Censored by Trans Activists: Staying in the Same Town as My Ex – by Christine Benvenuto

December 6, 2012

Censorship-

The following essay was posted on the Jewish parenting site Kveller on Dec 3 2012. Within hours, the author’s ex-husband apparently started a campaign on Facebook to bully the author, and the website, into removing her writing. The essay is a holiday time reflection from a woman sharing her thoughts and feelings about remaining in the same small town as her ex-husband and some of the challenges this presents for her. Nothing in the piece is particularly critical of her ex. It is more of a personal reflection of some of her thoughts and experiences.

Nonetheless, within hours, her ex-husband was able to mobilize hundreds of people to complain about the publishing of his ex-wife’s writing.

On what basis?

Her ex-husband is a powerful man. He is a tenured college professor at Yeshiva University, and an author. He has a lot of friends. But more importantly, he is a transgender male who believes a woman never has the right to publicly share her thoughts and feelings about life after divorce if the man she was married to is transgender. Apparently HE is allowed to write and publish and do book readings on the topic of his life changes, but SHE is not.

You can read the hundreds of nasty comments left by his friends, and transgender activists – including Dana Beyer, executive director of Gender Rights Maryland calling for censorship of this author. But you will have to read them via Google Cache HERE (before it expires) because, unbelievably, her ex-husband was successful in having her essay pulled from the site after a two-day campaign.

Was there something objectionable about the piece? Was it a personal attack against her ex-husband? Did it contain “dirty laundry”? Was it libelous? Was it discriminatory against transgender people? No. Her husband’s censorship campaign rested on the fact that she referred in her essay to her husband of twenty years with the pronoun “He” and “him”, because she had been married to A MAN.

Do you find it hard to believe that an ex-husband could so effectively censor and harass his ex-wife?

Not only is Joy Ladin harassing his ex-wife online but last week his friends prevented her from doing a local book reading by reportedly showing up and shouting profanity and threatening violence until the police had to be called. You can read about that HERE.

So. It’s time to make up your own mind. Did Christine Benvenuto write an essay that warranted censorship, or is her ex-husband Joy Ladin conducting a vicious campaign of harassment against her with the intent of destroying her ability to continue making a living as a writer?

Brought to you by GenderTrender: the site where readers get to make up their OWN minds:

The following is a re-print of the censored article, followed by a copy of the Kveller website’s censorship notice. Reprinted unedited under Fair Use.

——————————————————–

Dec 3 2012

Staying in the Same Town as My Ex

By Christine Benvenuto at 9:54 am

Recently, one of my children was referred to a new doctor. Somewhat unusually, my ex came along to the appointment.

The doctor entered the room where we sat waiting, introduced herself, and greeted my child. I introduced myself as my child’s mother. “And who are you?” the doctor asked my ex. “I’m the other parent,” my ex replied stiffly. “The other parent,” the doctor echoed, laughing and nodding. I could see her assessing the situation, making the obvious assumption about our family composition: I had given birth to my child. Her “other parent” was my former lesbian partner. Half right. Sketching in our child’s medical profile the doctor asked some questions about her brother and sister, and we provided the necessary information.

“But do they have the same father?” the doctor inquired. What she meant but didn’t say was, “Do they have the same sperm donor?”

“Yes,” we said in unison. What we meant but didn’t say was, “Yes, and you are looking at him.”

A funny thing happened on the way to my becoming a single mom.

My husband and I got together in our teens. More than 20 years and three children later, he decided to live the rest of his life as a woman. Our marriage melted along with his masculinity. I went through the anguish any woman might over the unexpected demise of a long and happy marriage. I faced the usual potpourri of dread–of penury, isolation–when I contemplated raising three children alone, the youngest still in diapers. Worse, I felt crushed by a sense that the reason for my marriage’s demise said something so terrible about me it would be intolerable to remain in a place in which it was public knowledge. Exactly what it said, I wasn’t sure. Maybe that was part of what made it so awful.

Everything was changing. I thought that where my children and I lived would have to change right along with it. But I love where I live. More importantly, my children are fiercely attached to it. They like that when my friends spot them in town without me, they want to know who they are with and what they are up to. They like knowing the trees that are tapped for our syrup and the chickens providing our eggs. They like noticing the way the flocks of turkeys who usually tie up traffic on our roads seem to go into hiding just before Thanksgiving each year only to reappear when it’s safely over.

Still. Weren’t we fighting a losing battle, hanging onto a place just because it was where we had once been happy? I couldn’t go, but how could I stay?

Finally someone offered the most profound insight into my situation I have heard to date, uttering the words that set me free from this stalemate: “You aren’t the first woman to marry a jerk, and you won’t be the last.”

Ah!

She was saying I had nothing to be ashamed of. My ex’s choices didn’t reflect badly on me. When a guy dumps a wife and young children for another woman, people–the wife in question, certainly–are more likely to think, “What a jerk!” than, “What a hero!” Why should it be any different just because the other woman is the guy?

I’ve stayed–so far. As long I remain I can’t ever get entirely away from my past, but then maybe I don’t want to. It’s mine, after all. Everything my eyes rest on, every Fall Foliage banner, every coffee shop and playground, recalls some moment of my children’s lives, some treasure I never want to lose. I was happy before. I’m happy now. I’ve made a new life without leaving. Astoundingly, I’ve moved on without leaving home.

On the other hand, I also can’t get entirely away from my ex’s presence. There’s no upside to that one. I can’t know when, not if but when, my ex will pop up somewhere or sometime I least expect him.

Last December I was behind the wheel of a pickup truck, a little before 9 in the morning, after delivering my children to their schools. I was headed downhill on a narrow winding road, a horse pasture on the other side of the fence on my left. There is an entrance to the pasture at the bottom of the hill but few vehicles stop there. I was expecting a 40 mile an hour shot down the hill, through the tiny town center and up another hill to where I live, what National Public Radio calls my local member station muttering sedately at the outskirts of my attention all the while. Then two things happened.

My former husband was in the truck. That is, his voice was in the truck. His odd, grown-male-straining-for-the-uppermost-register-of-his-voice voice. Saying his name. Saying, “What the holidays mean to me is–.”

I reached the knob in time to spare myself anything further. I didn’t learn what the holidays mean to my ex. Presumably not celebrating with his family. Not the intention, unfulfilled yearly, to make it to the lighting of the town menorah. Not the intention, always fulfilled, to light every menorah we own at least one night of Hanukkah. Not the turns around a frozen pond in skates bought long ago for other feet. Not New Year’s Eve in front of the fire, at least one child struggling to remain head up and eyes open. Not these things he isn’t around for.

The radio station was engaged in a December campaign, trite but previously benign, of playing the voices of area residents saying Feliz Navidad or Happy Solstice. I was engaged in a December campaign of tuning them out. Why my former husband? How did they choose him? In their efforts to be inclusive did they feel that merely by airing his voice, regardless of what he said, they could have a demographic covered? I couldn’t think about it right then. I was too busy stomping on the brake, trying not to rear-end the truck in front of me that had, in the split second I was devoting to my radio knob, stopped at the pasture gate. I just made it.

Usually the omnipresence of Bing Crosby and the Chipmunks is enough reason to avoid the radio this time of year. Now I had another. In subsequent days I had several opportunities to lunge for the dial. Friends caught the spot and shared their unique takes on it. “My husband said he heard your ex on the radio advertising himself,” one reported. “Why would he be advertising himself?” she wondered. “My husband said whatever the reason was, if he gets any money out of it he hopes he will give some of it to his family.”

So yes, my ex recurs like Christmas carols. But I don’t have to let him drown out the rest of my life. I knew the holidays would soon be over, and the echoes of his voice along with them.

worst-part-of-censorship-button-0874

 The following is the notice of censorship published by the Kveller website:

Dec 5 2012

A Note to Our Readers

By Kveller at 12:07 pm

Kveller has always prided itself on being a place where people can discuss the most challenging parts of life and parenting—infertility, death, and yes, divorce.

We have seen how much support, encouragement, and affirmation people feel when their voices are heard and their deepest disappointments and difficulties are shared and discussed.

The honesty and courage of our writers are what have made Kveller such a compelling and valuable website.

At the same time, the social utility of our articles is something we take seriously. We want Kveller to help people feel more confident, more secure, more understood. Unfortunately, our decision to publish “Staying in the Same Town as My Ex” in the form that it was in has undermined that effort, and thus we have decided to remove it from the website.

When it comes to issues that impact a historically (and currently) persecuted community it is our responsibility as editors to be extra sensitive to the exact language being used. Kveller and its parent organization MyJewishLearning are committed to honoring the identities and life experience of all people, including transgender people. We do not believe that this article was meant to be transphobic, but we do believe that our failures in the editing process created an article that could be read that way, which is not good for the writer, Kveller, and most importantly, the LGBT community, which Kveller and MyJewishLearning are dedicated to supporting and working with to create a more inclusive Jewish community.

Joy Ladin Thanks Kveller for Censoring his ex-wife's work.

Joy Ladin Thanks Kveller for Censoring his ex-wife’s work.

207 Responses to “Censored by Trans Activists: Staying in the Same Town as My Ex – by Christine Benvenuto”

  1. michelle Says:

    And once again, an entity caves to the demands of a male who has already shown he did not give one iota of a damn about the feelings of his wife.

    Making it even more egregious is that Ms. Benvenuto has seemingly gone out of her way to specifically not mention the asshole by name in any of her writings. Seems to me that the former husband is using the figurative force of his position to remove as many essays or articles that were written by the wife he basically abandoned, writings that were clearly attempts to express her emotions on the matter of a divorce that came about through no fault of her own.

    At least we don’t have to worry about GM caving to the rantings of Jay Ladin…and for that (among other things) GM, we thank you.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Thank you Michelle. My pleasure.

      • Az Says:

        Hey gallus – I wanted to tip you about a pretty cool link I found, but I couldn’t find any email address to send it too. Sorry if I kinda hijack this comment. Anyways, it is eerily fitting still:

        http://weirdward.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/time-for-a-timely-quote-or-no-more-what-about-teh-menz/

        “What happens when men enter women’s feminist spaces? Dale Spender did an experiment to find out, and published the results in Man Made Language:

        Present at the discussion, which was a workshop on sexism and education in London, were thirty-two women and five men. Apart from the fact that the tape revealed that the men talked for over 50 per cent of the time, it also revealed that what the men wanted to talk about – and the way in which they wanted to talk – was given precedence.”

        Found this via a thirdwave feminist space making the entire thing a bit ironic.


  2. This line stood out for me:

    “On the other hand, I also can’t get entirely away from my ex’s presence. There’s no upside to that one. I can’t know when, not if but when, my ex will pop up somewhere or sometime I least expect him.”

    He doesn’t want her to move on and get a new life; he ENJOYS making her suffer by turning up as and when it suits him, using his rights as a father to stomp all over her personal space.

    • Adrian Says:

      Yep. Just like he would put his “dressing up” woman’s clothing in the family laundry for his wife to find when he KNEW damn well that seeing those things upset her.

      The trans* business completely aside, even, this guy sounds like an ass.

  3. weirdward Says:

    dedicated to creating a more inclusive Jewish community??

    Except when a woman speaks out of turn about her ex-husband, and doesn’t go along with his idea of what everything is/was like. Then all bets are off, seemingly.

    • karmarad Says:

      I’m concerned that she has remained in the community for her childrens’ sake, but the playing field is not level. The ex is a favored representative of an archaic patriarchal religious institution which appears to have the power in the community to harm her. She might be amazed at the different and much more tolerant cultures out there if she decided to move. Get, no get – in most of this country, nobody cares.

      Vliet

  4. Becky Green Says:

    It’s all so sickening. Once again a dissenting voice is silenced by the tranz machine. Everyone in Kveller’s comment section agrees with their censorship. I’m sure Mr. Ladin is a happy peacock right now. I can just see him fanning out his colorful tail feathers and proudly strutting around his “queendom”. He scored another victory against his ex-wife, what could make him happier than that?

  5. SheilaG Says:

    Scary, just another abusive ex-husband silencing his wife, so what else is new. And of course who stands up for the ex-wife’s freedom of expression and speech? HE can publish a book, but she exposes the lie of trans behavior.

  6. EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

    I’ve copied all of the comments on the Kveller article that was removed. Interestingly, all of the comments have facebook photos attached. And all of them appear to be related to Joy Ladin. So, basically, this was just the peer group of Joy that was silencing Christine. Probably a small group, but loud.

    I’ve seen enough interviews to decide that Joy is controlling and, from what I’ve seen, mentally abusive. Christine needs support. I’m glad that Christine got out of that synagogue.

    • Violet Irene Says:

      I wonder if there is anything we can do to support her. I am so angry on her behalf. It’s like her ex is figuratively strangling her voice out. He’s so desperate that her truth not be told, and he seems to enjoy hurting her and scaring her.

      • GallusMag Says:

        That’s why I thought it was so important to reprint the piece in its entirety. It is so easy after something has been censored for people to claim “it was transphobic”. But it wasn’t. Now they can read it for themselves and make up their own mind. Censoring a woman writer is such a really rank thing to do. Incredibly destructive. Unbelievable.

      • Adrian Says:

        It’s especially telling to me that the guy is OUT – he’s written a book about his transition, even. Meaning, it’s not as if he’s “stealth” and worried that someone at his work is going to find out the secret that he’s M2T and possibly fire him or anything, because he told them openly.

      • Adrian Says:

        @GallusMag – well, it’s officially “transphobic” now even to refer to trans* people in their pre-transitioned lives as being their birth sex, so the moment she refers to her husband of umpteen years as “he” (even in the past tense!) she’s committed the horrible crime of “misgendering” in their eyes. It now apparently requires a “trigger warning” for “born as” language – even pro-trans* articles that have mention of “this beautiful woman, you’ll never believe it, was born a boy” or similar are “problematic” and “transphobic language” now. Every day the lines are more tightly drawn.

        She is supposed to re-conceive her entire relationship as having always been with another woman (making her a lesbian) and then be thrilled for her ex having “found her true self” – anything else is against script, as I’m sure you know… just can’t help but just scratch my head and vent here into the comments.

      • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

        Christine Benvenuto, if you read this forum, please know that there’s a group of people out here that do support you. It’s always devastating to have someone that you loved turn around and hurt you. And then keep hurting you as if you are a threat to his identity. (He’s being a prick. So I’m going to disrespect him a bit and use the pronoun that names his misogyny.)

    • MonseyJew Says:

      Oh I proof from a closed group they are all related to Ms. Joy Landin.

  7. Ashland Avenue Says:

    What a fucking piece of shit this Jay Ladin is. He just can’t leave her alone, can he? He has to relentlessly stalk her online, leaving his snide comments everywhere. What an ASSHOLE. A truly misogynistic, egotistical bully who can’t accept that his wife didn’t put aside her own needs when he decided to play dress up. His behavior is 100% male. God, he repulses me.

    • GallusMag Says:

      It is outrageous behavior.

    • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

      It’s all about power and control for him, Ashland.

    • cathybluejazz Says:

      I noticed that he decided to split while the youngest was still in diapers. That means he must have been behaving AS A MALE very recently before deciding, “Oh, I’m really a woman.”

      Yeah, he’s a control freak all right. I might have a little more compassion for him if he hadn’t gotten her pregnant three(?) times. Clearly he wants to have it both ways, and is therefore obviously a “he.”


    • Yep, another male piece of shit. They are EVERYWHERE.

      • Joel Says:

        Hey. I’m a guy. And I think he’s exactly what she called him — a jerk.

        Told him so, too, though I got no reply.

        I’ve read everything she said publicly.what she did was point out that his actions have consequences. That decisions have *consequences.*

        Ironically, I read a piece at Slate today discussing how we’ve fooled ourselves (male and female) into thinking that not having kids until early 40s is a consequence-free decision. It isn’t, especially for women. That doesnt make doing so at all wrong, but the point is, biology matters.

        This fellow decided, after decades of being married, and having children, and forging a married life, he had to be a woman.

        Fine. I’ll even grant that it was brave, in some sense.

        But he didn’t spend 20 years living alone with a shameful secret. He didn’t even have a string of significant others. He built a life and family knowing it was all a lie.

        Admitting a decades-old lie takes guts. But no amount of self-honesty excoriates the damage done to innocents.

        It’s not transphobic to call a spade a spade. If the scenario were reversed; if his wife had been the one with the revelation; it would be just as damaging.

        Her husband died. Except he didn’t. That’s incredibly painful.

        The censorship is inexcusable. Maybe Joy did what she felt she had to do. That doesnt invalidate or excuse the damage to everyone else.

  8. Nobody Special Says:

    What a jerk! It speaks volumes about these men who claim to “really” be women, that they neither know nor care one iota about a woman’s feelings!

    • GallusMag Says:

      Right? The thing is Joy gets away with this because he has a lot of enablers. Just like every male abuser.
      I laughed at Dana Beyer’s (the EXECUTIVE Director-lol- of Gender Equality Maryland) comment to Joy. They were talking like a couple of good ‘ol boys. By contrast, I noticed that Suzan Cooke of Woman Born Transsexual blog had posted the link to the essay for readers without comment. Apparently Suzan found nothing “transphobic” about the article. This is all about Joy and his friends- a bunch of upper class hetero white good ‘ol boys.
      Here is Beyer’s comment, chastising the essayist by ignoring her and instead addressing her husband:

      • SaraClue Says:

        “depriving her of a get” –For those who may not know, a “get” is a Jewish divorce decree, from husband to wife. If the wife is observant,she cannot consider herself divorced until the husband grants it. Not sure what Dana Beyer was implying here, he may have denied his wife a proper divorce? This is a tactic some orthodox men use to intimidate and bully their ex-wives, the women can’t remarry unless he grants it.

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        Thanks, Sara, I was wondering about that.

      • Marie-France Lesage Says:

        Dana “Insana” Beyer: “And what of the children? Has she no shame”

        Is there a farking MIRROR in your house, Beyer?

      • AJ Says:

        WIVES? That prick did this to two women knowingly, and then has the unmitigated gall to chastise Christine Benevuto by saying “And what of the children? Has she no shame?” SHAME being the very telling word there. Because women were BORN women; that is deserving of shame. But these men “becoming” women deserves cookies.

        Sorry for the disjointed and grammatically incorrect rambling.

  9. Anon Male Says:

    I’ve been reading up on Benvenuto’s previous work, her Shiksa title, as her religious conversion for the sake of her husband has some analogous themes regarding both transition and ideas about community. While hostile reactions to that book aren’t nearly as severe as what she’s experiencing now, the comparison is instructive (as is the fact that her current subject is actually MORE DANGEROUS THAN RELIGION.)

    One comparison that could be made is how it’s transphobic for a cis person to not pave over past interactions by always using the new and improved pronoun.

    [not by Benvenuto but an article that mentions her work:]

    http://wjudaism.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/wjudaism/article/view/3531/1584

    “When a born Jew receives an aliyah, for example, he/she is called to the Torah as the son/daughter of his/her parents. When a convert is called up for an aliyah, however, he/she is cited as the son/ daughter of the Biblical patriarchs / matriarchs. Some people may not attach a value judgment to this difference, but, nevertheless, it is a difference that highlights, and reminds us of, their distinctive histories. If the irrelevance of conversion is really a priority for all of Judaism, another manner of aliyot would have been conceived and practiced.”

    I’m guessing Joy didn’t protest that and try to force everyone to use a new ritual for his wife’s benefit.

    • Violet Irene Says:

      I read “Shiksa” while I was waiting for the library to order her new book, actually. She was treated pretty badly by her in-laws and it sounds like some in their synagogue before and after her conversion. And it sounds like her conversion, although sincere, had to be at least to some extent in response to that hostility and also to her husband’s sudden increased religiosity a few years into their union. Apparently people continued to make rude, bigoted remarks about her Italian ethnicity, for instance. She has lived her life around his whims and preferences and prejudices and that of his community (which appears to be a very small group of Orthodox folks somewhere) since her late teens and it’s no wonder she’s fed up now–only a wonder she isn’t MORE bitter and angry, she has ever right to be!

      • Anya Says:

        You need to know: I live in their area and know their synagogue. Their synagogue is *not* Orthodox. Far from it. In fact, it is Reconstructionist, which is the most liberal of the organized Jewish movements.

        Surprised? Don’t be. The truth is that due to their general ignorance of Jewish law (halakha), many “liberal” Jews don’t know that referring to a convert’s status (as a convert) is *against Jewish law.* Converts are to be welcomed and treated fully as Jews. People are not even supposed to be asked whether they are converts or not. Unfortunately, Jews who haven’t studied Jewish law are unaware of the requirement for this kind of compassion in their behavior. I once had a Reform rabbi (also very “liberal” movement) assume I wasn’t Jewish based on my looks. No Orthodox rabbi has ever jumped to that conclusion, in my experience. (Not to say it doesn’t happen, only to say that being Orthodox doesn’t necessarily translate to being rude — and often does translate to being scrupulous about maintaining high standards of behavior.)

        In addition, according to Jewish law, no person — Jewish or non-Jewish — is to be disparaged in any way. Insulting remarks or implications about a person, their ethnicity, background, etc., are against Jewish law.

        In fact, in my experience — and to my surprise — many of the more-observant folks are warmer, kinder, and more polite than the non-observant. (FYI, I happen to be politically middle-of-the-road and ritually non-observant.)

        I’m not a member of any congregation, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. But I had a thorough education in Jewish tradition (B.A. and M.A.), and I happen to know people who know both Christine and her ex, so I know whereof I speak.

  10. EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

    On one of the Joy Ladin supporter sites, there is a paper cited from the July 2011, Journal of Psychiatric Research supporting MtF transgender brain differences, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395610003250. The transgender community is pointing at that to claim scientific basis for the “brain sex” theory.

    Let’s examine that paper briefly: “The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A DTI study”

    The Conclusion on the paper is that there are differences found in MtF transsexual brains, and that the white matter differences in structure fall halfway between male and female brains. “Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern in untreated MtF transsexuals falls halfway between the pattern of male and female controls. The nature of these differences suggests that some fasciculi do not complete the masculinization process in MtF transsexuals during brain development.”

    Slam dunk, right? There are brain differences. So it’s GOT to be the gender identity mismatch. This paper *CLEARLY* supports the “brain sex” theory of gender identity.

    Take a look at the sample criteria for the study. Under Materials & Methods. This is where you can see how subjects were selected, number of controls, and information taken on the subjects’ health. I note several interesting points.

    1. There are 18 untreated MtF transsexuals, 19 female and 19 male controls for the study. A small population.

    2. MtF transsexuals were selected before hormone therapy but with the stated intention of transitioning with hormone therapy. All good –the study is trying to see the brain tissue before application of cross-sex hormones clouds the issue.

    3. MtF transsexuals chosen for the study had to be erotically attracted to males. Even though 80% of MtF transsexuals are erotically attracted to females, the study chose those that were homosexual to their birth sex, not transsexuals that were heterosexual to their birth sex. THIS IS SIGNIFICANT. The controls were all heterosexual.

    Why is that significant? Because the brain structure differences could very easily be explained by their homosexual orientation. They weren’t compared to homosexual men and women. Only heterosexual controls. Given the transsexual selection for sexual orientation, that’s a significant flaw in the design of the study.

    It’s quite possible that instead of finding some proof of gender identity, what they found was a biological basis of homosexual orientation. But not so fast on that either. We have #4:

    4. The age ranges of the study participants: MtF – (16-33, with 24.71 as the mean), Male – (25-38, with 31.94 as the mean), and Female – (25-41, with 33.00 as the mean).

    Notice anything interesting? The MtF subjects were younger than the control group. Why does that matter? Brain development continues until the mid 20’s. All of the controls were past the brain development stage. Only half of the MtF subjects were past it. The study was conducted on MtF individuals that were still developing. To have a fair evaluation, this should have been conducted with subjects that were all of the same age cohort.

    5. Testosterone, free testosterone, sex steroid binding globulin, and 17-b-estradiol were tested and listed for the MtF subjects. But I don’t see values listed for the controls. Control numbers should have been there.

    6. And the 17-b-estradiol levels for the MtF subjects appears low for males in general (19.06 +- 16.57, with normal being 10-41; range was 2.5 – 35 with half being less than 19.) That 2.5 individual and any that were below 10 should have gotten bounced out of the study. All hormone levels should have been within normal limits. It wasn’t hormone levels studied –it was brain structure differences.

    This study is being held up as the sterling example of the “brain sex” theory of transsexualism. However, I don’t see a level playing field in this study at all.

    To craft a better study, take 100 MtF erotically attracted to males, 100 MtF erotically attracted to females, 100 homosexual males, 100 heterosexual males, 100 homosexual females, and 100 heterosexual females. All within normal sex hormone limits. All above the age of 25, and to be fair, within the same age range. All MtF studied before any hormone treatment. Screen to make sure that no one suffered any head injuries or has any learning disabilities.

    Remember this “landmark” study when you are reviewing scientific literature that’s being held up as “proof.” Most popular studies don’t list things about the transsexual participants like their erotic inclinations. That’s actually important information in sex orientation/differentiation studies. Take *EVERY* study presented with a grain of salt. And look up the primary authors to see if the author is a transgender his/herself.

    I haven’t found any decent medical evidence to prove “gender identity.” If you’ve found a paper, please present it.

    • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

      The FtM study was just as badly constructed. It’s here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395610001585

      They used FtM subjects erotically attracted to females and heterosexual controls. The hormone levels for the 17-b-estradiol does not say whether they are in follicular or luteal phase, but from the mean, they are mainly in luteal phase. And some are out of the normal bounds in that hormone level. Ages? Once again all control subjects are over 25 years of age while the mean for the FtM subjects is 28 with a 10.6 year swing!

      Giuseppina Rametti was the primary author on that study. She primarily studies schizophrenics and transsexuals.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Here is a list of studies and articles on “brain sex” that trans activists use to spam comment threads as a conversation-ender geared to silence women responding to mainstream media articles, if you’re interested.

      https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/what-is-transphobic-a-reference-guide/#comment-6781

    • Lisa M Says:

      As a person that would be classified as a homosexual Transsexual I wish it was as simple as just being “Gay.” My life would have been a hell of a lot easier and my family would be more accepting of that. The problem is I’ve never identified as gay not even once. For what its worth from a very early age I simply felt extremely uncomfortable in my body and just sort of knew i should have been female and I’ve never identified as male. For those of you who are same sex attracted ask yourselves this why do I? If you don’t believe in brain sex differention does that mean you choose to be same sex attracted? If you do believe in brain sex differention then why wouldn’t you consider that a change to your sex? After all it is called brain “sex’ differention. The difference between someone who is same sex attracted and someone who is transsexual is the degree of masculization or feminization of the brain. All a same sex attracted person is, is an incomplete transsexual. They identify as one sex but are sexually driven as the opposite sex. Gender non conformity at its maximum expression. You are the true kings and queens of Transgenderism and do it all while claiming to be gender conforming.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Khomeini? Is that you?

        Your idea that transsexuality is a curative or resolution for homosexuality is a popular one. Not only among conservative theocracies but also among the general public in the U.S. who looks much more kindly upon the transgender concept than homosexuality. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/11/why-do-americans-prefer-transgender-people-to-gay-people/

        You propose that you, a homosexual transsexual are not a gay man because gay men are “incomplete transsexuals”. That means you are a “super gay”. You have stated so yourself. Your belief is in accordance to the research of sexologists such as Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence. You can read an introduction to that science here:
        https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/what-many-transgender-activists-dont-want-you-to-know-and-why-you-should-know-it-anyway/

        Where your theory fails is when you correlate your experience to that of heterosexual male transsexuals.

        Around 5% of women are lesbian. At least 75% of “trans women” are sexually oriented to females. If men who are transgender have “female brains” why do their rates of sexual orientation match those of heterosexual males and not lesbian females? By your theory, only 5% of transgender males should be exclusively sexually oriented to women. (Of course those statistics reference men who self-report as being “full-time” female-impersonators. The vast majority of transgenders are heterosexual male transvestic fetishists who become aroused by inhabiting their sexual “object”- and performing that object for the gaze of others. If we include all males under the “transgender umbrella” the rate of sexual orientation to females is probably closer to 99%)

      • Lisa M Says:

        You fail to take into account the research that seperates fetishistic Transvestites (Autogynephiles) from homosexual Transsexuals in research. The Transgender leadership is also a great example of the points I’m going to make and don’t forget Anne Lawrence is a former HRC person and Transgender leader. Meghan Stabler post operative is legally male by his own choice and claims it for marriage purposes, but do you honestly believe that if someone has felt trapped in the wrong body their entire life and listed as the wrong sex they’d cave in for marriage rights? and allow themselves to be relisted as that birth sex they fought so hard to prove was wrong? I wouldn’t, if I need same sex marriage determined by my erroneus original listed birth sex I’ll pass thank you.
        The research you pointed to was on homosexual transsexuals not autogynephilic transsexuals. I’m sure you know that they do not have anywheres near the same brain sex differention and we both know you have access to that research. You also know because you just recently posted a piece by Bailey that states autogynephillic Transsexualism is really transvestism and mis- directed heterosexuality not transsexuality. Fetishistic transvestites use the word transsexual more than transsexuals do because in their head, and to a point they are right, that to admit to fetishistic transvestism is like admitting to being a pervert. Also while I stated that I am classified as a homosexual transsexual I never implied that I am a form of a super gay I stated that gay is a form of incomplete Transsexual there is a big difference. Gay is also a chosen label preferred over homosexual the scientific and biblical term but regardless no one is born gay they choose that label because they can’t personally handle being called homosexual. It would also appear that sexual orientation at the biological level is easier to change and more common than sex identity change. More same sex attracted people equals easier to change and the most common brain sex change. I also don’t believe there is anymore of a cure for homosexuality as there is for transsexuality. I don’t support reparitive therapy but it would appear you do and I believe the LGBT does as long as its done with their approval and only on Transsexuals and transvestites. I can’t help but wonder if that hate comes because of Iran only recognizing Transsexuals and forcing sex changes? Or the old South Africa forcing sex changes on gays? or maybe the Nazi’s? Is that your real motive for persecuting Transsexuals? Was the alternative of just killing all of us better to you then maybe a forced sex change that at least allowed a person to live even if it meant being harmed? Or maybe you forget that it wasn’t Transsexuals thats forcing surgery’s on gays? I have my beliefs on why your doing what your doing and tonight you really proved me right but not on this issue. The sad part is I really think in a lot of ways you bring up good points its just how your going about it that hurts more people than its ever going to help. Is it time for you mis-gender me again or ban me? Or are you willing to maybe take the time to learn I’m not your enemy and I’m not part of the LGBT by my consent. That means your spaces are free of me unless you open the invitation like you did in your two year post. I don’t believe there would ever be reason for me to attend a Michfest or to protest it. The only thing I’ll ever complain about is the mis-gendering and lack of understanding of all people either choosing to use the Transsexual label or that really are transsexual. Since you obviously consider yourself a part of the LGBT please feel free to acknowledge me as not being part of it.

      • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

        Hi Lisa M. I bet you are one of the Joy Ladin pack.

        There are moments where the confusion just reigns with these descriptions. I’m going to make a leap of faith here and decide that you are a MtF transsexual that’s attracted to men. Since every transgender seems to take an unholy amount of glee in mixing pronouns and sex identifiers up, you could mean that you are a MtF that is now a lesbian. But I’m going to take this comment to mean that you are attracted to men.

        I don’t doubt that you have mental suffering. Even after full surgery there’s a lot of mental agony going on in many transsexuals. The surgery/treatment isn’t curing you. I think this wave of sexual reassignment treatment is going to be examined critically in the future, and the psychiatric profession will have to re-examine what they can do to ease your suffering. I think SRS will eventually go the way of the frontal lobotomy. (That statement is probably going to piss a lot of transgenders off. ) Transsexual treatment that consists of just pacifying the need for body modifications and forcing acceptance of that as a sex-based change is not the answer.

        I wasn’t saying that transsexuals are simply a sort of super-gay. The critique of the study was that homosexual men should have been compared to homosexual MtF transsexuals. That way a clear picture of what changes are going on in brain structure could be seen. Instead, they compared a young, not fully-formed, homosexual brain to an adult fully-formed heterosexual one. That’s going to get differences in brain structure that are not fairly compared. Given that the authors are working in the Neuroscience field, the fact that they were so loose on the subject choices makes me think they were deliberately selecting data to manipulate the results. I wonder how many were originally scanned for that study.

        I can see the full data for that study, but I didn’t realize until now that unless you have a science feed to see journals, you can’t see the full data. That might be why it hasn’t been more widely refuted. It’s piss poor work being passed off as legitimate. But that’s where all the money is –supporting the medical machine that keeps the transgender surgeries going.

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        Lisa, God, PARAGRAPHS. They’re a good thing.

      • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

        Hmm. I don’t think the words “gay” or “homosexual” are found in the Bible. Homosexual is a formalized science word. Gay has been slang for a few decades only. I chose homosexual simply because gay seems like slang to me.

        I don’t support “reparative” therapy for children. Nor do I support “gender transitioning” therapy for children. Nor do I support surgery on intersex children at birth. Children should be allowed to grow into what they are going to be without adult meddling. Guidance by adults, yes, but forcing a child into a mold that you’ve chosen for them? That can’t end well.

        We don’t really know what transsexualism in all its forms really is. And society is trying to gallop its way into laws formalizing crazy things like hate speech for using the wrong pronouns. We want better access to medical care for all people not just transgenders –their endocrine issues tend to limit medical care and it shouldn’t. I don’t like discrimination of people based on anything.

        But women should not lose sex-based identity. I am not going to be written out of existence. I absolutely refuse to put up with having to be exposed to naked penises. I am very libertarian on social issues, but your rights end where mine begin. I am not going to passively stand aside and let you erase me in your quest for a new identity. I am Female. I was born Female. I’ll die as a Female. And Male Privilege cloaking itself in estrogen does not equal Female and never will. Period.

      • Christina-Xena Says:

        GM says: “At least 75% of “trans women” are sexually oriented to females.” What a gross misstatement! I request you back this claim up. Thing is you can’t. Fact is you won’t find this over-stated statistic in any study. The closest figure thus far is about 25% of MtFs are attracted to woman (according to a study), and that may include those prior to and so early in their transition that their sexual orientation has not yet shifted with their own gender re-socialization and physical transformation. It’s quite common that as a M2F more fully expresses their true feminine reality that their orientation stays “opposite” of their own gender-expression thus they grow in their attraction to men, and begin to see woman as more “like themselves” and just as friends.

        But even that as not typical percentages as being “gay” belies the experience that sexual orientation is not a direct function of sex or gender (being gay already proves that idea) and that being transgender, an initially incredible mind/body misalignment likely has the same kinds of causes that cause people to be gay as well, such as prenatal influences and hormonal imbalances, and thus are not likely to be typical to either the percentages of gays in society. It’s apples vs oranges, thus is not proof of anything about the person being a “true” transsexual or not, or about the community as a whole, whether closer to 25% or 75% it’s irrelevant in either scenario.

        But then being transgender doesn’t HAVE to have any biological causes, or if there are some, that these must be discovered and defined to be legitimate. It’s about gender-identity afterall, not about being Intersex, even if there are indications overall that for some at least transgender people that there were prenatal development/environmental issues that made them that way. And likely made some gay along the way as well, so we can speak of being peas in the same not “typical” pod in life.

        So just as using the idea of using heterosexual statistics as the golden rules and judging gays against such false standards is a bad idea, one cannot make gay statistics the golden rules for another group of people in society. If you do, that kind of false logic will come back and bite you in the gay/lesbian butt.

        And one should not be making up statistics in order to try to prove a weak point to begin with.

        The one thing I will agree with though is no doubt some who consider/call themselves transsexuals (typical some of the non-ops ones or they only go by the “transgender” label) are in fact full-time crossdressers (often they wait till retirement to be their woman-side selves, so they don’t face workplace or family-with-young-kids problems). I have no idea how many, but I’ve seen a few, and most are attracted to woman. But those exceptions do not negate the rule that the great majority of MtFs that do undergo medical transition/SRS are real transsexuals and have a higher attraction to men (thus are heterosexual) when all is said and done.

        Christina-Xena
        Professional Woman Specialist

      • Bea Says:

        Mansplainer Christina-Xena is a “Professional Woman Specialist” (what kind of creepy male gaze Ed Gein voyeur kind of title is that?) Who believes male transgenders have a “true feminine reality” and switch sexual orientations upon taking estrogen. Riiight.

        How dumb do they think we are?

    • BadDyke Says:

      Another problem I have with this paper is that, as far as I can see, they used the male and female controls to DECIDE which areas to look at, then used the SAME controls to decide that the M2T individuals lay in-between the two.

      Whereas, what we would do would be:
      1) Use one set of controls to train your classifier (the wotsit that is supposed to differentiate between males and females).
      2) Use a SECOND group of controls, and test whether your classifier actually works on them.
      Then and ONLY THEN do you apply your classifer to the third group.

      Using the same controls — well, no surprise if it separates the control groups, that is why it was picked! And what would you expect for OTHER subjects? I would not be at all surprised if anyone else selected tended to lie in between. Throwing p-values and all that malarkey about doesn’t actually improve things, when the basic process looks this flawed. Plus many people doing this stuff don’t know that much statistics to actually test the validity of what they’re doing, they just know how to use the standard software.

      Logically, your M2T are DIFFERENT hypothesis requires two steps, not one.

      1) Using controls construct a putative male/female brain classifier.
      2) TEST your supposed classifier on ANOTHER SET of controls, then you can see how well it performs for the task for which it was supposedly designed.
      3) Then (and only then) can you properly interpret the results that your classifier gives on ANOTHER group.

      Because without that, all you’ve shown is that by careful choice, you can split your data into 3 supposed groups. Says something about those groups, it DOESN’T say much about males/females/M2T in general, because it has never been tested on them — in particular it HASN’T been shown that it could actually differentiate between males and females in the first place.

      QED and all that, the claims made about this paper are wildly inflated.

      • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

        Wow, BadDyke, good catch on that. I totally glossed right over the fact that they didn’t normalize their controls. This paper is total fudgery.

      • Marie-France Lesage Says:

        I’ll bet you a dollar that the Bell curves overlap, anyway.

      • farishcunning Says:

        Christina-Xena, as a “Professional Woman Specialist” it would behoove you to know that “women” is the plural of “woman”.

    • Ashland Avenue Says:

      Equal, that was stellar. The differences with the age groups and the sexual orientation leapt out at me – those are obviously deeply flawed “studies”. I thank you for this, and thank you to Gallus for her most excellent analysis. Great writing.

      • farishcunning Says:

        Ashland, I completely agree. I am a noob to radfem, working my way through the incredible archives here and elsewhere, and I’m blown away by the level of discourse and analysis here. Scales are falling from my eyes with every post I read. And I’m impressed at the civility with which the intruding males are treated.

        Gallus, thank you for this fantastic resource and forum. Your work is literally unbelievable!

        Fare

  11. Bev Jo Says:

    Thank you so much, Gallus, for this post. You amass the proof, again and again, that men claiming female identity are incredibly self-centered and female-hating. And again how these men are able to censor women. Never about “transphobia,” but all about male arrogance and entitlement.

  12. radicalwoman Says:

    Reblogged this on radicalwoman and commented:
    Reblogging yet more censored material – censored by anti-feminists, who complain that feminists are bullies and censors. So typical.

  13. Marie-France Lesage Says:

    “Her husband’s censorship campaign rested on the fact that she referred in her essay to her husband of twenty years with the pronoun “He” and “him”, because she had been married to A MAN.”

    Allow me to posit that he is not just a man, he is a PRICK.

    • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

      Yeah. Controlling. Narcissistic. And Mentally Abusive.

      She mentions him weaseling into her friendships with other women. I bet he worked to cut her off and control her social outlets too. His behavior in attacking her commentary has made his protestations that he told her about his proclivities rather dubious at best. I am going to pick up her book this weekend, so maybe it will be clearer.

      Never letting her relax because there’s always the threat that he’ll appear. Ugh. Total abuser patterns.

      • Marie-France Lesage Says:

        Not “letting” her speak of her MALE husband as “he” without attacks of censorship is totally the kind of behavior one would expect from a narcissistic, hyper-controlling, abusive male.

        He’s outing himself as male at every turn. So many of the heterosexual male “trans women” do. They can’t help themselves, of course, and apparently most of them can’t see what is so obvious to real women.

        They want it both ways, of course. They want everyone to oooh and ahhh over their mad “femme” skills of make-up, walking, hand gestures, etc. — to see them as feminine sexiness personified — while retaining 100% of their MALE privilege: calling the shots for every female around them, being insensitive to and oblivious of the feelings of the women and children they are harming by their narcissistic behavior, setting the agenda for the entire freaking feminist movement because obviously women have been doing sisterhood wrong all this time and need a male to set us straight.

        Their arrogance almost literally BURNS with male privilege but they can’t see it. They’re just doing what they’ve always done, only now they’re doing it in a twin-set and pearls.

        Gah.

  14. FeistyAmazon Says:

    Yep, and this is NOT the first article about the married woman and children suffering as the man arrogantly coopts her femininity and tries to compete with it, make it all about him and HIS change, his life, his transition, his feminization, dress, makeup, hormones, surgeries…but NEVER does he offer with his newfound feminine role to pick up after the kids, do the laundry, do the dishes, feel for her pain in losing a husband, or empathize with her, as a true REAL bio woman would. like I saw in one article, it is always the ‘maybelline’ version of womanhood, not the actual, nurturing grunt work most hetero women are expected to do. And then they come into the Lesbian community with all their male sexism still quite intact! And they still assert their MALE privilege from their former positions and prestige against women or lesbians! As this dude does….

    The same pain holds true in all the videos I’ve seen of Lesbian women who are suffering once their partner decides to transition to male, the same sort of narcissism and sexism and sexist attitudes….Chaz being a case in point….but other videos where the Lesbians are really fucked up once their partner becomes a ‘dude’….as messed up about it as this woman is by her partner becoming a so called ‘woman’…with NO CLUE as to what womanhood is all about! He sounds nothing short of an emotional batterer if not a stalker.
    -FeistyAmazon
    .

    • Adrian Says:

      Indeed. This woman Christine is expected to suddenly be able to refer to her ex-husband of many years as “she,” to re-conceptualize her entire relationship with her ex-husband as having ALWAYS, even in the past tense, been with a woman.

      That would make her a lesbian.

      Yet no one complaining about her “misgendering Joy” seems to give any thoughts whatsoever to the fact that this means forcing Christine to change a core concept of HER identity?? Of course if she’s feeling weird about being suddenly asked to pretend she’s been homosexual all these years, well, that’s just “hating” on her part.

      Same exact story goes in reverse for exes of Chas or other lesbians who decide to transition too, they get asked to re-conceive of their entire relationships as having been with men, making them straight – as if that’s not a big identity change for them. As if, gee, how on earth can you say that’s a dealbreaker?? You’re hating!

      • Violet Irene Says:

        I’ve even seen people accuse women like Christine of being homophobic. As though it makes someone anti-gay to simply want the ability to define her own sexuality!

      • Marie-France Lesage Says:

        Yep. The whole “trans” meme is a mind fuck from start to finish.

        After having been stalked by one in real life and another on-line, I am way, way over letting them guilt-trip me into accepting their attempted re-writes of reality as the gospel.

        The answer is: NO.

        No, Christine’s ex- is not a woman. No, she was never a lesbian — unless she CHOOSES to identify herself as a lesbian, which she has not. No, her MALE ex- is not a poor, innocent victim who deserves our petting and molly-coddling.

        He’s a prick.

      • liberalsareinsane Says:

        “No, she was never a lesbian — unless she CHOOSES to identify herself as a lesbian”

        Nope. She doesn’t get to appropriate ‘lesbian’ anymore than her crazy ex gets to appropriate ‘woman’.

      • farishcunning Says:

        It rewrites history in the same way a straight catholic male does when he gets an “annulment” of his 25 year marriage. Does that mean the woman was single all those years, or does she actually cease to exist?

  15. Lisa M Says:

    Equal rights and protection do you support back alley abortions? Do you really believe in reproductive rights? Then why wouldn’t you support mine? Do you not realize that abortions and sex changes share plenty of commonality especially with back alleys and needless injuries and death. That is why we need access to surgery just as much as any women could need access to an abortion. Would you argue that a woman that chooses to give herself an abortion because she can’t afford it or gain access to proper healthcare is that much different than a transsexual who attempts to perform her own sexchange because she either can’t afford it or gain access to properly performed surgery? Lives are literally at stake over this. End SRS and watch the bodies pile up just as surely as they would if abortion was banned. Like it or not both are about the right to control ones own body and ones own reproductive system. I support any women’s right to an abortion is it really to much to ask your support of my reproductive rights and my need to quality healthcare?

    • Becky Green Says:

      Lisa M., You may sincerely and intensely believe you are a female, but the problem is the complete absence of proof to back up that belief. Like you, everyone here has read the clinical studies and looked at all available data, but we have reached a different conclusion. That’s the real crux of the matter and why the perpetual impasse remains. Like many here, I just simply don’t believe a person who was born with a male body, genitalia and sex chromosomes can somehow be a female. Also, I don’t believe cross sex hormones and cosmetic surgeries are able to change the biology one was born with. It’s just not currently possible.

      Regarding SRS and abortion: I do agree that a sense desperation over the lack of access to medical intervention can be an impetus for many back alley procedures, but that’s where the similarity ends. Pregnancy can be objectively verified by any number of tests, like blood, urine or ultrasound. It is a real physical condition that will produce a child in approximately nine months, regardless of whether or not the woman “feels” pregnant. Whereas, the trans conditions are completely subjective and are based solely on the “feelings” of the person, even when objective reality states otherwise.

      • Lisa M Says:

        I don’t know if your Lesbian or straight but if your lesbian the science is even less that you were born that way then for me to say I was born this way. Since that science is so weak should anyone believe that someone is born “Gay?” I really don’t think that you get that your everybit on the same slippery slope that I am. Just as easily as you can question the research into what makes me tick I can point to a very obvious and I think unprofessional gay bias within the soft sciences towards the LGBT. Just exactly how many in the psychology field were feminist, Lesbian and Gay identified when homosexuality was de-listed in the dsm? How many lesbians and feminist are there in social work,Psychology, and Sociology today? You don’t think they are biasing research? Biasing how people are treated? Promoting myths like all Transsexuals support the Transgender Umbrella or wish to be associated with the LGBT? That its okay to label all same sex attracted people with LGB specific terminology even though LGBT back research clearly shows that those who identify as LGB are clearly the minority? Yet they choose to continue to falsely promote the LGBT as an accurate representation of the whole group. You do realize they openly act as gate keepers within those professions don’t you? I’ve sat in a class ran by an openly lesbian instructor that stated unless your liberal (Tow the LGBT and feminist lines) you won’t make it in the profession. Oh and Gallus if anyone can find information about a homosexual transsexual going to the emergency room with something stuck up their butt I’m sure its you. The vast majority of evidence to that effect I’ve seen applies to same sex attracted males and guys doing stupid guy tricks like on MTV’s jack ass. So I’d like to see Anon male come up with the goods to prove his pretty lewd and crewd comment.

      • GallusMag Says:

        LESBIAN FEMINISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN “BORN THIS WAY”. If you knew the SLIGHTEST thing about Lesbians OR Feminism YOU WOULD KNOW THAT. Seriously Lisa, before I made a single comment about “trans” I read everything I could find on the subject. I TALKED to trans friends. I LISTENED and LEARNED before opening my big fucking trap.
        Please do not ejaculate any more comments on Lesbian and/or Feminist blogs before you do the same. Thanks.

        The only reason I published your last comment was because you said: “Oh and Gallus if anyone can find information about a homosexual transsexual going to the emergency room with something stuck up their butt I’m sure its you.”

        Which made me laugh.

        Lisa, listen more- talk less. Otherwise you will be the first person banned from G/T since the Mass Unbanning. And no one wants that. Final warning.

    • Anon Male Says:

      OK, I’m not a woman so I won’t speak to how offensive everything you said is, and it is, but dude, how annoying is that HIPAA stuff?

      Because I’d like some facts on that shit: yes, yes, I know, every single MTF has attempted to self-castrate with a dull rock. It’s always a dull rock. Knives are too pedestrian. No one is shocked by that anymore. So it has to be a rock. And not just any rock, but a rock covered with dirt harvested from a dustbowl during the Great Depression. Serious Grapes of Wrath level shit. Because this is serious.

      But we should weigh those anecdotes against those of nurses. I’ll bet they’d tell us for every DIY Orchiectomy they witness showing up in their ER, they receive about 500 trans-identified males with matchbox cars or Barbie heads impacted in their rectums. But paraphilias are like that; those who have them, can’t think about the people — almost always female — who end up cleaning up after them. Or prying children’s toys out of their asses, whatever the case might be.

    • michelle Says:

      oh my FUCKING gawd…seriously? You want to equate cosmetic surgery with women’s reproductive rights? Where does the victim mentality stop with trans? This is almost on par with Cathy’s discussion of trans’ing the dead as the trans population so loves to do post-mortem…

      And no, bodies won’t be piling up nor is the abilities of trans to get surgery an issue of reproductive rights. It is certainly without question that trans has a right to elective cosmetic surgery, but it isn’t something that is ANYWHERE even CLOSE to the same ballpark as the war on reproductive rights being waged against females right now.

      • Lisa M Says:

        It’s not? just exactly what are the two main things being fought over about that certain citizens don’t want their tax dollars to pay for? That’s right abortion and sex reasignment. They both effect reproduction. In one case a pregnancy is being terminated, in the other the ability to pro-create is being removed. They both are reproductive rights issues and both involve reproductive tracts. Both the person receiving an abortion and the person undergoing SRS are making a decision based in reproduction and the right to control it. As for SRS ever going away its not going to happen. But the way its conducted and who will qualify for it is evolving back towards the original standards of care. You will also see in the new DSM certain Transsexuals will be listed under transvestism I’d like to see them strip the Transsexual label completely from them just as you’d love to see it stripped from me.

      • michelle Says:

        typical M2T, believing that the reproductive rights of females is solely about abortion. Here’s a clue- it is about a LOT more than that. But male-to-trans doesn’t care about that sort of minutia because male-to-trans does not have to worry about becoming pregnant…ever!

        And, the simple fact remains that whatever you want to do with your reproductive system is being done in the name of glorified cosmetic surgery, NOT a medically verifiable necessity. Trans does not want real research done on the subject because it would confirm that trans is a CHOICE, and there is no inherent right for mandating insurance providers pay for an elective surgery, which is what trans is clamoring for based on posts all over the internet.

        Oh, and quite frankly, I don’t give a damn if the standards for who qualifies for the elective cosmetic surgery changes. Male to trans is still male. And I highly doubt many here care where the delusion happens to appear in the DSM. No amount of catering to the delusions of over-privileged males will change the simple fact that biology matters.

      • Adrian Says:

        @LisaM – People are free to get “SRS” on their own dime. No one is trying to outlaw the procedures, only not pay for it with insurance or pay for it for people incarcerated in prison.

        Meanwhile people very much ARE trying to outlaw abortion, not only with public money or insurance money but AT ALL.

        Right now there’s tons of posts up around the internet about the fallout that will happen when GID is no longer a part of the DSM. Half the posts think this is a good thing (because no more evil gatekeeping medical doctors, no need to prove identity, yay we can have self-consent model and hormones for all, yay!) but the other half think this is terrible (because oh no, now we won’t be able to get SRS and hormones in prison as a medically necessary treatment by the 8th Amendment anymore). That’s where the argument over “provide SRS or not” is happening currently where I see it.

        The rhetoric around the latter position is really over the top right now too, claiming that SRS is tools that vulnerable people need to merely survive, and all the rest of it. People are talking about “coerced murder” even, with the usual “either we’re given hormones or we kill ourselves” line.

      • Becky Green Says:

        Lisa, Lisa
        Where does femaleness lie,
        between the ears
        or between the thighs?

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        “Lisa”, your comments comparing sex change surgery (yup, I call it that, take your “gender confirmation surgery” and shove it where the sun don’t shine) to womens’ reproductive rights is DEEPLY offensive. You are willfully, completely ignoring the power differentials between men and women that underlie the fight for our reproductive rights. The long, loooooong history of men dominating women via our capacity to get pregnant is at the core of this issue. You’re either completely blind to that, as only a man could be, or you’re intentionally glossing over it in order to maximize your victimhood. We see through your tricks here at GT…and also through your pathetic lack of a) context; and b) facts.

        I know that MtT people would like to inject their issues into the ongoing battle for women’s reproductive rights. Ain’t gonna happen. You want the government to pay for your plastic surgery? Then get off your lazy ass and start your own fucking campaign, and quit trying to hijack ours with slick card moves and twisted rhetoric.

        Jesus, your “logic” appalls me…you really, REALLY don’t get what it is to be female in today’s world, you know that? SMH….

    • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

      No one supports back alley abortions.

      About SRS, my point is that the medical/psychology profession is not even truly looking at Gender Dysphoria. They are just pacifying people with surgical options. There is no real work being done to look at Gender Dysphoria to see if there are better non-surgical options to give better options to people suffering. The studies that I’ve seen have all been a pack of badly crafted lies like that “landmark” study I’ve listed above.

      Gender, the formalized expression of power position, is a social construct. There’s no biological basis possible for a social construct of power.

    • Marie-France Lesage Says:

      If it’s a choice between money for kids with leukemia vs. money for mentally disturbed men to get their “dream girl” on, I go with the sick kids every, single time.

      As MORE “trans” people commit suicide after “transition” than before, it’s pretty obvious to any knowledgeable, well-educated observer that the mental illness behind “trans” is not cured by “transition” — it’s merely enabled and exacerbated.

      I think that every doctor involved should lose their licensed to practice medicine. It’s unethical to even PRETEND that you believe that a human being can “change” their sex. It’s impossible.

      The AMA should ban all such procedures on anyone except adults with a TRUE intersex condition, or children who have such severe disfigurement that it interferes with their functioning (e.g. urinating.)

      • cherryblossomlife Says:

        “It’s unethical to even PRETEND that you believe that a human being can “change” their sex. It’s impossible.”

        Amen


  16. Ms Benvenuto, I am so sorry you have been censored. And I am so sorry that those born female are not viewed by that site as “a historically (and currently) persecuted community” whose experiences it is important to hear.

  17. Lisa M Says:

    I didn’t add this since I was answering only certain parts of your discussion I don’t support Joy Laden in this, I’m with the wife on this one. In my personal experience in dealing with autogynephiles they tend to be very abusive of women and I’d love to see research opened up on it. I’ve had them flat out accuse me of being more abusive to women simply because I’m attracted to guys. Problem with that theory is how can I be more abusive to women if I’m not in abusive relationships with them like they are? Why would I support the abuse of women by men if I stand the risk of becoming one myself? (I have been abused by more than one man physically and sexually.) Also sorry to inform all of you that think this way- “it’d be a cold day in hell when I’d want to be a 1950’s style housewife or be treated as poorly as many women in the fifties were”. The only way I could possibly be seen as abusive to women is if its because I’m not sexually interested in them.

    • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

      I do apologize for labeling you as one of Joy Ladin’s pack of jackals, Lisa. I confused your moniker for one by a Ladin supporter. I was wrong.

      While it is possible to be abusive to women without being in relationships with them, I have found that some of these autogynephile MtT people are surprisingly vicious to anyone who is questioning their control. That includes their control of their worldview. They seem surprised that someone doesn’t share their viewpoint, and they go on the attack. And, like many heterosexual men, there seems to be some deep antipathy towards homosexual males. Because you are not sharing their worldview of MtF desiring females and therefore making you lesbian, they need to tear down your self-esteem. They essentially see you as male because you aren’t fitting their mold.

      Well, we don’t see them as females, much less lesbians, either. They still signal “male” to us when they try to dominate us. And they still do try to dominate because they are still male. Many of them appear to be very controlling and misogynistic. And narcissistic.

      From this paragraph that you’ve posted, it hints that while you are on your way to SRS, you aren’t there yet. You’ve also faced Trauma at the hands of men. Possibly very early in childhood. Trauma has an awful gift of making us hate our own selves –hate the thing that made the abuser hurt us. But it’s a lie. We didn’t make them do this to us. They chose to hurt us and our bodies. It’s not your fault. It’s not your fault. And I hope that you have a talented Trauma therapist to talk to. I think that GID treatment doesn’t address Trauma. Trauma can make us hate our bodies so much that we need to do things to them to change us from the thing that was desired. I hope that you can learn to love yours –no matter what the form. I hope that someday you can feel free to express your identity without the need for surgery on a healthy body. Gender is a social creation. A construct. If you wish to display yourself in women’s fashions, that’s fine. But you can’t be female in reality –only an approximation of one based on a social construct of gender.

      Love is love is love. There is absolutely nothing wrong about loving another human being, no matter what the sex. Your sexual orientation is fine because it is yours. Not theirs. (They were pricks to suggest such a thing to you.)

      I’m way off topic from the article, so I won’t talk about this more.

  18. Nicky Says:

    Reblogged this on Kallmann's syndrome life and commented:
    Very typical of the Transgender community to threaten, censor anyone who is critical of their fragile theories. They do this all the time with Regularity towards Bio women, Lesbian and Intersex people. I feel sorry for Christine Benvenuto who is being attacked and assaulted by trans people. She has my sympathies and every bio born Intersex person should back Christine Benvenuto.

  19. MonseyJew Says:

    I happened to have been in a group on Facebook of Orthodox Jewish Gays and a post appeared on my news feed telling everyone to write to kveller and demand the essay, “Staying In the Same Town As My Ex.”be removed. I posted it on Kveller–they still took it down. I then got some very ugly messages from people in the group–and even a legal threat. Yes I has libeled someone by posting their own words. I have some of the thread–wow it was scary.

    Ms. Ladin has also been leaving negative reviews and comments and reviews on Good Reads and Amazon under other names.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Thank you for speaking up!
      This is a comment that was posted on the now censored essay:

    • michelle Says:

      ” Ladin has also been leaving negative reviews and comments and reviews on Good Reads and Amazon under other names.”

      Not a real surprise there…males hate it when they get upstaged by women, especially in cases such as this where the wife seems to be a better writer and isn’t trying to give a rose-colored glasses view of the experience.

      Trans does not like it when the curtain is pulled back and the farce is exposed for what it really is…and in this instance, part of the pulling back of the curtain is Ms. Benvenuto letting the world know about the very real collateral consequences that trans* wants to imagine away as not existing. The rest of the world, in the minds of trans*, is supposed to instantly embrace the men in frocks…and they hate the push-back that is now going on in the real world.

    • GallusMag Says:

      MonseyJew- was Avital N. Nathman “TheMamaFesto” the author of that message?


      • I already responded via Twitter that I was not the person who wrote that. I am neither Orthodox or gay, and am not a member of any Orthodox Jewish, gay FB group. I also did not comment on the original Kveller post and am curious as to why you are targeting me?

      • GallusMag Says:

        I asked you a few DIRECT questions in response to several days worth of tweets from you which included the following. Not sure why you characterize that as “targeting”. It seemed a fair question. You also posted on your public Mamafesto facebook page expressing your support that Christine Benvenuto’s work was censored from Kveller. You have loudly and publicly expressed support of Joy Ladin’s harassment campaign against his ex-wife, You are a frequent contributor to Kveller, and Ladin has agreed to contribute to your upcoming anthology. Seemed a fair question indeed.


      • My tweets regarding that post were not made over “several days” but rather over a period of 5 minutes on one day. I posted that I was proud of Kveller for pulling that post (I think that Ms. Benevenuto’s post was inappropriate for Kveller for a variety of reasons) and then responded individually on Twitter to one person who had a question. I stand by everything I tweeted. I’m not sure where I’ve “loudly and publicly expressed support of Joy Ladin’s harassment campaign against his ex-wife,” so any enlightenment in that regard would be appreciated, since I do not agree in the slightest.

        I’m offended in your assumption, frankly. I conduct myself with the utmost care and professionalism, especially online, and I haven’t done anything to be called into question in this instance. It’s no secret that I support Ms. Ladin, but to make the leap from that to an anonymous FB post makes no sense to me, especially when I didn’t comment on the original Kveller post in the first place.

      • MonseyJew Says:

        No MonseyJew is not Avital N. Nathman I am. And I am a woman who had no opinion on trans or whatever until I saw the misogyny, character assassination and silencing of women. A person wants to change their gender, fine not my business but censorship should be a big concern to all, especially when it is dressed up as “tolerance and inclusiveness” Who runs this blog. I am a bit of a ludite so I can’t figure it out. Also just poking around Ms. Ladin is a very scary person–she stalks her ex-wife and has others to so too. Really if someone could let all the places that provide funds to support these things, let AWP know. Ms Ladin is a bully and a stalker and there are laws in this country against that for a reason. If I was the ex-wife I would be scared. I mean who the hell stays up until 3 am to write a nasty comment about their ex’s book. Or is that considered normal activism now.

      • GallusMag Says:

        @MonseyJew- you misunderstood my question. I asked you to identify the person who sent out the mass facebook message screencapped above. The one who threatened you with legal action.

        If anyone would like to share this information with me PRIVATELY, simply write “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” at the top of your comment. All comments are moderated, and your comment will NOT be published.

      • GallusMag Says:

        @MamaFesto- you tweeted about Christine on dec 5, 6, and 7. I’m not going to bother screen-capping all your tweets.

        The author of the Facebook post in question stated nothing about being Orthodox or gay. They simply stated that they often contributed to Kveller, as you do.

        In your tweets you stated that women writers have no right to refer to their ex-husbands with male pronouns or to say they were a “jerk”, and you expressed that doing so should cause women writers to be censored. That is a fairly outrageous statement in my opinion.

        I made no assumptions. I simply ASKED you if you authored the post. You state you did not. Then you accused me of “targeting” you, whatever that means. I intend to identify the individual that authored that post. If it wasn’t you, fine. On what grounds you find it objectionable to be ASKED if you authored it is a mystery.


      • Nope. Sorry. I did not tweet anything like you’re describing. I RT’d 2 tweets made by others (neither which named Ms. Benevunto in them) and made a reference to another trans* related article (not the Kveller piece). But beyond those, I made no other tweets related to either Ms. Ladin, Ms. Benevunto, or the story in particular or in general. So again, I am at a loss to what you mean when you said that I’ve “loudly and publicly expressed support of Joy Ladin’s harassment campaign against his ex-wife.”

        You’re also extrapolating my tweets to one person about this particular situation to a larger context and that’s not accurateir. I did *not* say that “women writers have no right to refer to their ex-husbands with male pronouns” – I said that I didn’t agree with this particular woman referring to her ex with male pronouns when Ms. Ladin clearly and explicitly id’s as a woman. I never said anything about the author’s right to do anything. In fact, I explicitly said that Ms. Benevenuto has all the right in the world to feel hurt, betrayed, angry, etc… but that I did not agree that Kveller was the appropriate platform to broadcast those feelings. Trans* issues aside, had that piece been posted to Kveller as an ex-wife writing about her ex-husband (or an ex-husband writing about his ex-wife, or an ex-wife writing about her ex-wife, etc…) I would have still said it did not have a place at Kveller. The word choices Ms. Benevenuto used only further solidified my feelings on the matter. I also never said that she should be censored.

        I understand that you have an axe to grind, but I don’t appreciate you taking my words not only out of context but misrepresenting *what* I wrote in order to make your point.

      • GallusMag Says:

        @Mamafesto- You said
        “I’m offended in your assumption, frankly. I conduct myself with the utmost care and professionalism, especially online, and I haven’t done anything to be called into question in this instance. It’s no secret that I support Ms. Ladin, but to make the leap from that to an anonymous FB post makes no sense to me, especially when I didn’t comment on the original Kveller post in the first place.”

        I take this to mean that you think it would be unethical for a frequent contributor to Kveller to conduct a censorship campaign against another Kveller writer. Is that what you are stating?


      • Well, I think we disagree on “conducting a censorship campaign,” because I don’t agree that she was censored. Ms. Benevenuto is free to post her work on whatever site that will have her, or on her own site if she’d like (if she has one, I have no idea). Having your work pulled isn’t the same as being censored. It sucks, sure, but it’s not censorship.

        Also, Ms. Benevenuto is not a “Kveller writer.” She wrote one freelance piece for Kveller.

      • GallusMag Says:

        @Mamafesto-

        I have published screencaps of the EXACT statements YOU made above, so that readers can make up their OWN minds. This is the opposite of “misrepresenting”.

        I have no ax to grind. Unlike yourself I don’t have a vested professional interest in one party or another. I have no ax to grind with you either. I do find your pro-censorship views on women writers at Kveller, (in particular the ex-wife of a writer you have a demonstrable professional interest in) very disturbing however (Your views as stated verbatim by yourself above).

      • GallusMag Says:

        @Mamafesto- Did you by any chance participate in the disruption of Ms. Benvenuto’s book reading at Amherst Books?
        I’m not implying that you were, simply ASKING since you live in the same town.

      • GallusMag Says:

        @Mamafesto- If you see nothing objectionable about a Kveller writer initiating the facebook campaign, why did you find it objectionable to be asked if you were that writer?


      • I already stated that I am not pro-censorship and that I don’t agree that by Kveller pulling that piece they were indeed censoring Ms. Benvenuto, so I would appreciate it if you stopped saying that I am.

        I do not live in the same town as her, have not read her book, have never met her or knowingly been in the same room as her. So, no. I was not at her book reading in Amherst.

        Regardless of my professional investment in Ms. Ladin, I would have been equally as appalled by the article published on Kveller, and in fact did not make the connection (I did not know Ms. Ladin’s ex-wife’s name before the post) until hours after reading Ms. Benvenuto’s post.

        I merely found it objectionable because I was being connected with something I didn’t do. I still have no idea why you thought it was specifically me when there were plenty of regular Kveller contributors who were vocally appalled by this particular piece who were loudly supportive of Ms. Ladin (and again, nowhere did I comment on the original posting of the piece).

      • GallusMag Says:

        Well I wouldn’t be too upset about being asked about a possible connection to events you not only view as completely benign, but desirable.

        Also- my bad. In your tweets above you say Ladin and Benvenuto live “locally”, rather than necessarily in the same town. I appreciate you answering my question about whether you were present at the reading. I would have liked to have gotten your POV had you been present.

        Again, I did not “think” the facebook campaign was necessarily started by “specifically by you”. I simply ASKED when I saw your tweets in support of the removal of the woman-in-question’s work due to the fact that she referred to her ex-husband with “he” and “him” pronouns and used the word “jerk” in her piece. Oh and your public facebook post supporting the censoring of her work. Hope that makes sense.🙂

        I do appreciate you taking the time to answer and also to clarify your position. Although we disagree on censoring women writers who hurt men’s feelings I do appreciate your forthrightness in answering questions and clarifying your views.

      • Becky Green Says:

        “Having your work pulled isn’t the same as being censored.”

        Yes, Mamafesto, it is. There are many forms of censorship and that is one of them. Book burning, the selective use of a black marker over “sensitive” or “offensive” material, and intentionally editing copy to change the author’s true meaning are all forms of censorship. There are numerous creative ways to censor unpopular ideas. Sometimes those ways are incredibly subtle and at other times they’re as blatant and forceful as a wrecking ball.

        Kveller requested AND accepted Ms. Benvenuto’s piece, because they deemed it appropriate for their website. What they didn’t know was the backlash they would get from Mr. Ladin and his supporters. (Yup, he’s a dude, I used the correct title and pronoun.) They removed it to save face, to placate Ladin and to be seen as politically correct. So, let’s stop pretending it was done for any other reason.

        Had Kveller taken the time to research autogynephilic men, they would’ve been able to accurately predict the reaction. Everyone that visits this blog could’ve told them that there was a 100% chance Mr. Ladin would go fucking ballistic and behave like a hostile bully, so be prepared! Kveller was oblivious to the shit storm they were about to enter, because they made the erroneous assumption that Mr. Ladin was a rational, stable minded person. WRONG!

  20. GallusMag Says:

    I truly think it has never occurred to Joy Ladin that perhaps readers are interested in Christine’s reflections about her experiences moreso than the oh-so-fascinating sex-role issues HE has. Everything’s not ALL ABOUT YOU Bro!


  21. on the subject of the science of brain differences – if you want to know more* you should read brain storm by rebecca jordan young, and delusions of gender by cordelia fine. both works put the research mentioned into perspective. speaking as an mtf i find the notion of an innate gender completely unfounded, and more than that unnecessary. biology provides the perfect foundations for gender as we know it, and the only people who need to dispute that are trans people unable to accept the developmental nature of their condition and people like baron-cohen who seek to reinforce the status quo with their pseudo-science.

    as for this couple’s public shitfest – after my relationship broke down i was in discussion with a TV company about making a documentary, my ex was very clear that she wanted no part and didn’t even want it discussed on air. initially i was peeved, after all i had the right to tell my story, yes? well actually no, there was no my story and her story – there was our story, and neither of us had the right to discuss it in such a public way without the permission of the other. the second Joy published her version she granted her ex permission to do exactly the same, so her and her cheerleaders should shut the fuck up and deal with.

    *know your enemy

  22. GallusMag Says:

    For those looking to support Benvenuto:

    I just went back to have a look at the comment thread on the censorship notice at Kveller and noted a new comment from Christine:

    If any who have facebook accounts wanted to go over and respond to her comment in support of her, and against the enabling of her abusive husband’s bullying campaign, I’m sure it would be appreciated. Here is the link to the thread:
    http://www.kveller.com/blog/parenting/a-note-to-our-readers/

  23. Marie-France Lesage Says:

    “…anything else is against script…”

    Exactly! These farking control-freak crazies want us to allow them to script reality for us.

    Over. My. Dead. Body.

  24. Dorie Says:

    The momentum is hopefully shifting as Joy Ladin’s ongoing manipulations come to light. There is no question that Ladin has been cyber-stalking the author and has been engaging in an ongoing campaign to discredit her and her work. Ladin, who posts under various pseudonyms and organizes vile, essentially anti-dialogical attacks against Benvenuto is truly the one who cannot let go and move on. Playing the long-suffering, misunderstood victim of his ex-wife’s “transphobia” is Ladin’s last and best chance to gain notoriety. The truth will out. I wonder how Ladin’s kids are going to feel as they eventually read about what was done to their mother by Ladin, by someone who has already betrayed them in more ways than can be enumerated. If Ladin is fighting in such underhanded, vindictive ways to silence Benvenuto and her work, shouldn’t it really make us all wonder what precisely Ladin wants to silence? For such a supposedly laudable “scholar” and deeply religious individual, why the misguided scorn, ad hominem attacks and refusal to let readers decide for themselves how they feel about this essentially interesting, important and thought-provoking topic of family members coming to terms with a person understanding well into a marriage that while they were born a man, they have always felt themselves to be a woman. This topic is one of human rights, of deepening understanding, of the loss of community and the familiar, in all senses of the word. If Ladin wasn’t busy organizing the trans community and daily demonstrating her psychopathology, we could possibly all be talking the things that really matter, not debating whether Ladin’s ex-wife is transphobic. Someone close to Ladin who still has an independent thought left in their head should tell Ladin to shut up. She wrote her book and had her say. Benvenuto did the same. Now shut up and let us decide for ourselves.

  25. Dorie Says:

    And by the way, two (or two thousand can play at this game). TWEET to @joyladin and let your voices be heard. Yes, let them be heard, over and over and over and over and over and over again. I agree: Let’s help Ms. Benvenuto by buying her book and getting her on the NYT bestseller list. And don’t be shy about surfing the web and finding out where Ladin is posting (which is everywhere) and jumping in with your two cents.

  26. Marie-France Lesage Says:

    Another Haiku for GM:

    Men in fucking frocks
    How many have they trampled
    While mirror-gazing

  27. Dorie Says:

    Found this online this morning. I like it because its not about name-calling and personal attacks. It gives us all something actually do about this situation and echoes many of the sentiments here on GenderTrender. Tweet, Like, Copy, Paste, Email, pass it on to everyone you know who gives a damn about free speech and what is happening with Christine Benvenuto.

    “Free Speech? Healthy Democracy?
    Then Free Christine Benvenuto

    The definition of a self-controlled and self-regulated democratic society implies that as many decisions as possible are exercised by individual people, and not by force of the state, a mob or any one individual. A society can only accomplish this goal of thoughtful self-regulation case if its members are informed in aggregate with the open, non-violent exchange of ideas. Abraham Lincoln gazed towards this principle when he wrote, “Let the people be aware of the facts, and the country will be calm”.

    I am not Christine Benvenuto or her agent or publisher or family member or supporter, really. I am a supporter of free speech.

    I’m writing this because Joy Ladin, Christine Benvenuto’s ex-partner is a threat to the idea and reality of free speech and self-regulation. Joy Ladin wants Christine Benvenuto to remain in prison she built and is scrambling to maintain.

    Who is Joy Ladin? For years, Joy Ladin labored in obscurity as a minor poet, writing under the name Jay Ladin. Jay was married to Christine Benvenuto, that is, until she came out to her wife as a M to F transgender, insisting that if she couldn’t transition and become who she really was, she’d die (by her own hand). What ensued was years of private and then increasingly public struggles, threats, attempts at understanding and eventually, divorce. Both being writers, each of them decided to write about their experiences as a way of grieving, helping themselves and possibly helping others. One must imagine that each would have their own version of the story, which could never be one but many. One must imagine that there would be anger, sadness, loss, misunderstanding, limitations (self- and other-imposed), obstacles and growth on both sides. These two individuals chose to share their struggles with the public. To learn about as many parts of the experience as possible, we need facts. But we cannot have their facts. In most cases, we can only have their imperfect recollection of the facts. If you could go back to Amherst c. 2006, you could have witnessed some of these “facts” yourself, but then again, you’d too be part of the imperfection of recollection and interpretation. We know each other imperfectly and we know ourselves less so. But as we stumble towards understanding, we need these imperfect facts.

    The problem is that Joy Ladin doesn’t want you to know of Christine Benvenuto’s speech, writing and (however imperfect) recollections of her own life. When Joy Ladin is not busy teaching at Yeshiva University, she is busy working against Ms. Benvenuto and organizing other transgender activists and sympathizers against Ms. Benvenuto’s right to exercise free speech, peaceably assemble and pursue happiness by working, free of threat and interruption. Joy Ladin and many of those in support of her are engaged in an organized campaign to silence Ms. Benvenuto and disrupt her life, keeping her in a prison where she cannot work or travel without fear of confrontation, interference and retribution. Ladin organized a mob to descend upon a bookstore in Amherst where she was merely having an informal gathering to support her and celebrate the launch of her book. That gathering ended up with the police being called in to control the screaming, out-of-control crowd organized with the blessing of Joy Ladin. Ladin and her epigone do the same in person or online, whenever Ms. Benvenuto tries to speak, publish an article or talk about her work. Ms. Benvenuto took great care not to identify Joy Ladin in her book, in public appearances or in private. Joy Ladin takes no such care. She identifies herself everywhere she goes, whether it be on Amazon, Goodreads or one of many online sites, excoriating Ms. Benvenuto both in reviews Ladin publishes under her own name, in fake reviews written under pseudonym by Ladin or in scathing reviews by her followers who are bold enough to admit they haven’t even read Ms. Benvenuto’s book. Apparently, to Joy Ladin and many transgender activists, anything Ms. Benvenuto says, does or is, is “transphobic” and deserves to be shouted down, drowned out and silenced one way or another. Ladin and her supporters recently organized a mass attack on the online blog Kveller, threatening and bullying editors and advertisers into pulling a piece that Ms. Benvenuto was paid to write for the blog, which excerpted parts of her book. Kveller was enthusiastic about the piece and paid Ms. Benvenuto. Between the time they contracted the piece and the piece ran, many weeks passed—plenty of time to let Ms. Benvenuto know if the piece was problematic, i.e., “transphobic” or needed editing or modification in any way. None of this feedback was forthcoming. But within two days, Ladin and her followers had the piece pulled off the web, censoring and silencing Ms. Benvenuto once again.

    As time goes on, examples of this behavior multiply and it gets more and more difficult for Ms. Benvenuto to make a living. However, Joy Ladin is busy building a career as human rights and transgender activist hero, recruited by sometimes highly intelligent, sometimes highly fearful and miseducated leaders anxious to show their politically correct colors to the LGBT and wider communities.

    The universities in which I work and the organizations in which I function were founded largely on the principles of equal access, free speech and in support of the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right. Joy Ladin does not want a discussion. Joy Ladin does not want a dialogue. Joy Ladin wants to tell you and me and Christine Benvenuto how everything we say is transphobic and every disagreement we have is rooted in a misunderstanding or hatred of transgender individuals generally and her, specifically. Joy Ladin does not want to leave Christine Benvenuto alone to pursue her own life. And that means that until that can happen, Christine Benvenuto is a political and economic prisoner.

    If you believe in her right to tell her own story, if you believe in her right and your own right to free speech, if you believe in your own power to decide for yourself, based upon access to the facts (even as they are the facts as these two people see them), then its time to free Christine Benvenuto. Let’s make it possible for her to get a lawyer if she wants to. Let’s make it possible for her to have a book reading if she wants to. Let’s make it possible for her to feed her kids. Let’s give her a viable career as a writer and an exemplar of free speech in the United States. Let’s not shout down Joy Ladin. Let’s not mass against her whenever she publishes a blog or article online or appears in public. Let’s allow Ms. Ladin the same rights as Ms. Benvenuto. Except let’s also let the market decide this. Let’s not buy Ms. Ladin’s book. But let us also spend $15 dollars or so in the cause of free speech and the pursuit of happiness and hand that money to Ms. Benvenuto. Let’s make her rich. Let’s put her on the bestseller list. Speak with your own mouth and with your pocketbook and head over to your local bookstore and ask for her book for purchase. Head over to Amazon or Barnes or Noble or any online bookseller and donate $15 for free speech, today, right now. Let our voices be heard. It’s a small price to pay.
    Here’s the link:
    http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Changes-Memoir-Marriage-Gender/dp/0312649509/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354996923&sr=8-1&keywords=sex+changes+a+memoir+of+marriage

    If you want to read more about this story, here’s a link:
    https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/

    • Marie-France Lesage Says:

      Brilliant! Done! I know what several of my friends are getting for Christmas — not to mention my local library. If you want to donate to your local library, too, just buy a hard-cover edition, wrap it in a small paper bag to protect the outer cover and drop it with an anonymous note of donation through the book return. They librarians will take it from there.

      • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

        Actually, Marie, you are better off requesting the book from your library than donating a copy to them. Our library does not accept donation books for putting on the library shelves. Instead, all donated books are sold and the money gained from the sale is used to purchase books for the library shelves.

      • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

        But even if you buy the book, you should request a reservation on the book at your library. The more requests they get, the more they’ll be inclined to purchase it.

      • Marie-France Lesage Says:

        Thanks for the info ERP. My library might be different. I’ll double check.

  28. alamia Says:

    I tried posting something in the comments of the Amherst article. It is in moderation and I’m not sure if it will get published, so here it is:

    JoyLadin said: “These comments reflect what’s called “gender essentialism,”

    Gender essentialism is when you say that female=long hair dresses, high heels, and pink frilly things. Gender essentialism is when someone says, “I love playing with dolls and wearing dresses so I must really be a female.” The idea of transgender therefore supports gender essentialism.

    JoyLadin said: “a confusion between physical sex, which is a matter of biology’

    Yes, you are correct. Physical sex is a matter of biology. No amount of surgery, birth certificate revisions or legal mandates changes the fact that in our species, a male cannot become a female and vice versa.

    Joy Ladin said: “gender, which, as every feminist should know, is a social phenomenon”

    Hold on a minute–gender isn’t just some “social phenomenon.” It is a social hierarchy. It is a global system of domination, in which males hold power over females. Gender, like many other caste systems, consists of rules that mandate how the oppressed should eat, sleep, dress, talk, walk, move, etc. And the point of these rules is to keep the oppressed class of females in our place, allowing males to maintain and extend their power over females.

    JoyLain said: “and very much open to change.’

    If “open to change” means that it is possible to destroy patriarchy and therefore there would be no gender hierarchy, then yes, the gender caste system is open not only to change but to complete abolition.

    But if “open to change” means that individual males can say “I like dresses, lingerie, makeup and long hair so I must be a female,” of course, you can call yourself whatever you want. But do realize that by reinforcing the notion that female=feminine and male=masculine you are reinforcing the patriarchal notion of gender and the gender caste system.

    Furthermore, you can call yourself whatever you want but you have no right to use your position of privilege to attack, threaten and shame females into agreeing with you.

    Here’s an analogy to put this into perspective: Let’s say you said, “I like tacos, sombreros, ranchero music and dark skin so I must really be a Mexican born in a white person’s body.” Or “I love basketball and rap so I must really be Black.” In this case, poc would quite reasonably point out that an affinity for things that are stereotypically associated with a certain race or ethnicity doesn’t mean that you belong to that race or ethnicity. They might point out that the the fact that you believe in these stereotypes just proves how ignorant you are of their cultures. They might point out that, in claiming a poc identity based on poc stereotypes, you are reinforcing those stereotypes that oppress poc. And I bet you and your friends wouldn’t go after these people yelling “transracephobic!!!” Why? Because you get that poc are oppressed by white people. But you really don’t get that females are oppressed by males.

    • Adrian Says:

      It continually amazes me that at least on the internet, so many active “anti-racist” people who are able to have quite good insight on racial issues and cultural appropriation and what is wrong with speaking over marginalized people and all the rest of it, have a complete blind spot when it comes to the very real issue of men appropriating “woman.”

      Somehow “transracial” is beyond the pale (as it should be) and “transabled” is similarly called out, but “transgender” is A-OK by those very same people. They cling to the brain sex theory for the most part, thinking well, we all do get hormones in the womb so surely that must provide an explanation for how they can be “brain sex of woman, but outwardly look like a man” and they don’t see how that is locking actual born women into a box.

      Makes me want to yell “physician, heal thyself” half the time.

    • Marie-France Lesage Says:

      Beautifully put, alamia.

      It’s more than ironic that when I try to explain to people on-line that men putting on “woman face” is very much akin to white people putting on “black face” the howls of outrage can be heard all the way on the moon.

      What is the difference, really? An oppressor class mimicking stereotypes of their targeted oppressed class? For their own amusement and for the amusement of fellow members of the oppressor class? Hello?

      If a white male comic were to put on a “Mammy” costume complete with enormous breasts, customary house-slave clothing (i.e. homespun gown and apron) and black-face, the racist component would be horrifying but the sexist component would be funny? Or harmless? Or just a gender bend?

      Not from where I’m sitting. I tolerate gay males in drag because many of them really are MAKING FUN of the ridiculous outward trappings of gender, but heterosexual males in drag make me queasy-to-angry, depending on how clear it is to me that their woman-face is a reflection of their own fetid sexual fetishes and misogyny.

      Some heterosexual male rubbing himself like a cat in heat in a Marilyn costume is deeply offensive to perceptive, aware women. We don’t want to see it, we don’t want to be around it, we don’t think he as a “right” to inflict it on us or other women and we certainly do find it sexist, offensive and oppressive.

      While he is getting himself off by playing at sexist stereotypes of The Women, the REAL women are folding laundry, cleaning toilets, washing dishes, changing diapers, working at lower-paying jobs, fitting our truly rewarding creative endeavors into slivers of time in our overburdened carer schedules and dreaming of having the time and resources to play at anything at all.

      • dawn Says:

        You would think that would be the case, but as long as the sexist component exists it negates the racism. Research Shirley Q. Liquor. EVERY racist stereotype I have EVER encountered as a black woman performed by a white gay MAN in black-face. The outraged howls of the people supporting this Mammy routine often overpowered those in protest.

        RuPaul mansplained HIS support for this act and referred to those opposed as idiots. HE wears dresses, heels, and tucks and we all know that’s the WOMANHOOD equivalent of staying at a holiday inn express last night. HE ‘starrbooty shakes’ the definitive litmus test since ‘booty shaking video hoe’ comprises a significant portion of black women. It is only outnumbered by those angry fat loud ones. Thus, HE is uniquely qualified to speak for black women and He will determine the appropriate instance for us to be offended TYVM. Viola! The racially-charged stereotypes of Knipp’s routine are perfectly acceptable and definitely NOT offensive when rooted in misogyny. The lazy shuffling Negro caricature offends MALE sensibilities and must be combated. The addicted, ignorant, perpetual breeder and welfare queen who names her children after VDs remains acceptable. Since you know its ‘coming from a place of love’ (I cannot make this up).

        No different than Mr. Joe Ryan ‘educating’ on misogyny, Mr. Serano being ‘bored’ with discussing female reproductive rights, or Mr. Truitt expounding on what HE defines as an acceptable way for sexual violence victims process their harm.
        They are one in the same MALES who attempt to co-opt and silence female voices. white noise, black noise it’s all MALE noise.

      • supasaiyen Says:

        Using other peoples opression in order to make a point isn’t necessary

    • EqualRightsAndProtection Says:

      That’s very succinctly said, Alamia. I find it interesting that when Dana Beyer was arguing for transgender rights in Maryland, she completely bypassed race. Instead, she compared gender identity to another self-identified protected status trait: religion. Religion can be changed at whim.

      But what is being changed in law is basically your sex. Which is not a changeable thing. And sex is more comparable to race –also not a changeable thing. But if Dana were to compare gender identity to race that would call attention to the flimsy basis of this argument.

      • dawn Says:

        I find it so tedious when they drag out that tired comparison.
        The race juxtaposition presents a conundrum for MOST white MTF trans (side eye to Jeff McCreath and Colin Francis). They must acknowledge the advantage of white privilege to be righteous when advising everyone to check theirs. I have noticed when white MTFs dismiss white female concerns they insinuate the racial privilege cancels the other out. They then apply the same to sex class(?). Ergo, white males and females are somehow equally advantaged. Trans then apply the magical ‘cissexim’ variable which exponentially increases white female privilege. The discussion deteriorates into a lecture on how trans-misogyny is much worse than vanilla (no pun intended) misogyny.

        MUCH MUCH WORSE:

        trans-misogyny = misogyny(2)

        or
        _____________
        |
        | trans-mysoginy = misogyny
        \|

        Other super special snowflakes like Jeff and Colin relish their place as gold medalists in the Oppression Olympics. No racism, classism, sexism, or any other ism is more atrocious the oppression of their ‘gender identity’ (as autogynephiliacs) . For those types trans-misogyny equals trans-misogyny to the power of 100. The most evil thing EVERRRRRRRRR . . . SRSLY. . . . 1950’s Alabama evil

        Self-identification is also problematic for race/trans comparison. Colorism often reinforces or refutes group membership. I look this way therefore I am fill in the blank. What of those instances when initial lightness/darkness negates visual affiliation? The tendency is to reference a shared cultural background to validate the association. The MTF predicament is they lack the girlhood experience. I have seen trans attempt to negate or diminish the importance (side eye to Mr. Ruby), or claim their experience was a girlhood experience (side to TOO_MANY_TO_LIST). I always refer back to the favorite bee sting trans when the girlhood issue comes up:

        “The entry about how much we miss a normal girlhood… yes, that hits me where I live. What she writes is true, we try to console ourselves with the undeniable truth that we’ve done things no other women could have. Many of us were in the Special Forces, we didn’t have to cope with the glass ceiling, at meetings we were listened too, not ignored.

        I’ve travelled the world, eaten Green Curry on the banks of the Chao Praya, inhaled Kimchee in Seoul, Kohl-und-Pinkel in Bremen, Alaskan King Crab in Akron, and Rijstafel in Den Haag. I’ve watched the Sun come up from a Destroyer’s Bridge in the SW Pacific, heard the creaks as the sub I’m in hits deep diving depth, and seen my team’s satellite deploy from its booster on live webcam.” – Zoe “As a matter of fact, I *am* a Rocket Scientist.” Brain

        Nothing says Male Privilege like appropriating woman while simultaneously othering yourself and diminishing their experiences. Thats like AMEX Centurion privilege.

        Don’t even get me started on race/trans passing comparison. . . .


    • There’s also a good feminist argument stating the case that because males and female children are raised, treated, spoken to etc from *birth* so utterly differently by society, and even by their own parents, that they are arguably raised in two completely different, and separate, cultures running alongside each other.
      Therefore no man can ever understand what it means to be raised as a girl. He may *believe* he understands; he may *wish* he understands, but no adult male can ever know what it’s like to grow up as a girl in our culture, or any culture.

      • zrusilla Says:

        I’m a fellow expat, cherryblossomlife. Since settling in France I have become more aware of the power of early socialization to forge behavior and worldview. I don’t fit in, I remain stubbornly American, not “trans-French”, and there’s no use insisting otherwise.

        I too have been thinking that so much of the trans trouble I have been reading about on these blogs might stem from a refusal to recognize that women have a distinct culture.

  29. FeistyAmazon Says:

    I so agree Adrian and Alamia with your posts. You know, this reminds me of the whole ‘GenderCator’ debacle we had here in San Francisco at Frameline Films several years ago. A Feminist Lesbian filmmaker Catherine Crouch made a 15 minute film about a young Butch type who came out in the ’70’s and hung out with her friends wearing her flannels and all..and somehow she fell asleep and 30 years later woke up to ‘The Gendercator’. Either she had to assume a feminine role and be a woman, or she had to assume a masculine role and be a man and be ‘Gendercated’….it was decreed. She no longer could be her funloving Butchy FEMALE self….

    Well there were 150 EXACTLY SIMILAR emails decrying this film as ‘transphobic’ and complaints to Frameline, that Frameline pulled the film. Once again, Lesbian realities and Lesbian voices were lost…

    AT THE SAME TIME, there was a film that went on and on about MTF’s with penises and how we should learn to love their penises or that they were ‘women’ with penises….what I found entirely offensive, something 150 or more Lesbians could potentially object to, but of course did not.

    Well, that was pretty much for me in my support of Frameline. A friend got me a copy of the 15 minute short, ‘The Gendercator’, and it’s really pretty tame, and HER version of events. It’s not denying trans experience, or decrying the trans community, but it’s a potential science fiction sociological statement that with the way things are going, EVERY Butchy type Dyke will feel the pressure to transition to male, which we all know is happening in droves amongst the young ones(and not so young) in our communities…sadly.

    This sounds so much like this woman’s case. What happened to Catherine Crouch and her film, happened to this woman speaking about her relationship to this autogynophilic man. Same shit, different story…
    -FeistyAmazon.

  30. mizknowitall Says:

    I will be generous and allow that maybe Joy had to transition… but if Joy were in fact the woman inside as claimed, then “she” should have implicitly understood as any woman might, and then demonstrated what it means to be lied to in such an egregious fashion by the man she married! The man she took into her body, the man to whom she bore two children! This man who swore to love and honor her as her HUSBAND till death. The man who not only took her social standing as a married woman leaving her in a position of ridicule within their world. The man who also took her youth and her figure and even her sexuality by trying to make her into something which she is not!

    Christine was the only aggrieved party here! This was not her fault! She had no duty to stand by him after he broke the marriage contract in such a reprehensible way, and any and all anger she had or had towards Joy should have been respectfully borne by Joy in complete silence!

    That Joy is on this campaign to discredit her former wife for speaking out about her own struggles with this is utterly contemptible! This new trans-radicaliziam Joy is part of is horrendous! It is a complete abomination in both directions (mtf-ftm) as both are seeking to rewrite entirely what it means to be female into a vapid and meaningless two dimensional caricature!

    It must be stopped!
    MKIA


  31. Um, hi? Speaking of bullying, why don’t all y’all commentors take a nice long look at yourself and recognize what you’re perpetrating.

    Love the twitter pic screen shot thingy. Really klassy.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Oh Noooeeeezzzzz! Sarah Tuttle-Singer thinks I’m not “Klassy”.

      Speaking of perpetrators:

      http://jewrotica.org/2012/11/my-sweet-boy-my-goy-toy/?singlepage=1

      http://radicalhub.com/2011/05/30/steering-the-sluts/

      • Anon Male Says:

        Small World indeed! Especially when you endeavor it to make it so. I’m sure Benvenuto is finding out exactly how big the real world is right now.

        I want to go on record (as a known anonymous person, but wtf-ever) that I disagree most strenuously with Nick Chaleunphone’s serial posting at Kveller and the bizarre assertion that everyone there is some sort of Zionist. Not useful and assuredly unpleasant.

        Of course, you can’t say so THERE anonymously since everyone will laugh at you for “still” using Hotmail or Yahoo or whatever. Since, for the virtual-1%, every single online interaction is about leveraging your brand via facebook, the web of shit that means everyone who is anyone is connected via a book anthology or a Ms. Magazine sponsored blog (“what does a feminist look like? Like a super model or Obama! Not like a butch dyke! Gender is hawt!”) or even their serial-perp buddy who has become a superstar at that kind of influence peddling.

        Are there Jewish members of the 1% publishing/academic/mommy blogging community? Sure. SO THE FUCK what? Is it ridiculous that Ladin gets to vet Jewish organizations for inclusivity despite never being part of a GBLT community up until a short time ago and then, still only maybe? Sure. That one deserves a “what,” though, and should be investigated.

        But I’m guessing the 1% of voices-who-count community only cares about transphobia for two reasons:

        1. They hate seeing the 99% go after any of their members for any reason

        2. Portraying the 99% as ignorant lets the 1% justify their supremacy.

        (Ladin, who clearly knows nothing about gender essentialism, doesn’t have a problem lecturing the plebes.)


      • Oh, NO. HUGO THE RAPIST! o_0

    • Dorie Says:

      Bla bla bla, STS. Heard it all before. Disagreement = transphobic. Fighting back against censorship = transphobic. Standing up to bullying by transgendered individuals and their supporters = transphobic. Got it, Sarah. The truth is, y’all should stop doing what you want us to do. Stop taking such a nice, long look at yourselves; start relating to other people in a compassionate way.

    • Becky Green Says:

      Out of the woodwork, the worms do come.

  32. Dorie Says:

    And a p.s. Can we get smart here? It’s a waste of time arguing with Joy Ladin. She is extremely intelligent and has an answer for everything. When she runs out of answers, her answer will be “transphobic.” She’s already got her minions identifying our attempts to promote free speech as transphobia, boiled down to one source: Gendertrender. By going up against her and arguing, you’re wasting you’re time. This individual is sick, not because she’s trans, but because her mind and heart don’t work as intended. They are both closed, completely. Can we get behind Christine Benvenuto, free speech and listening to ALL women’s voices rather than attacking someone who will never, ever truly engage with you (or the real world, for that matter)?

    • GallusMag Says:

      “Get smart?” Women are smart to speak out in whatever way they choose. If their methods differ from yours it does not mean they are unintelligent, rather that they have come to a different conclusion than you about what actions are warranted.

      • Dorie Says:

        Okay, that makes sense to me. I wasn’t talking to all women. I was talking to anyone who read my comment. And you’re absolutely right and I apologize for my assumption that there is one best way to approach this. Actually, it’s not an assumption. It’s just what I’ve decided is the best way. I’m entitled to my opinion on that. I’m also a woman. But come on, aren’t you doing a little but of the same thing you’re accusing some transactivists of doing? I’m a woman and I’ll speak how I want to, to whom I want to and when I want to. I respect your right to do the same, as long as you’re respectful of me. If I want to call Joy Ladin “she” I’ll do it. Gimmie a break.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Are you talking to me? Where did I tell you how to speak.

      • GallusMag Says:

        My issue was not that you have an opinion about what form of activism is best. My issue was that you implied that women who used other forms did so due to lack of intelligence.

        Now, in this latest comment, you compare women recommending reality-based descriptors with male misogynists who enforce false male-centric descriptors on others through threats of censorship, hostility, and violence? Hmmm. I’m not seeing the correlation you are drawing.

        Clearly, as the commenters below state, Ladin is a male, and using female descriptors for him is a form of capitulation. I assume you agree. However I did not see those commenters frame you as being unintelligent.

    • liberalsareinsane Says:

      What an odd, ridiculous post. GT is doing a huge service by talking about sickos like ‘Joy’! Also, referring to this Joy Ladin as ‘she’ and ‘her’ is an oxymoron. He is a man NOT a woman. Why you feel the need to refer to him as she and her is beyond me. Makes you look like a troll.

      • Marie-France Lesage Says:

        Yep. What you said. Jay Ladin is a he. He will always be a he.

        In my opinion, rational people should stop pandering to these dudes and use the “he” word — to do otherwise only enables and encourages them in their delusions of “she”-ness.

        They have no “she”-ness. They’re biological males. Oh, well. We can’t always get what we want — or what we think we want. I’ll never be a fairy, never live inside a flower, never wash my hair in a drop of dew or be besties with a bumble bee. I grew up, got over it and moved on.

        So should Jay and his cohort of gender-obsessed heterosexual males.

      • Dorie Says:

        I do as I wish. “Makes you look like a troll…” “…women who used other forms did so due to lack of intelligence.” “you compare women recommending reality-based descriptors…” etc. Reality based? Huh? Did I call anyone unintelligent? “Let’s get smart” is an expression I’ve used since I was a little girl, because my mom used it. It doesn’t mean you or anyone else is stupid. It means, to me, “I have a good idea. Let’s do it together” You’re free to say: no thanks, I’ll use my own good idea and do it my way. And that’s why I apologized. I had no idea you’d jump all over what I wrote and INTERPRET it as an insult. I didn’t imply anything. I wrote some words. You read them. You interpreted them. That is exactly what Ms. Benvenuto would probably say to Joy Ladin and all the activists who swarmed her article. YOU took my words and interpreted transphobia. YOU interpreted it in the way you did and I cannot be responsible for your interpretations…and neither should Kveller censor the piece because a bunch of you think I’m being transphobic.

        GM, I’m not interested in a conversation with you. With each post you seem more like Ladin and the Ladin crowd to me, except you’re “right” and Ladin is wrong, and you seem to absolutely know that with complete certainty. I’m not interested in a conversation with anybody who thinks this way. By the way, thanks for speaking for all women. We need your help, since we can’t speak for ourselves without you.

        And no need to write back saying “where did I say I speak for all women?” The bottom line for me is I didn’t vote for you as the defender of women, women’s rights or as the interpreter of right and wrong in my neighborhood. If you have an opinion, express it. If you think your opinion is “reality,” you might as well join Ladin rather than trying to beat “him.”

      • GallusMag Says:

        Ladin is male. That is not MY OPINION, but objective global reality.

        I neither told you what to say, what to think, or what to do. Neither did I appoint myself the speaker of women.
        You, however, are projecting alllllllllllll sorts of weirdo fucking shit on me, which makes you a huge projecting weirdo.

        What is a troll? A troll is an individual who diverts a blog or forum discussion with pointless bullshit. That would be you.

        liberalsareinsane called this shit hours ago but I thought I’d give you the benefit of a doubt. At this juncture I don’t see your posts as contributing anything whatsoever to the topic at hand here. You’ve not addressed any issues raised by posters- about pronouns, about capitulation, about your dysfunctional correlation between women acknowledging biological reality and a male abuser trying to coercively force women to play along with his gender fantasies.

        LMAO at your putting the male pronoun him in quotations. That is truly funny.

        Please don’t post unless you have something to contribute. Thanks!

        BTW I get that you possibly did not intend to insult women who opt for other forms of activism by framing them as not “smart”. You clarified that above, and I appreciate that. I apologize if I did not clearly acknowledge that. I think I was too busy reacting to your weird projections accusing me of telling you how to speak, etc.

        Regardless, I am bored with this diversion from the conversation now, as I’m sure all my readers are.😉

    • fwancis Says:

      “It’s a waste of time arguing with Joy Ladin. She is extremely intelligent and has an answer for everything. When she runs out of answers, her answer will be “transphobic.””

      Doesn’t seem like it takes long to run out of answers.

  33. Bev Jo Says:

    “Get smart?” We are smart enough to not call that prick “she” or “her.” We are smart enough to know that if you lie and submit to their demands and give them the main thing they demand — accepting them as women — then we have lost.

    No, men can never be women. It’s not about childhoods (which they lie about anyway), socializtion, or tantrums. Men claiming female identity are among the most female-hating of men, or they wouldn’t be doing what they are doing. No need really to discuss one more of these incredibly arrogant, narcissistic and privileged men. It’s Christine and all women who need support against them. Keep saying no, to every tiny piece of their con.

    Also, I do not tolerate gay men wearing drag. They still are ridiculing women. I’ll never forget the one I saw onstage last year wearing a fat woman suit complete with pubic hair. The joke was on women, fat women, natural women, and the audience loved him. They fucking hate us. Yes, het men, like trannies are worse, but only in degree and only because they don’t want us in their spaces. It’s always all about what the men want.

  34. alamia Says:

    @Dorie “Disagreement = transphobic. Fighting back against censorship = transphobic. Standing up to bullying by transgendered individuals and their supporters = transphobic.”

    And as if we needed more proof, the Amherst website never did publish my comment explaining very clearly why Joy Ladin got it wrong in regard to gender essentialism and feminism.

  35. alamia Says:

    Dorie: “And a p.s. Can we get smart here? It’s a waste of time arguing with Joy Ladin. She is extremely intelligent and has an answer for everything. When she runs out of answers, her answer will be “transphobic.”

    Agreed. But there are other people reading the conversations. When I respond to Joy Ladin it was not really to convince him of anything, but to show other people following the conversation that he has no clue about feminism. Unfortunately since my comment was never posted that can’t happen. It’s not really “transphobia” that they fear. It’s people like me who actually know about feminism and can provide a clear, logic explanation of why transgender politics is misogynistic and anti-feminist. The reason why they hate Benevuto is not because she is “transphobic” but because people who have been admiring the emperor’s new clothes hate it when we point out the obvious. They hate it when Benevuto she says things like this:

    “But while some transgender people see themselves as challenging gender norms, what I’ve witnessed up close and personal–obsession with a certain body type, pride in “feminine” emotionalism and shrinking muscles, a taste for bodice-hugging clothes–would seem to reinforce them. Tracey [alias for her husband] never wanted to topple the gender wall. He just wanted to hurl himself over it to the other side.

    • Loup-loup garou Says:

      “Mr. Gorbatrans, tear down this wall!”

      (Couldn’t resist.)

      Seriously, though, that quote from Benvenuto sums it all up. Even the “non-binary genderqueer” types who don’t identify as either sex don’t want to topple the gender wall — their identities depend on it, too.

  36. Marie-France Lesage Says:

    “[Jay Ladin] never wanted to topple the gender wall. He just wanted to hurl himself over it to the other side.”

    Exactly. For all the talk-talk-talk about “bending” gender, all most (all?) heterosexual male “trans women” really want are the “goodies” they perceive to be abundant in The Land of Female.

    They don’t want to scrub toilets for minimum wage.

    They don’t want to endure forty years of menstrual cramps.

    They don’t want to be targeted for rape from birth to ninety.

    They certainly don’t want to dedicate their lives to smashing the patriarchy and endure the social censure and abandonment that goes along with fighting for women’s liberation.

    They want to be pretty. They want to be wanted. They want to be sexy in the fetid filter of their male heterosexual minds.

    They want to look in the mirror and see a movie star in a beaded evening gown, not the woman in the garment factory who sewed the beads and fringe on that gown and ten thousand others until she went blind.

  37. alamia Says:

    I am currently reading Benvenuto’s book, and I should mention that while Jay wanted to hurl himself over to the “other side” when it came to things like lingerie, talking in a high-pitched voice, removing all his body hair and wearing makeup, he wasn’t above using his male privilege to get what he wanted. For example, she writes about what happened one time when he had the kids with him. They had mutually decided that she would pick the kids and take her daughter to an appointment. But when she called to see where they were he told her, “I won’t tell you . . . I have a right to take my children anywhere I please.”

    I

    • GallusMag Says:

      Did you see his response to your comment.

      • weirdward Says:

        We should all read his Manly – I mean his pink sparkly laydee – words and then we will all understand and be Enlightened!! About Jendur!! And Laydee-hood!!

        I love it when they use the abuse-is-all-a-misunderstanding excuse. Like, oops, we committed genocide, or oops, we poisoned that forest, or oops we invented all these medical procedures that have a tendency to kill women; and so on and so forth.

        Not buyin’ what you’re sellin’ mister.

      • alamia Says:

        No, I don’t think he has seen this comment. As far as I know the Amherst website where I tried to comment did not publish my comment.

  38. alamia Says:

    Joy Ladin: “gender essentialism is any attitude, from “girls should wear pink” to “only people born with vaginas can have a female gender identity,”

    What do you mean by a “female gender identity”? Again, gender is so much more than an “identity.” It is a system of oppression. If you are saying that the idea that only females should adopt stereotypically female characteristics, then yes, that is an example of gender essentialism. But if you mean that only females should call themselves females then there is nothing essentialist about that. It’s just a matter of telling it like it is. A white person is white, a Latina is a Latina. A white person can definitely enjoy things that are stereotypically associated with Latino people, sure. But can a white person assume the identity of a white person? I suppose they could. But I wouldn’t expect all Latino people to accept that transrace person as a Latino.

    @Joy Ladin: “biology is destiny.” It’s so weird. You use the words of feminism but only when it seems to fit your personal, individual agenda. You are confusing biology (female/male) with systems of oppression and hierarchy (gender roles). To be sure, our biology does determine many things. For example, I can’t grow wings and fly because I was not born a bird. (Although I might want to claim a trans-species identity, as people such as the “otherkin” do.)

    @Joy Ladin “that the sex of our bodies determines our immutable gender”

    The problem here is that you are continuing to think of gender as simply roles, rather than as a system of oppression. If you mean that our bodies shouldn’t determine how we dress, act, think, etc, then you are correct. Males shouldn’t be forced to play with war toys and girls shouldn’t be forced to play with dolls. This makes sense if you are speaking of gender as simply different roles.

    However, gender is much more than a system of roles. It is a system of unequal power. And yes, sex, biology at birth absolutely DOES determine where we are placed in this hierarchy. That’s what gender is. It is a system of unequal power based on physical, biological sex. Just as you are born into a particular position in a racial or ethnic hierarchy you are born into a particular position in a gender hierarchy. Why do you keep ignoring this?

    @Joy Ladin: “If you are actually interested in how I understand my gender” Wow, really? Yes, by all means, go ahead and explain to me, a Latina woman who was born into the universally shit-upon gender class called “female” how YOU understand YOUR gender. On second thought, no thanks.

    @Joy Ladin: ” claim that I don’t recognize sexism or patriarchal oppression, that I am not a feminist and can’t understand a feminist perspective,is insulting, wrong, and a transphboic steretype.”

    I understand you are insulted by my explanation how transgender ideas uphold gender stereotypes and roles, thereby further reinforcing the gender hierarchy that oppresses women. It was not my intention to insult but to explain. I don’t think you have explained how I am wrong. In fact, you seem to just ignore everything that I say about gender being a hierarchy that females are born into. I wonder why you keep ignoring this?

    And a “transphobic stereotype”? I am directly addressing the comments made here, by you. Although I do understand that the term “transphobic” is used just as effectively to silence feminists as the term “heretic” or “apostate” is used by religious devotees to silence those who won’t bow down to their gods.

  39. Bev Jo Says:

    Love that cartoon!!!

  40. amazondream Says:

    The Kveller story had been removed. Here is what I wrote in the comments–

    As a lesbian I can relate quite clearly to the violent verbiage that trans activists and their allies throw at anyone who dares to criticize them. The lesbian community has been subjected to these attacks for more than two decades now. Kveller is doing nothing more than caving in to common thuggery in the hopes of making themselves look good and avoiding trouble. They should consider the lessons of their own history when it comes to mollifying & abiding by the demands of conservative mobs seeking to embed gender stereotypes as true and natural.

    Take off the mask and you will see that Ladin is nothing more than a stalking, controlling male seeking to ruin the life of his ex-wife. He is not a woman and there is no such thing as a ‘gender identity’ nor a ‘female gender identity’. These are both inventions of the trans agenda and they’re seeking to draw everyone into it. Am I transphobic? If it means that I don’t drink this poisonous kool-aid then you better believe I am.

  41. David J. Says:

    One problem that I haven’t heard addressed here is the factual inaccuracy in Christine’s book. Whether intentionally or not, she shades and distorts the truth to fit the story she wants to tell. That aspect of critique from her home community is unfortunately (for her) not a conspiracy. Simply put, there are countless eyewitnesses to the events that took place who object to her misrepresentation of them. What happened didn’t happen in a vacuum. It was very public, and you can ask any number of people what really transpired.

    Whether it’s deliberate mendacity or just pain-induced confusion, it makes her a very unreliable narrator and calls her experience of victimization into question. The result is she isn’t a good spokesperson for feminism nor even for her own experience. THAT’s a problem. If she or anyone is going to tell her story, they need to tell it accurately.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Man comes to lesbian feminist blog, instructs women on which of them are suitable spokespersons for Women’s Liberation. Man opines that certain women are not capable of being spokespersons for their own experiences. Sun rises in east. Water remains wet.

      *Pro-tip: If a man informs you that a woman is a poor spokesperson for Women’s Liberation, she is very likely doing a bang-up job.

      • Marie-France Lesage Says:

        Exactly. If he says, “Go east!” then I will turn west.

        They’re soooooooo predictably wrong.

    • michelle Says:

      I’d say she is entitled to her version of events as she feels she experienced them, whether any measure of artistic license was taken or not…it is not for males to come down the pike and belittle Christine for having shared the collateral damage associated with Jay’s activities (which is precisely what we have seen happening here).

      Christine is the one who had HER life uprooted, along with the lives of her children. And given the vehement nature with which the tee-gee militia seeks to shut her down, I dare say I trust her a LOT more than some guy who waited to get HIS tenure before deciding that he needed to tear his family to shreds.

    • Dorie Says:

      How in the WORLD do you know what is factually inaccurate in Christine’s book? Either you’re Joy in disguise (now getting very old, Ladin) or you’re a complete idiot. Hm…or both. What happened, happened mostly in their home, between the two of them. There are some things that might have happened in public, but those things were likely experienced very differently by both people, and interpreted differently by those who witnessed certain events.

      So, am I getting you right? YOU are actually saying that Christine’s account of her own story isn’t “accurate” and you have the authority and vision to know what is and isn’t accurate in her life? And to judge her a “Good” spokesperson “for her own experience?”

      You’re a piece of shit.

    • Dorie Says:

      One problem that I haven’t heard addressed enough here is the factual inaccuracy in David J’s writing (I believe Gallus would call this person a “troll”). Whether intentionally or not, he shades and distorts the truth to fit the story he wants to tell. Simply put, there are countless eyewitnesses to the events that took place on the GenderTrender blog who object to his misrepresentation of every piece of shit coming out of his mouth. Whether it’s deliberate mendacity or just pain-induced confusion, it makes him a very unreliable narrator.

      Anyway, enough said. You are indeed a troll with no idea what you’re talking about. And that is something this woman knows to be 100 percent accurate.

  42. Becky Green Says:

    I wonder if David felt the need to point out Joy’s huge factual inaccuracy when he came out with his lame book? Joy’s glaring factual inaccuracy that he is still a he and always will be. Is THAT a problem in David’s eyes or does Mr. Ladin get a pass on THAT?

  43. Becky Green Says:

    I kind of screwed up my wording in that comment, but I think you got the gist anyway. Which is, a man claiming to be a woman obviously isn’t seeing reality accurately or in a fact based way, so the telling of his story through such a distorted lens automatically makes his version a bit suspect.

    • Marie-France Lesage Says:

      Yes, I understood you perfectly.

      Who can perceive a “reliable” witness in a heterosexual, married father of three — one of whom was in diapers — who waits until his tenure comes through and then (surprise!) forces is sexual fetish/mental obsession on his immediate family, his extended family, his employer, his synagog, etc. etc. etc.

      He’s not a garden variety narcissistic nut-bag, but he IS a narcissistic nut-bag. Just because someone has an unusual mental/ethical defect doesn’t make him too special to view/judge with common sense.

  44. Audrey Says:

    David J., just another man saying that women can’t write about our own experiences and that our lives aren’t true. And is Jay stalking Christine? Is Christine trying to shut down his web comments, or abandon her family? Just who is doing what to whom? That’s a clue as to who to believe here, and who has a credible life.

  45. Anon Male Says:

    Glad kveller is family friendly!

    http://www.kveller.com/blog/parenting/my-husband-works-for-a-porn-site-and-im-okay-with-it/

    One of the complaints leveled against Benvenuto wasn’t just “phobia” but a legalistic attack that her piece wasn’t literally “bragging on her children” as the site’s name declares as their mission.

    I’m guessing many of the articles they present don’t pass that test, as this one certainly doesn’t, not to mention it seems to have been written by a 13 year old. Europe loves boobs! Puritanism is for poor people! Happy Outliers as anecdotes! Zero engagement with the wider debate (no mention of Alyssa Milano’s mom) or even more than a passing knowledge of her own name-drops (Kunis going on about how weak people are who can’t change their bodies)!

    At any rate, what a nice picture of what’s acceptable to the community.

    • sylvie Says:

      Is that the author’s husband in the comments section?

      “Benjamin Fleischer:
      Far too many women have body image issues”

      http://www.kveller.com/blog/parenting/my-husband-works-for-a-porn-site-and-im-okay-with-it/?fb_comment_id=fbc_545410525470828_89452010_545450465466834#f1d8f74ab8

    • sylvie Says:

      I went to the Mr Skin web site because I wanted to see how it aligns with Mr Benjamin Fleischer’s statement: “Since the site uses nudity from films that are made, there are all sorts of bodies, outside the realm of most porn. Hence, the site’s appreciation of all nudity really is an affirmation of appreciation for a woman’s body, in whatever form it is.”

      And also Mrs Fleischer’s statements:
      “they really respect women”
      “There is never a disparaging word about anyone’s body”
      “I try to live my life with consistent values… And while porn may not be mission driven in the same way, I truly believe it does not make the world worse off… But as for the website content itself, I don’t think it’s going to make one bit of difference for my daughter.”

      There’s some lovely “appreciation” and “respect” on the home page: “Drop her fucking panties! Free video shows you how to get any bitch out of her panties… and into your bed… every fucking time” (bold their emphasis).

      http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/6586331587745820862

      • SaraClue Says:

        Mr. Skin is a very wealthy man, who lives in a palatial home in one of the wealthiest suburbs of Chicago. I guess he pays Mrs. Fleischer’s husband pretty well. So as long as the porn is providing a nice comfy lifestyle for Mrs. Fleischer, she is not going to give much thought to how porn affects the rest of the world out there. Kind of like being married to a drug lord or Mafia don.

      • Marie-France Lesage Says:

        Charming.

      • sylvie Says:

        For sure SaraClue, for sure.

        If it were me, I probably would have written an article about something else. Better to be silent than thought a fool and all that. That reminds me, I really should stop posting on the interwebs, heh >_<

  46. sylvie Says:

    Today I was reminded of the misogyny rife amongst women. And the bullshit women will believe from a man vs not believing the truth from a woman. The Christine Benvenuto story is an example that springs to mind, though it’s not what got me thinking. However, many have attempted to discredit or minimise Christine’s version of events, based only on what her ex has said. How do they know, they weren’t in the (house/car/room) at the same time… “But I believe (her ex), because that’s what (her ex) said to me” etc.

    I have no cause to doubt Christine. Rather, due to the number and frequency of attempts to silence women in similar situations that I have read about/witnessed/experienced, I’m more inclined to take notice of what a woman says when people claim she has it all wrong. There’s usually a reason for them doing so and it seldom has anything to do with her having it all wrong (though it can).

    So anyway, I did a Google search and found this (nothing new or anything; there are no surprises nor answers; the study is probably majorly flawed/shit, and the title is crap😀 However… ) –

    The False Beliefs of Women – How Women Believe Their Male Counterparts to Be Better Than Themselves
    http://www.wiwi.uni-passau.de/fileadmin/dokumente/lehrstuehle/lambsdorff/Download_EE/WS_2011-12/Stumm_2012.pdf

    “When examining gender differences, it becomes apparent that primarily women tend to be gender sensitive, i.e. they treat men differently from how they treat other women.”

    “Women expect men to be better… even though this is not always the case… there is no big gap between male and female performances… Both genders seem to be equal in terms of performance.”

    So I extrapolate and suggest (based unscientifically on my own experiences) that some women expect/believe men to be better in general – it doesn’t just apply to “competition based experiments”, “math” or “rational thinking”. And I’m fully aware of arguments that suggest different treatment etc is based on increasing potential of securing a husband/partner/lover. That particular argument aside, what of the belief/expectation that men are better/know better, that causes women to defer to men based on nothing more than something a man says, or based on nothing at all? Just an insidious meme that won’t fuck off back to its petri dish (how can it when it’s reinforced so ‘innocently’ by so many).

    Please excuse fathoming kthxbai.

    • Marie-France Lesage Says:

      We’re actively taught since infancy to defer to men, to consider men more worthy of leadership positions and positions of respect: father, coach, preacher, pope, symphony conductor, band leader, professor, doctor, engineer, senator, president. We’re taught to dissemble in front of men (“oh, pay no attention to lil’ ol’ me, what do I know”), to drop our gaze and be demure, to in general kiss their asses and bow down to them. Every woman who achieves a leadership position or a position of respect has been swimming upstream against a steady current her entire life.

      Of course the result of that whole socialization process will be plenty of women who have trouble with SELF-respect and as an extension, we will have trouble respecting other women (“she looks like me, she talks like me, therefore she must be less-than, weaker, not as smart, not as together, not the boss”.)

      I noticed the other day that after forty years of righteous feminism and decades of having female doctors treating me, I still use “he” when referring to the generic doctor in a discussion, more often than not.

      That socialization is powerful, powerful stuff. That’s why we have to fight it so hard and not let the “trans” cult get away with convincing people that there’s some kind of “natural” or “in-born” gender identity other than those traits DIRECTLY influenced by biological sex (i.e. menstruating is a sex-determined trait; liking to sew is NOT a sex-determined trait; nursing from our breasts is a sex-determined trait; being good at science is NOT a sex-determined trait.)

      If we don’t fight back, we’ll be right back to square one in our fight against the pernicious sex-role stereotyping that is so oppressive in patriarchy.

      • sylvie Says:

        I completely get that it’s ingrained through conditioning. Fortunately (or unfortunately, hah) I missed out on many of those lessons in social norms.

        What I want to know, is how to stop that shit being ingrained (or rather, help de-program it), that tendency to defer, all of it, when we’re faced with things like a resurgence in popularity of the traditional life (husband, house, kids), and the increase in women who are careful to pro-actively deny in public that they’re a feminist so that they don’t alienate teh menz, or other women.

        It seems that people in the “trans cult” are able to win the sympathy vote by highlighting feminists/feminism as a common ‘enemy’. And as we know, plenty of those in the “trans cult” have beliefs and ideals that reinforce sex-role stereotypes.

        With the rise in popularity of things like raunch culture and all the other things like that becoming more accepted, indeed normalised, I see a shift away from receptivity to any ideas that might highlight the acceptance/normalisation as incongruent. So much language is used to reinforce all of it, by those who aren’t even necessarily aware how.

        How do we fight back?


  47. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joy-ladin/gender-transition_b_2442460.html

    More lies and reinvention of history from Ladin. Anyone care to read and comment?

    • anon male Says:

      “Our children still, with my permission, call me “Daddy.””

      Benevolent dictator is benevolent!

      • sylvie Says:

        First paragraph and I’m already rolling eyes at the need to assert to everyone how wonderful he “was”.

        Reading further, yep, any interest I had in reading the article vanished at: “impoverishing myself to maintain my ex’s and our children’s standard of living.”

        What a victim.

        “Like many divorced couples, my ex and I tell very different stories of our break-up… but as you can see from the comments after my account, many people insist that I lied throughout my relationship — because I’m transgender.”

        Confirmed victim. I don’t know about anyone else because I can’t be bothered checking comments on his posts, however I strongly doubt people think he’s lying because he’s transgender. How oblivious can a person be??? It’s so typical of him to correlate like that, and only serves to reinforce his lack of credibility re what happened with his ex-wife Christine.

      • GallusMag Says:

        He is a terrible writer.

    • Marie-France Lesage Says:

      I can’t believe this dude thinks he has ANY credibility left.

      He’s certainly not fooling me.

      These heterosexual male “trans women” are so freaking histrionic that it sets my teeth on edge. How could any rational, sane doctor enable this crap?

  48. Marie-France Lesage Says:

    “I did point out (correctly) that Ms. Benvenuto’s fears that my transition would psychologically damage the children were exaggerated, and that they would be much more hurt if I killed myself, which is what I would have to do if I couldn’t live as who I was.”

    Histrionics 101, Jay. Threatening suicide if you don’t get to play gender games full time? Manipulating and coercing everyone around you to play along? Do you listen to yourself? Really?

    “If you don’t enable my delusions of gender I’m going to kill myself and then you’ll be sorry.”

    Well THAT sounds sane, mature and reasonable.

    Goddess wept.

    • GallusMag Says:

      I LOL’ed where he said he no longer appeared male. Jesus these dumb bastards. Some of these guys (most?) are so entitled that they actually think they “pass as female”. LOOK at the guy:

      Jesus. Male privilege at work. You see post after post by M2T’s saying “What is it about children?! How do children always “clock” me?!” DUH. EVERYONE CLOCKS YOU. Adults are just too polite to say anything.

      • sylvie Says:

        “Some of these guys (most?) are so entitled that they actually think they “pass as female””

        Yeah I really don’t get that. As you say, it’s the entitlement – must be clouding their ability to fathom reality. I would say good sense, however I doubt they ever had any to begin with.

    • sylvie Says:

      ““If you don’t enable my delusions of gender I’m going to kill myself and then you’ll be sorry.”

      Well THAT sounds sane, mature and reasonable.”

      Oh my gosh! I hadn’t read that far, I gave up after the first paragraph because it was already getting to be too much of an emotional blackmailing guilt trip as it was.

      What an EXTREMELY toxic person Mr Landin is. I feel so sorry for Christine being married to a person so… Awful. I’m relieved for her getting out of that marriage, and feel sad she’s still chained to that wanker and his bullshit. Ugh.

    • anon male Says:

      I thought good liberals believed in suicide, including doctor assisted suicide? Why do they expect us to act like obedient catholics and shrink at the threat? If body modification is fine, then so is suicide: your body, your choice, man.

      And why should society recognize one kind of body mod (trans) even as we’re supposed to ignore any other kind of body mod and treat them like they’re not there?

      I know a 30 something dude who is fucking[over] an 18 year old girl (chronically homeless since she was 15) who whines he can’t get a job in a small midwest city because of his fugly ass neck tattoo he chose to get between jail stints. [For him, I certainly recommend suicide. The young woman is back on the street because of him.] Why is society supposed to not notice (aka judge) his body mod but notice and affirm someone else’s mod even if it’s a sex change — or increasingly, just a bad wig and hormones — and then treat them differently because of it?

      Fuck different standards. Sex changes should be legal (for adults with cash), something rude to comment on unless in admiration even if they’re completely stupid (like ear gauges), should not result in employment or other kinds of discrimination, but should not be proof of anything legally or politically either. That should be the good liberal position.

      But if SRS is to be recognized, then discrimination against people with stupid body mods should be legal. Let the hipster scene tear itself apart over the contradiction.


  49. From what I understand from somebody who actually knows Christine Benvenuto, Ladin has pretty much done nothing to support her and the kids and it was really Christine that was impoverished and struggling to stay in her home. I trust my source on this as someone of great integrity. Ladin went off traveling around the world becoming a cause celebre for other transnazis while Christine lived in poverty for years. Got no idea if she’s still poor. Seems to me that if you want to know the truth, just read what Ladin says and reverse it.


  50. […] place home?" Read more about the harassment and censorship of memoirist Christine Benvenuto HERE: https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/censored-by-trans-activists-staying-in-the-same-town-a…   . Posted by GallusMag Filed in Censorship, Feminism, Gender, Women 3 Comments […]


  51. […] has been censored and harassed (police being called during one bookstore reading incident) after publication of her […]

  52. pantypopo Says:

    Reblogged this on OUT of My Panties, Now!!! and commented:
    Does this narcissism and anger sound familiar to you?


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: