It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what you say or do: Trans Activists want to kill you

July 13, 2012

Posting this as an update to this post.

Well contrary to what is stated at the end of Paris Lees’ dubiously edited teaser video of Julie Bindel, the complete interview is NOT posted in the current issue of Lees’ transgender rag META which was published today.

What we get instead is the following attempt at a hit piece. Screencapped under Fair Use:

Lees’ critique of the ideas expressed here by Bindel :

She is “full of nonsense”.  Why? Lees does not say.

“Enjoying Male privilege does not make it a motive for transition. But this is Julie’s way: making factual points followed by seemingly commonsense conclusions which are, in fact, wild and illogical” What is wild and illogical about Bindel’s assertion? Lees does not say.

Lees’ critique here:

“Such roles, she rather lazily points out, benefit men and not women” What was lazy about the manner in which Julie made this observation? Lees does not say.

“It’s garbled, binary thinking- without the slightest hint of irony” What is Lees’ critique here? He does not say. It’s becoming apparent that he simply is unable to engage with the material: He does not understand it.

Well, you can see where this is going. Lees’ critique of radical feminism “anything but radical”, “increasingly out of touch with mainstream”. Lees characterizes Bindel’s concerns about medicalizing gender in children as “her latest gripe”, but again, offers no real counterpoint. Lees does appeal to the authority of the medical establishment, citing “several strict criteria” applied to children who are approved for gender sterilization (puberty blockers followed by sterilizing cross-hormone treatments prior to sexual maturity). In actuality the practice of medically transgendering children is highly controversial in the medical community. Lees then interestingly characterizes “transgender” children as “a child who makes themselves ill because they’re clearly unhappy with their assigned gender”[ bolding mine-GM]. Lees also falsely states that transgender surgeries are not performed on minors. That is simply incorrect as many of the teen trans trender videos featured on this site will attest. Surgeries are being performed on minors with parental consent.

Lees goes on in this last heavily edited segment (example: he cuts Bindel’s thoughts about transgender regret down to a sentence fragment, substituting his paraphrased re-interpretation of the statements she presumably made, which he censored.) to complain that he cannot imagine the “ideal world” where we would not ascribe a gender to children. Where is the evidence? The world has always been this way! He goes on to characterize Julie as “paranoid” and “sensationalistic” for de-crying the McCarthyism of “LGBTTQQI” identity politics, but he never engages with her critique or explains his characterization. Jesus. Well, you can read the rest for yourself. He apparently cannot allow her uncensored speech, and he has enormous difficulty understanding and engaging with the material. (I’m being very polite here folks!)

I chuckle remembering what Lees tweeted after I covered his “Julie Bindel’s Genitals” post (subsequently scrubbed by him) last year on GenderTrender. He said “It scares me how intelligent they sound sometimes… it’s like they can actually think in quite sophistacated terms… just odd” [sic]

I’m not trying to pick on Lees or anyone who has trouble understanding or engaging with challenging new (to them) ideas. Lord knows I’m not the sharpest tack in the box. But I think Lees’ piece points to a dynamic that informs the increasingly violent rhetoric of the trans activist community. When he can’t understand the critique, he uses misogynist put-downs.  “nonsense” “illogical” “wild” “bizarre” “paranoid” etc. I fancy a bit of snark as much as anyone, but it has to be actually attached to a point of view. All nicely summed up with the final line of his commentary about radical feminism: “History is not on their side”. HAHAHAHAHA! “HISTORY IS NOT ON THEIR SIDE!” LMAO!


But back to the title of this commentary: “It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what you say or do: Trans Activists want to kill you”

It doesn’t matter whether you try to dialogue with trans activists or not.

It doesn’t matter whether you use the fake pronouns or not.

It doesn’t matter whether you call them women or not.

It doesn’t matter whether you pretend you think men can be lesbians or not.

It doesn’t matter if you are super polite and deferential to the gender faithful or not.

It doesn’t matter if you explain yourself ten times or one.

It doesn’t matter whether you are argumentative or conciliatory.

It doesn’t matter how many times you explain that you support trans to be free from discrimination.

These people just can’t fucking hear you.

They don’t WANT to hear you.

They want you to shut the fuck up regardless of what you are saying.

They can’t even understand what you are saying.

And if they can, they are terrified. Because there is no counterpoint to radical feminist critique of gender. None.

All genderists can do is what males always do when male supremacy is challenged: silence, censor, threaten. Confine the insurgence. Suppress.

Trans Activist Suzan Cooke, (also featured in this issue of Lees’ META magazine) responded on his blog to Julie Bindel’s interview by comparing radfems to Nazis and stated “I’m Polish-American and I know the only compromise with Nazism grows out of the barrel of one gun or the other.”

 And it doesn’t matter whether you author a trans-critical blog, protest the infringement on sex-based protections for females caused by “gender identity” laws, support clinics that offer reproductive services for females, state that homosexuality exists and that lesbians don’t like penis (whether surgically altered or not), or whether you once said the word “tranny” three years ago, when you were eighteen, before you found out some trans activists decided to disavow it, and you apologized like hell when it was brought to your attention…. Trans Activists are still going to target you for suppression. They are going to want to kill you. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what you say or do.

 So go on ahead. Be as trans critical as you want. Until trans come to terms with the inherent anti-female platform of the transgender movement there will be no peace for women.


69 Responses to “It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what you say or do: Trans Activists want to kill you”

  1. feral opera company Says:

    It’s hard to believe Lees allowed the following four words to be published: “Dolls…tutus…surgery…outrageous?” Here, he seems to be shocked that Bindel is outraged that little boys are playing with dolls. In fact, she says the exact opposite. That it’s outrageous that anyone would think dolls and tutus for boys require surgery.

    This is just the worst example of Lees’ bad faith and poor reading comprehension. He comes across as a stupid person, someone who has never even been forced to raise his standards in Freshman Comp.

    Also, he criticizes Bindel by saying her ideas are in line with conservatives and the Daily Mail. Well, this happens to be true, but I’d like to point out that some of those people are our allies on this subject. To claim that being on the opposite side to conservatives is always the way to truth, is bad for everyone’s process. I see feminists make this same mistake all the time. It’s good to see it in this article, because it may help some of us to stop doing that.

    • RoseVerbena Says:

      Lees is a card-carrying Idiot of the First Order.

      If Lees was any more dense, he’d be a cheese torte, and not the good kind. He’d be the kind that makes your tongue stick to the roof of your mouth so hard you’re afraid you’re going to suffocate.

      He keeps making these flip comments but obviously doesn’t have the brain-power the Goddess gave a gnat.

      “Enjoying male privilege does not make it a motive for transition.” How much more stupid could this guy be and still be able to type?

      OF COURSE seeking the myriad benefits of male privilege — while fleeing the oppression and limitations heaped on women in patriarchy — is a HUGE motivator for F2T transition. Hello?

    • Ashland Avenue Says:

      To claim that being on the opposite side to conservatives is always the way to truth, is bad for everyone’s process. I see feminists make this same mistake all the time.

      BINGO. I can’t stand it when “you’re on the same side as the conservatives!!” is used as some kind of insult or silencing technique. So I’m on the same side as someone who is also conservative. So what? I agree with someone on one thing (or more) while I may disagree with them on others. THIS CAN BE DONE.

    • This is a good point. Ultimately, “the conservatives agree with you!” is an ad hominem argument; a logical fallacy. Radical feminists often point out how trans behavior and theory is in keeping with MRA’s and other conservative groups as well, but by and large radfems make clear and consistent arguments at the same time for how the behavior specifically advances patriarchal goals. Merely agreeing with a conservative on something doesn’t make that particular point patriarchal.

      Maybe that’s one of the limitations of liberal queer theory, which would see conservatism as the primary menace to freedom. Radfems generally are also anti-conservatism, but not in and of itself. We oppose conservative *because* it almost invariably propagates patriarchy. Even in the motives of the conservatives who are anti-porn/prostitution, for example, is a patriarchal construct of a whore/virgin and wanting to “protect” women from becoming whores so that men can have more “pure” female bodies to choose from when purchasing a wife. But just because we agree on the end goal (an end to prostitution and porn) doesn’t make our motivations or reasons the same, and it does not necessarily make us “allies” with one another on anything else. If queer theorists like Lees can’t see that distinction, it shows a very unflattering lack of insight and logic.

      • RoseVerbena Says:

        I have a long-term work acquaintance who is Mormon. He and I see eye-to-eye on the issues of porn/prostitution for the same reason: so-called sex work is degrading and harmful to women AND it promotes a culture that devalues human sexuality and turns it into a heartless, loveless, dehumanized commodity to be bought and sold. He’s actually pretty sophisticated in his analysis of the subject, probably because he really loves his mom, sisters, wife and daughters. Of course, he adds on a layer of “it goes against the teachings of the church” that I don’t care about, but I do agree with him on most of his anti-sex-work rational. He doesn’t believe in hating/hurting the victims of porn/prostitution, just in ending the sexual exploitation and abuse involved.

        Is it ironic that I have more in common with his point of view than with the porn-sick youth who mis-identify their pro-sex-work views as “feminist”?

        Yes. Unapologetically so.

      • smash Says:

        Great point.

      • RoseVerbena, I definitely did not mean to say that there aren’t any conservatives in the world who oppose porn/prostitution for good reasons, in fact I have some Mormon friends who are very much like your Mormon friend.

        But I still think there is a patriarchal nuance in their arguments. Even if not explicitly stated, there always seems to be two sexist undercurrents.

        The first is the “sexual purity” undercurrent which relates to the woman-as-property model of marriage, and men not wanting “damaged goods” (i.e. wanting virgins). And in this case it’s not just the prostituted women considered “damaged” but any woman who has consumed porn in any variation or in any other way has not remained “sexually pure.”

        The second is the “delicate feminine sensibilities” undercurrent, which leads to chivalry and the idea that women need to be protected from male brutishness, and that’s the job of the “good men” (e.g. husband and fathers) who never ever abuse their families except in extremely rare cases. In this view, women are just naturally more sensitive and men less so, and there is no analysis of how patriarchy enables male violence and grooms female stockholm syndrome. It also would say that women, being so delicate and all, need to be protected from all expression or experience of sexuality, including our own lesbian desire, outside the context of hetero marriage.

        I’ve spent most of my life in Christianity, moving through various subcultures of it over time, and I’ve never met a conservative who was anti-porn/prostitution whose argument wasn’t dripping with sexism, even if it wasn’t overt. If you poke into their argument a bit, for example by suggesting that many women may be better off never marrying men and living instead with women, their response to that should help it become more clear.

      • RoseVerbena Says:

        Lysandra, you raised excellent points and I heartily agree with each of them.

        I guess I was just pointing out the irony that I can trust a male Mormon to be more “on my side” against the sexual exploitation of women than the porn-sick young women I am encountering all over the Interwebs and on the streets these days.

        Another variation of women’s Stockholm Syndrome is the mistaken (brainwashed?) belief (or avowed belief, who knows what they feel in their gut or think in the privacy of their own minds?) that prostitution is just another valid life-style “choice” and that anyone who is anti-porn is frigid, uptight, anti-sex, and irrationally mean/hateful to “sex workers”.

        The very idea that a person could have a progressive, feminist, compassionate, life-affirming, sexuality-affirming reason to object to sex being turned into “work” of any kind, “commerce” of any kind, is utterly lost on them. How did this happen?

        Of course, being told that being anti-porn or anti-prositution is frigid, up-tight and anti-sex is exactly what misogynist males have been telling me for 40+ years. Now porn and porn-sickness is so pervasive in the general society that I often feel metaphorically like an aging Temple of the Goddess priestess watching the patriarchal hoards rape and ransack their way through the lower city and burn their way up the hill, defiling everything I have ever known and loved — and me with just the one, small, silver dagger…

    • ethicalequinox Says:

      What a bullshit argument – “You’re on the same side as the conservatives!”

      Well, Mr. Lees, conservatives hate radical feminists. They hate everything we stand for. JUST LIKE YOU.

      Shall I expect your defection announcement soon? Clearly, we radfems are on the side of light, as proven by your manly, superior logic!

  2. DaveSquirrel Says:

    What an absolutely shitty still of Julie Bindel that they used in the magazine.

    Also, did you notice in the video, there was never a single shot of Julie Bindel, the back of Lees’ head was ALWAYS taking up half the frame, only Lees got the single close up.

    Lees is in every single fucking frame. One word – narcissist.

    • Ashland Avenue Says:

      Yeah, I noticed that too. I’ve never seen an interview shot that way. Ever. It was just weird, and distracting to boot. (Also amateurish.) As a viewer, I don’t want to be looking at Lees’ neck hair, thank you very much.

    • Darcie Says:

      yes, and the camera setup is so deliberate. Julie Bindel is set up in a colder more stark light from a window, Paris Lees is lit from behind by natural light but from in front by a warmer artificial light. Paris is “bigger” in nearly all the frames than Julie and the camera focused on Paris Lees has an operator, panning in on Paris Lees face for dramatic effect, while the camera on Julie is stationary and unchanging, even when Paris’ big head gets in the way of the frame. Having the interviewer in the frame at all times that the interviewee is being faced in the frame gives the psychological effect that the person being interviewed is being and needs to be monitored by the person conducting the interview, no independence, no authority. Like a child that can’t be left alone. This may just be Paris Lees narcissism or it could also be a case of a clever camera operator that knows how to get these subliminal effects. textbook camera manipulation

    • Darcie Says:

      as for the lighting, Julie s being “examined” in the stark light of day, Paris has the light of day “behind” ‘hir’ and if it had been any brighter Julie Bindel would have had to squint, aaww too bad blame it on the weather, couldn’t make her appear squinty. Might as well have put a halo on Paris

  3. rainsinger Says:

    Thank you GM 🙂 For making my day – I’ve been looking everywhere for days for a genuine radfem take-down of this trans-perp *hugs*

  4. DaveSquirrel Says:

    I haven’t had the chance to read the whole thing yet, but hate the title, hate the preamble. The chances of liking the rest of it, not promising…

  5. FCM Says:

    lees looks most feminine from behind, with one rouged cheekbone slightly jutted. as soon as you see him from the front, or even slightly more in profile where you see he has no chin (like in the above photo) — he looks male. its more than likely that he knows this.

    also, very true that they simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what we are saying half the time. their responses are unresponsive. their summaries of our arguments are innacurate. this is why it is useless to dialog with them. completely useless. we can write about it if we like, to get our own thoughts in order and doalog with each other, but not with them. its a waste of time.

  6. Sarah Davis Says:

    “(I’m being very polite here folks!)”

    You’re words, deliberately referring to Lee’s using male pronouns is not being polite and you know. You know that is something that may upset HER. I’ve watched part of this video, and will watch the rest later. Bindel seems very uncomfortable in the video, but is giving as honest an answer to the questions as possible. BOTH are being proffesional in their approach. I don’t like Bindel for what she’s said in the past, and probably won’t ever like her, but I’m hearing her say the things she’s saying. Maybe you could ask Bindel how editied the video is, maybe you ask Paris to publish the entire video uncut.

    The problem with you and people like you though, you only hear what you want to hear, and anyone who disagrees with you “doesn’t understand”. I understand plenty that you are a bigot.

    • GallusMag Says:

      What’s a transmembrane?

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        LOL LOL!! Hey fool, you MIGHT want to check your post before hitting that send button. And you definitely MIGHT want to do a little research and find out what a lot of trans people a) think about lesbians who do not wish to sleep with them (hint: lesbians’ bodily boundaries be damned!); b) think about women in general; and c) think about spaces that are private and for female-bodied people (once again: boundaries). I’m on the side of born women first, foremost, and forever. If in your puny worldview that makes me a “bigot,” then I know I’m doing something right.

      • RoseVerbena Says:

        LMAO – reblogged:

        That’s just precious. Now the universe owes me one really big typo as my instant karma. 😉

        Oh, by the way: male “trans women” are men.

  7. Ashland Avenue Says:

    “…protest the infringement on sex-based protections for females caused by “gender identity” laws…”

    You notice how they never seem to actually, clearly address this topic? The notion of a male-bodied person being allowed to shower in a locker room next to, say, a twelve-year-old or a five-year-old girl? No, they’d rather call us names and threaten violence while glossing over that whole aspect of gender identity laws. They know that if that gets out, almost all of society won’t be on their side. AND THEY MUST BE LOVED. And pitied, too, actually. Because where would the trans be without their pity party, and title of Most Oppressest Evah?

    I brought up the threats of violence – as “Autumn” Sandeen recently wrote about how he had to move for his safety (eye roll), he once again totally ignored the fact that it’s men who seem to be the ones killing trans people. It isn’t radfems. But they don’t have the stones to go after men. Slamming women is just so much easier. But I’ve long since given up any expectation of any trans person to actually, you know, address this little fact. As I was reading what Sandeen wrote, I also couldn’t believe how he also completely ignored the threats of violence from trans people to women. Said it before, I’ll say it again: what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, asshole.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Yes Sandeen always neglects to mention that the people who frightened him were other male transgenders like himself!

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        Ha, really? That’s hilarious. Well, boys will be boys. I wonder what their beef with Sandeen was. Might they be realizing that Sandeen, oh, makes them look really, REALLY bad to the straight population? (And hell, the gay & lesbian populations too.) He’s a dick par excellence.

      • doublevez Says:

        Sandeen needs a swift kick in his jollies. Here he is implying the criminal act is reporting a criminal act, not the deed itself. Sandeen is harming 17 year-olds who will think they can behave criminally with impunity, but if they do get caught, it’s the fault of the person they harmed for reporting it. From Baltimore Outloud, feedback section: (Aside: don’t editors have responsibility anymore for what is printed in their publications?)

        “I’ve read on the web too that Brennan outed a 17-year-old minor that physically threatened her, although when I went to the link for the webpage where she allegedly engaged in that behavior, it was a dead link.”

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        WOW, doublevez. Talk about blaming the victim! So Brennan reports a threat of violence, and Sandeen can only view this as “outing a 17-year-old.” Uh, no, “Autumn.” A 17-year-old is certainly old enough to know – and be responsible for – legal behavior. A male threatening a woman with violence deserves attention from the law. The 17-year-old forfeited his privacy when he opened his stupid piehole and tried to act like a tough guy. You do the crime, you suffer the consequences.

        I also immediately noticed in that article how Sandeen is sure to refer to Cathy Brennan by name, but refers to his so-called harassers as simply “women of transsexual history.” Why no names there, “Autumn”? Why the inequality? If you don’t know real names, at least put in screen names. But no – once again, it’s easier to go after a woman. This is known as internal misogyny, and YOU HAS IT – at least, that’s what I wish I could say. But I think that’s being too generous – I believe this was a very conscious decision on your part.

        Kudos, though, for (finally) acknowledging the many threats of violence that come from the trans side. You speak of “violence of the spirit” – I do have to wonder what you include in this. Shaming and harassing lesbians who don’t wish to be intimate with male-bodied people, perchance? Shaming and harassing women, straight or lesbian, who don’t wish to share a locker room with male-bodied people? Shaming and harassing born women who point out that yes, being raised as female is a different experience than being raised as male, no matter how the male happened to view himself? So many questions, so many doubts…but after reading your writing for few years now, I know to be suspicious.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Here is a link to the stalker incident Sandeen referenced. Nothing to do with “outing” or being trans. Apparently Sandeen thinks it’s okay to make unsubstantiated accusational rumor-mongering letters to the editor because he disagrees with a lesbian’s feminist politics. Whattaguy.

        Sandeen is a really creepy dude.

      • Adrian Says:

        @GallusMag – It’s not just Sandeen, either – as you know this “Cathy Brennan outs high school kids for fun” meme seems to be all over the usual places on the internet.

        I’ve read the post you linked and some commentary about the whole thing when it was going on, and it seems to me that the only thing to this “outing” was tying the harasser’s two aliases together – pointing out that “Rufus” is actually “Cara” (or “Rufus” and “Cara” are the same person or however you want to put it) and wow, “Cara is a girl’s name so you can do the math” or some sort of thing. Apparently her school did in fact do the math, and that’s the extent of this “outing?”

        The accusations just make no sense to me – if you harass someone online under a variety of aliases (REGARDLESS of whether any of them are your actual ID) don’t be surprised if your victim ties them together and reports you somewhere, and if you’re a kid, that “somewhere” is likely to be your school with the computer lab in it. How anyone thinks that this “Rufus” “Cara” character was somehow attacked out of the blue for no reason is beyond me.

  8. Ashland Avenue Says:

    He said “It scares me how intelligent they sound sometimes… it’s like they can actually think in quite sophistacated terms… just odd” [sic]

    Okay, first, I have to snicker at how he misspelled “sophisticated”. Nice try, dude.

    Next: you’re damn right we’re intelligent. We see right through your bullshit, and that’s just for starters.

    Speaking of which, I do think you’re the sharpest tack in the box, Gallus. Damn, you’re good.

  9. Bev Jo Says:

    I agree with Ashland and finally have to disagree with you, Gallus. You ARE one of the “sharpest tacks in the box.

    You’re not being unfair to Lees. It looks like it’s a case of “deliberate stupidity,” as a friend used to call it — a willing, knowing choice of deciding to not want to understand something which challenges their privilege or biased politics. And in this case, a malicious censoring and selective editing of Julie Bindel’s comments because Lees knows that the uncensored comments might very well change some people’s ideas about the trans cult propaganda.

    That is great how you just go over each of Lees’ ridiculous statements and prove he just insults without explanation, and that he doesn’t even seem to understand what Julie is saying.

    And you are right, that these men hate us, no matter what we do. They hate all women and Lesbians, whether we try to obey them or dare to say no. So we might as well share support and help other women, girls, and Lesbians, and just keep on saying no.

  10. “They can’t even understand what you are saying.”

    I *have* suspected for some time now that a lot of transgender supporters, women included, just aren’t bright enough to understand radfem arguments.
    Nothing we can do about that, unfortunately.
    Paris Lees = Definitely not the sharpest tool in the box.

    Brilliant post.

    • luckynkl Says:

      True. You can’t cure stupid.

    • GallusMag Says:

      “Nothing we can do about that, unfortunately.”
      I’m not sure about this. Still thinking about it. Actually I’ve been thinking about it a long time. How we can (for lack of a better word) dumb down our messages. I’ve tried my RadFem4Dummies series…
      As far as I can figure, radical feminism is not easily dumbed down into the cliched emotive soundbites that people who are unable to engage can easily understand because it is so revolutionary. There are no memetic touchstones to utilize. And there are no “emotional appeals” because female subjugation is accepted as a matter of course- the occupation of women is so complete, so rote, that shearing emotional empathy from the lot of females has become a matter of preserving sanity for females and preserving the status quo for males.
      Still thinking about this dilemma. I guess I always will.

      • yes, when it comes to women it’s probably a denial thing, rather than a stupidity thing. No woman wants to jump into the abyss by admitting to herself how how awful the situation actually is, and it’s sad to see women’s hearts bleeding for these men when they’re incapable of shedding even one tear for women.

        But something tells me that when it comes to transwomen, while it is very much a case of sticking their fingers in their ears and going “la la la” because they want to retain their male privilege, it is ALSO a case of stupidity, because I believe they honestly don’t realise that radfems are not AGAINST effeminate men, per se. That we COULD be allies if they would just stop stepping on our toes by prancing about pretending they’re women.

      • yttik Says:

        You don’t have to dumb down the message, Gallus. It’s not that the message is too complicated, it’s that the patriarchy does too much damage to many women’s psyche’s.

        Over and over again I encounter women who support trans because they have been conditioned to rally around men, to protect and defend them as if they were protecting their own young. It’s not just trans men either, but rapists, batterers, and assorted other dickheads. Heck, even Ted Bundy got dozens of letters everyday, because he was such a sad and hurt little boy, just needing some support.

        It is the nature of patriarchy to produce in women unconditional loyalty to men, while also destroying any possibility of sisterhood. Women do not want to be perceived as mean, as oppressors, as bitches, or as “unfair.” Many women have an almost crippling sense of “fairness,” which of course isn’t “fairness” at all, it often means putting the needs of every single man on the planet before
        our own.

      • RoseVerbena Says:

        “It is the nature of patriarchy to produce in women unconditional loyalty to men, while also destroying any possibility of sisterhood.”

        Thank you yttik, beautifully said.

    • BadDyke Says:

      “I *have* suspected for some time now that a lot of transgender supporters, women included, just aren’t bright enough to understand radfem arguments.”

      I don’t think it’s that they aren’t bright enough, it’s just that it’s difficult to accept at first something that goes to the root of everything you were taught/told/absorbed as being true.

      As regards hetero women — I think the problem isn’t so much that they’re ‘sleeping with the enemy’, hence have too much to lose, or that it’s their fault as well — but that as lesbians, many of us HAD to confront the whole thing as soon as we realised that we didn’t want men/boys. Now that we’re all liberal/liberated, realising you’re lesbian is supposed to be okay, hence doesn’t cause the ‘world turned upside down’ event that many of us went through.

      Or am I just being too ‘female’ and conciliatory………………It’s the continual realisation that they’ve got inside your head, however hard you try, that some of those automatic responses are still there. My consciousness obviously needs another lift, I will admit a certain nostalgia for CR groups……………

      • Darcie Says:

        add to that the exponential uptick of mass media exposure at younger and younger ages, the increasing acceptance of porn and porn inspired images and messages, there are ever more portals for the delivery of patriarchal messages to girls and young womyn, and fewer opportunities for those “ah-ha” moments. More layers of oppressive messaging to get thru before consciousness raising can even begin, and then those first moments of CR are subverted by queer and post-modernist theory that were still treated like hypothesis once upon a time. These womyn are up against an enemy that is every bit as harmful, and not as easy to recognize.

        they got into my head long before the internet and cell phones were bombarding us. Today they mainline the messages, sometimes I’m grateful that I had it as good as I did, and thats saying something

  11. doublevez Says:

    A lot of them seem so uneducated even those who have (IT?) degrees. They don’t seem to self-educate, either. They unquestioning fall for this b.s. they believe. As for ‘understanding: I don’t understand a lot of the academic-style writing, but in my opinion, that’s because of the writing. Although the writing is complex, a lot of it is also just bad writing. (Present source excepted).

    I UNDERSTAND:. I came here understanding. I found you because I understood.

  12. SheilaG Says:

    yttick is absolutely right. It’s not about a message being too complex or needing to be dumbed down.
    Patriarchal attrocity is about thousands of years of colonizing women’s bodies and minds, to the point where women will defend to the death men always, will have sons, will defend their rapist sons even with evidense that their sons gang raped a small girl.

    The mind of women is so male colonized, so male pleasing, so servile in the male world, that radical feminism goes nowhere with most women.

    They don’t want to know, are expert at changing the subject, are too caught up in being liked and popular…

    “fairness” to women is complete and utter self aniliation… it is servitude forever to men and boys, with no idea that the boys they raise they enable to rape the next set of girls. They turn a blind eye to their boys viewing womanhating porn, they resign themselves to PIV for food and shelter…

    This is the world of women, and in patriarchy the male impersonators are valued more even than lesbians, and this comes out of lesbian culture.
    The trans invaded lesbian spaces and radical feminism, they are doing everything in their power to sexually own lesbians now.

    Young lesbians just let the rapists in the front door now, just as the mothers have the sons who rape the girls.

    The only thing radical feminism does is continue to tell the story of the monsters that are patriarchs, report the killing and porn and degredation that is the very soul of male supremacy.

    Every now and then something clicks open– the Sandusky boy rape case… maybe because it is boys being raped by football jocks, and when boys are raped, people actually get fired and jailed. When girls get raped, they are forced to marry the rapists in many parts of the world.

    Women are men’s colonized lands.

    Remember, apartheid ended in South Africa, it continues in Saudi Arabia, and the whole patriarchal world looks the other way, because the violation of women is not a human rights issue at all, because women aren’t human to men.

  13. doublevez Says:

    You’re wrong Sheila. (This is me being polite). Women resist knowing these things because the only explanation is they were not only wrong, but the cause. Which you handily point out. Women know they are the reason children turn out bad, children are starving in some third world country, mothers and fathers in care died in pain, not enough money was raised for prostate cancer, et fucking cetera. It invites madness to contemplate, that when you did everything RIGHT, you did wrong. Many of us do survive our breakdowns to go on. Some women never do go ~through~ heterosexual or not.

  14. AJ Says:

    I don’t understand why Lees is flummoxed by radical feminism’s being “increasingly out of touch with mainstream” – and I don’t see it as “out of touch” anything; disagreement is not refusing to see reality but critiquing reality. Why would it be radical if it were mainstream? BY DEFINITION, radical feminism is NOT mainstream. Good lord.

  15. SheilaG Says:

    Most heterosexual women are in denial, because they insist after all this evidense of male violence and colonization to stay with the colonizers. As long as women continue to live with men, “produce sons” and marry men, there really is no hope of a revolution to end male supremacy, and male contempt for women. I’m not talking about third world countries, I’m talking about women who have college degrees willfully living with men, and refusing to give them up. They are the colonized lands of men; it’s just that simple.

  16. SheilaG Says:

    And hetero liberal women will insist on the rights of the trans over the rights of lesbians every damn time, because heterosexuality itself is about the sexual service the colonizers get from the colonized.
    This is called love and marriage, and it is the most demented system know to humankind.

  17. SheilaG Says:

    You don’t dumb down the message of radical feminism at all. It is not a malestream concept; it doesn’t exist to gain popularity, it exists to free any women who want to hear its message and gain freedom.

    And it’s time to double up and make sure radical feminism kicks the trans out of the entire process.
    We don’t need male impersonators wasting our time, but hey, hetero women keep wanting to let them in the door. Most lesbians of a certain age have nothing to do with them.

    • GallusMag Says:

      “You don’t dumb down the message of radical feminism at all. It is not a malestream concept; it doesn’t exist to gain popularity, it exists to free any women who want to hear its message and gain freedom.”

      What does this even mean. We shouldn’t make sure radical feminism is accessible and understandable to more women because what? Because it is meant to be exclusive or some shite? Whatever for? If it exists “to free any women who want to hear its message and gain freedom” then why would we not want to make sure that message is accessible to as many women as possible? Your shit doesn’t even make sense.

      And btw, radical feminism doesn’t “free” women. It has the potential to, if we can continue to raise consciousness among women of the mechanisms of male supremacy that affect us in every sphere of life. Then we can begin to push back and strategize against those mechanisms. But women can’t just “will” themselves to be free. Jesus if that were true we’d be free a long long time ago. We’d walk home at 4 am after our equal pay shift with our only worry whether someone might try to take money out of our wallet, and all because we understood radical feminism. Get real.

      And you seem to blame het women for the actions of male trans. Plenty of homo females are putting males first as well. Just look at the National Center For Lesbian Rights which has completely centered itself around male concerns even though it has a mostly lesbian board. Het women didn’t make that happen. Hell most het women are clueless because their community isn’t under attack as the lesbian community is. Can het women abusively try to police lesbian sexuality? No doubt. See exhibit A, Ms Magazine blogger Avita N. Nathman.

      Hetero women like Anita N. Nathman should NEVER EVER do that. It is ATROCIOUS and female-hating and anti-gay and disgusting. But we can point plenty of fingers at our own community as well. The prioritizing of male concerns above females is a GLOBAL problem among women, and it isn’t one that occurs by accident, or because women are somehow stupid or complicit or flawed. We are UNDER SEIGE by our occupiers from the moment of our birth: gaslighting, stockholm syndroming, and abusing and raping the fuck out of us into steppin’ and fetchin’ compliance. And you BLAME fucking WOMEN??? For REALZ? Please DEFEND your assertions. If you want to blame an occupied people for our OWN oppression please tell me how that works. Because as it stands, as Double Vez pointed out (paraphrasing badly) it sounds like you are not only BLAMING females for our oppression but advocating a “pull yourselves up by your bootstraps” male-type bullshit that centers the conservative male/trans status quo and is most UN revolutionary and UN radical.

      Your feminist critique is like a (for lack of a better word) bitchy snarky gossip columnist picking off women for their “fashion failures”. And I’ve really had about enough of it. We’ve had this conversation over and over again and yet you produce nothing to defend your anti-female assertions. I totally dig that females alone will be responsible for our freedom. Males will never give up privilege willingly. So I really want to engage with your critique- but there needs to be substance behind it. Not this females are bad/stupid and just don’t want freedom bullshit. I urge you to deeply consider what I have taken the time to type out to you here. I just KNOW you can express your thoughts more coherently. And if you can’t, then I am rapidly tiring of hearing them. Sorry to be so harsh but I don’t see how your “females bad” bullshit is helping ANYTHING. It’s like you’re BEATING women and telling us how we brought it on ourselves. You OF ALL PEOPLE should heed the call to make your message more coherent. If you can’t I am going to completely dismiss it as pure anti-female blather.

      • cabochon Says:

        THANK YOU, GallusMag. SheilaG, over the years, under all of her sock-puppet names, consistently has dropped turds in the punch bowls of every radfem site she finds. I don’t “get” the woman-hate from her.

  18. GallusMag Says:

    And I’ll spam the shit out of it.

  19. SheilaG Says:

    I think we are two different ships sailing in very different worlds Gallus. I wish you well, but I do hold hetero women accountable. They are the Viche government.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Hahaha. As if females are ANY government. lmao. Take Care hon.

      • doublevez Says:

        What a stodgy image, those ships passing. No won’t do. (Wipes screen). There. Gallus as The Bluenose.

    • cabochon Says:


    • yttik Says:

      Well, I don’t hold women accountable, hetero or not. Besides, there are plenty of lesbians who also can’t see what’s going on. In fact, that’s how I found Gallus. The other rad/fem sites I loved to read went so irrationally pro trans, I couldn’t take it anymore.

      My point about not dumbing down the message though, was because I think there are better strategies. (LOL, speaking of dumbing down the message, you can’t get any more clear then, “transactivists want to kill you!”) One way to reach other women and to communicate with them is to understand where they’re coming from. It’s been my experience that many women view trans as victims in need of their protection and many women don’t want to be viewed as oppressors, as mean, as unfair. Women need to be told over and over again that it’s okay to put their own needs and their own safety first. Many women are also empathetic towards those who challenge gender roles. One thing we can do is show how transactivists actually reinforce gender roles, not radically oppose them.

      • RoseVerbena Says:

        Exactly. That’s the hook that keeps women from speaking out against the *trans*gressions we experience first-hand: the “I don’t want to be mean to an oppressed person” hook.

        It worked on me for years, and I’m not exactly a boot-licking lackey of the patriarchy — I’ve been an avowed, active feminist for over four decades — I even spent a bit of time living on women’s land in the Northwest and seriously considered living there full-time as a lesbian separatist (I’m more of a celibate bisexual radical feminist now, but that’s a loooooong story.)

        The day (well, it took a few weeks) when I finally WOKE UP to the abusive and sexist nature of the whole “trans” cult, I was physically sick with anxiety about “turning into a bad person” and “being mean to marginalized people” and all the rest of the huge guilt-trip.

        Pathetic? Yes, but true.

        It took me a lot of reading, studying and thinking before my ah-ha moment, when I asked myself: WHY am I supporting a bunch of (mostly) heterosexual, sexist, white, middle-aged, middle-class, entitled, arrogant, porn-sick, femininity-obsessed MALES in their attempts to codify an imaginary “gender identity” into law and thereby colonize womanhood, destroy our boundaries, invade our privacy and force us into letting them intrude into our tiny sliver of female-only safe-space?!???

      • GallusMag Says:

        “LOL, speaking of dumbing down the message, you can’t get any more clear then, “transactivists want to kill you!”


      • Radfems don’t need to dumb down the message. People who WANT to understand, WILL.
        2 years ago I had no idea what the hell radfems were going on about when they wrote about the anti-PIV stance. There was one blog in particular just hammering away this point… and I just didn’T get it. But I thought to myself, now hang on a minute, she’s 100% right about the trans thing, so there’s a possibility she’s right about *this* as well. She had credibility in my eyes. And then as soon as I got it, it was life-changing, like jumping in the abyss or waking up for the first time..
        But because it’s women putting forward radfem arguments, our words automatically have no credibility, and this is the main problem.

      • GallusMag Says:

        THAT is an excellent point.

    • BadDyke Says:

      “but I do hold hetero women accountable. They are the Viche government.”

      I think the arguments for political lesbianism haven’t gone away. Heck, Julie Bindel seems to think it is still a good idea:

      I think though there is a line to be drawn between challenging or questioning hetero women on their continued insistence on heterosexuality, and blaming them as collaborators.

      And doesn’t help that the language as regards lesbianism nowadays has slipped into such biological determinism, the I was born this way I can’t help it cop-out. Which of course fits in, as it were, with trans usage of biological determinism. Sorry, I’m a lesbian cos I was born with a lesbian brain works just as well as, sorry, I’m actually a woman because I was born with a female (or even lesbian) brain, just a stoopid male body.

      But then I could never see quite why any woman with any sense and with some degree of autonomy would ever CHOOSE heterosexuality, given the goods on offer.

      Off to dredge up my copy of “Love Your Enemy?”………………

  20. ktsimilar Says:

    Great piece. I love how Lees make this position terribly progressive, hip and modern. Or tries to, like all Nu-Throwbacks. Woman = lipstick, hair, heels, pantyhose, being ‘fabulous’ (not in a remotely faggy way, obviously), speaking in a weak little fake voice and bragging about an alleged laundry list of sexual conquests. (The latter just being normal male behaviour thrown in for good measure.) Drag Queens (and PL is the biggest DQ I ever saw) are really women. Progress. Next up, let’s revoke votes for women. “We’re too busy thinking about makeup to bother with all that boring man stuff.” Well I’ve no problem believing that of Lees, if indeed this person thinks at all when not masturbating over their own photos.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: