that are, in essence, ritualized submission.
I see nothing in the creation of gender to celebrate or embrace. As a feminist, I am an abolitionist. Patriarchy is a corrupt and brutal arrangement of power, and I want to see it dismantled so that the category of gender no longer exists. This is also my position on race and class. The categories are not natural: they only exist because hierarchical systems of power create them (see, for instance, Audrey Smedley’s book Race in North America). I want a world of justice and equality, where the material conditions that currently create race, class, and gender have been forever overcome.
There are, of course, people who disagree with feminism. In their view, men and women display domination and submission, respectively, not because of social conditions, but because we have different brains. Gendered behavior is natural, they say, a function of our biology. Boys are naturally aggressive and active, while girls are naturally emotional and passive. The claim is often that prenatal hormones create these propensities, and that the wrong hormones can produce the wrong brain. Hence it is possible to have a man’s body with a woman’s brain (which adherents like to call a “lady brain”). Cursory research will reveal the variations and disagreements amongst the genderists. Some, for instance, believe that gender is a matter of costuming—what they call “presentation.” The problem with gender isn’t gender per se, but that there are social constraints on what men can wear. On the other extreme are people who argue that their genitals are a “birth defect” that require surgical removal.
I can’t do justice to the range of genderist beliefs in an email. My point is that I disagree with them, and because of that disagreement I was disinvited from your school. I don’t know what could be more important in a college environment than an examination of social reality and ideas about justice, but that examination has been shut down at Lawrence.
I would urge you to encourage the opposite in your students, for their sakes, certainly, but more importantly in defense of the values central to the liberal tradition. Encountering ideas that differ from one’s own has never hurt anyone; indeed, it is the only way to a better world.
I would be happy to send the text of the talk (which frankly had nothing to do with the subject discussed above) I had planned to give if you have further interest.
Please take a moment to show your support for Lierre Kieth and your support for the great tradition of academic free speech by dropping your own message to Jill Beck, The President of Lawrence University expressing your concern at the following address:
Girls are growing up saying JUST HELL NOOOOO to “womanhood” and the sick-ass sex caste system. The treatment of women as stepping fetching fuck-hole invalids – even in the most “advanced” nations on earth is so stark- NO FUCKING WAY do girls want to be “that”. And they’ll do just about anything to opt out. Is the price of escaping the female lot a surgeon’s knife? YES. And to many young women the price- any price- to escape is one worth paying. Tired of being assumed incompetent because of your vagina? Tired of cleaning toilets while the bros stand around back-slapping and “supervising”? Don’t wanna tart yourself up as a porn star before work every day? Being treated as a freak of nature for failure to submit? Asked to show your teeth constantly (what, no smile honey)? Matter-of-fact interactions taken as castrating failure to soothe males constantly, which is your job as a human born female (and failure to do so means you’re a “bitch”)? Don’t care for babies and child-rearing? Sick of constant rape threats? Tired of being targeted every moment of every day? Had enough of less pay for the same work? Don’t enjoy watching entitled penis-bearers being fast-tracked while you work your ass off? Sick of watching guys get pandered to constantly? See no future in this whole “stupid cunt” thing? See the men in corporate snicker together about your female boss? See the articles parsing the female presidential candidate’s choice of footwear? Sick of getting ridiculous estimates from your mechanic? Tired of your opinion being worthless? See a possible escape from the whole fucking lot of it? Thus we have an entire fucking epidemic of female trans-trenders. Possibly the most practical women on earth.