The Right to “Gender Identity” : A Clash with the Rights of Women – submission to the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill – Professor Sheila Jeffreys

January 12, 2013

Submission to the public consultation on the Human

Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 21 December


From: Professor Sheila Jeffreys, School of Social and Political Sciences,

University of Melbourne. Author of a number of book chapters and refereed

journal articles on transgender politics and law.

The right to ‘gender identity’: a clash with the rights of women

This submission addresses the addition of a new ‘protected attribute’ in the

Human Rights Bill, that of ‘gender identity’. The protected attribute of ‘sex’,

under which women are protected from discrimination, is still in the list, but

adding the new category of ‘gender identity’, could potentially create a clash of

rights between male-bodied transgenders on the one hand, and those

disadvantaged on the grounds of sex, women. In other jurisdictions, such

legislation has seen the emergence of successful legal challenges in which

malebodied transgenders have sought access to spaces previously reserved for

women, including women’s services such as sheltered housing, women’s toilets

and women’s prisons.



The demands of transgender activists to have ‘gender identity’ included in

human rights legislation were first articulated in detail in the US in the 1995

International Bill of Transgender Rights (Frye, 2000). It demanded the right to

express the ‘gender identity’ of choice in whatever way the exponent desired,

particularly in any spaces previously reserved for women. An important right in

the Bill is that of entering spaces set aside by or for women, ‘The Right of

Access to Gendered Space and Participation in Gendered Activity’ (Frye, 2000:


Since then, equality and human rights legislation has been updated and created

in states across the western world that incorporates the ‘right’ to express ‘gender

identity’. Women’s and feminist groups are not invited to contribute to

consultation on such changes as if they would have nothing relevant to say,

despite the fact that men may, under such legislation, gain the right to be

recognised in law as ‘women’. Women are the ‘absent referent’, not officially

referred to, despite the fact that it is ‘women’ that the majority of those persons

who wish to express their ‘gender rights’ seek to emulate. There is no

suggestion in legislation advancing a right to gender identity that women will be

included in or advantaged by the developments. Rather, in an increasingly

vigorous feminist challenge, critics argue that such legislation creates two

singular difficulties for women’s interests (Brennan and Hungerford, 2011). It

removes the possibility of women only spaces, and it promotes gender

stereotypes that have long been recognised by feminist theorists as the basic

organising mechanism of male domination (MacKinnon, 1989; Jeffreys, 2005).

The definition of gender identity in the Australian 2012 Draft legislation clashes

with protections on the basis of sex, through a confusion of the two categories.


Gender identity will cover people, ‘born as one sex who identify as another

sex’, in other words it is a mental condition. There is no requirement that to

acquire protection on the grounds of gender identity, a person should have

embarked upon hormonal or surgical treatment to change ‘gender’. Indeed it

does seem likely to cover both those men who cross-dress occasionally, or on

the weekend, as well as those who do so on a more permanent basis. Women’s

need for sex-segregated spaces that offer protection for women’s dignity and

privacy, and which take account of the vulnerabilities that women suffer in a

society in which too many men are violent towards women and girls, has

generally been recognised in exceptions to anti-discrimination legislation. The

right to gender identity, however, has the potential to void this protection. 

The retrogressive nature of the idea of ‘gender identity’

Feminist critics argue that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is founded upon

stereotypes of gender, and, in international law, gender stereotypes are

recognised as being in contradiction to the interests of women. The idea of

‘gender identity’ is retrogressive. It depends upon the notion that there can be an

‘essence’ of gender in a person of one sex, that more clearly approximates to the

‘gender’ that is expected of the other sex. Feminists and researchers for many

years now have challenged the idea that there is an essential behaviour of

‘femininity’ for example, that is appropriate for women. The importance

attributed to the elimination of these stereotypes is exemplified in the wording

of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All forms of

Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which feminists advocated for

throughout the 1970s until its promulgation in 1979. Article 5 of CEDAW calls

upon States Parties, to ‘take all appropriate measures’ to ‘To modify the social


and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving

the elimination of prejudice and customary and all other practices which are

based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on

stereotyped roles for men and women’ (United Nations, 1979: Article 5).

‘Stereotyped roles’ are, according to feminist critics of the practice, the very

foundation and sine qua non of transgenderism, and the notion of ‘gender

identity’. Whilst women and feminists seek to unwrap the boa constrictor of

gender roles from around the necks of women and girls, the notion of ‘gender

identity’ supports and maintains them.

Women’s spaces

In this submission I shall concentrate on two contexts in which the admission of

men wishing to express their gender rights directly conflicts with the rights of

women: women’s toilets and women’s prisons.

Women’s toilets

Under the right to gender identity, male-bodied persons, in many cases with

penises intact, are likely to be permitted to enter women’s toilets. A situation

that has arisen in the US in October 2012, in relation to male-bodied

transgenders entering women’s toilets, may be instructive as to what may

transpire in Australia. In this case, a 45 year old person born male, thrice

married, the father of five children, possessed of intact male genitalia, and who

lived as a man until 2009, Colleen Francis, has established the right to use the


sauna in the women’s locker room at Evergreen State College (Golgowski,

2012). The locker room is used by the girls from two neighbouring high schools

and some parents complained that this male bodied person was naked in the

locker room in the presence of their girl children. The college said that it had

legally to protect Colleen’s right to be naked in the women’s locker room,

directed the girls to a smaller, less adequate facility and then put up a curtain in

the main locker room saying the girls could change behind it. In this case,

Colleen’s right to ‘identify’ trumped the rights of those born and raised female.

Men who do not cross-dress commit serious offences against women when they

are able to enter women’s toilets, and these include taking photographs of

women urinating and defecating for circulation on upskirts sites on the Internet,

rape and assault. Unfortunately, men who dress in clothing more usually

associated with women are not immune from the commission of similar

offences. There are a quite surprising number of cases in which men wearing

women’s clothing have been arrested for engaging in behaviour in women’s

toilets that harms women. The range of acts they engage in includes secret

photographing of women using the toilets and showers, peeping at women from

adjacent stalls or under stall dividers, demanding that women recognise them as

women and becoming aggressive if women do not, luring children into

women’s toilets in order to assault them, and sexual assault.

In a British case, a man dressed up as a ‘mannequin with a mask and a wig’ to

enter a cubicle in the women’s toilets in a shopping mall, where he ‘performed’

an unspecified ‘sexual act’ (Ninemsn staff, 2011). The 22 year old man told

police he ‘found the sound of women on the toilet sexually exciting’. The man

had filmed women’s feet from beneath cubicle doors on his mobile phone, and

recorded the sound of a flushing toilet. In another case, a man dressed as a


woman was observed peeping at women and using a cell phone to photograph

them in a UC Berkeley women’s locker room (Rufus, 2010). In a Little Rock,

Arkansas, case, a 39-year-old man wearing women’s clothing was arrested after

exposing himself and masturbating in front of three children and trying to lure

them into the women’s bathroom (CW Arkansas, 2010).

Male sex offenders can use women’s clothing to make their access to children

easier. In Oregon, a registered sex offender dressed as a woman entered the

women’s locker room at a swimming baths and talked with several children

before being apprehended (KATU, 2011). In this incident, the 39 year old man,

‘put on a bra, lipstick and eyeliner’ and entered the ‘Aquatic park’ where he,

‘wandered around the center talking with children, went in the women’s locker

room and took a dip in the hot tub’. This man had a history of entering women’s

locker rooms in women’s clothing, as well as a conviction for sexual abuse. He

was listed as a “predatory” sex offender who targeted girls aged between five

and nine years old.

It is not possible to know whether these are male-bodied persons who consider

that they are expressing a ‘gender identity’, or just men adopting women’s

clothing in order to facilitate their access to women and children, but the

problem of allowing persons with male bodies to enter women’s toilets persists

in either case. The cases covered here are likely to represent a fraction of the

situations in which male-bodied persons, dressed in clothing stereotypically

associated with women, enter women’s toilets for various forms of sexual

satisfaction. Usually women are unaware that they are being recorded or



Women’s prisons

Women’s prisons are another space that male-bodied persons are seeking the

legal right to enter in order to express their ‘gender identity’. Male prisoners in

western countries are using human rights laws successfully to gain access to

transgender treatment at public expense in prison, and the right to then transfer

to the women’s estate. The men who are being given the right to live alongside

women in prison are often precisely those who are most violent and dangerous

to women’s safety, having been convicted of grave crimes, including the murder

of women.

In Australia, thus far, there has been no successful case in which a male-bodied

offender has been placed in a women’s prison in order to express a ‘gender

identity’. But there have been cases in which such demands have been made. A

case where permission to transgender was refused, concerned Australian serial

killer, Paul Denyer. Denyer killed three young women in bayside suburbs of

Melbourne, over 7 weeks in 1993. He sought, during his sentence, to ‘wear

make-up in jail, have a taxpayer-funded sex change and formally alter his name

by deed poll to Paula’ (Dunn, 2012). In July 2012 it was reported that police

were investigating four alleged rapes by Denyer of men with intellectual

disabilities who were fellow inmates. The Denyer case illustrates the problems

that might occur in the recognition of violent male criminals as ‘women’ and

their transfer to women’s facilities. There is no reason that a belief that they are

‘women’ will alter such men’s tendencies to engage in a form of sexual

violence which is specifically and clearly male.


In another Australian case, in 2012, Derek Lulu Sinden was refused permission

in the Queensland courts to start hormone treatment for gender identity disorder.

The Queensland Corrections Department argued that the refusal was consistent

with its policy of only supplying hormones to men who started to take them

before entering the prison system (Smith, 2012). Sinden had been convicted of

an attack on Beryl Grace Brown, 71, in April 1999, in her home, which caused

her to suffer a heart attack and fatal stroke.

In other jurisdictions, male bodied persons have acquired the right to hormones

and surgery in order to express their ‘gender identity’ in prison. The question of

transfer to a women’s prison is intertwined with such decisions. In 2009, an

appeal from an unnamed male prisoner in the UK to be moved to a women’s

prison was successful. The petitioner in this case was found guilty in 2001 of

the manslaughter of his male lover who was strangled with a pair of tights,

allegedly for refusing to fund the murderer’s sex change surgery. He was

sentenced to five years imprisonment. Five days after his release he attempted

to rape a female stranger and was sent back to prison (Allen, 2009). In order to

obtain gender reassignment surgery, the prisoner was told that he must engage

in the real life test, that is, 2 years living as a woman, in a women’s prison. The

women in the prison where he was to be housed were not to be told of his

identity or of his offence. His lawyer told the court that the crimes were all

linked to ‘a desperation to become a woman’. The judge declared that ‘her

continued detention in a male prison is in breach of her rights under Article 8

[the right to private and family life] under the European Convention on Human

Rights’. Unfortunately, there seems to be no acknowledgement here of the more


serious and pressing right of women to avoid being compulsorily housed with

violent men. The notion of human rights is trivialised thereby.

In response to the judgement, new guidelines were issued for the treatment of

prisoners seeking gender reassignment in UK prisons in March 2011, which

enabled prisoners to have treatment and to be located in women’s prisons. The

guidelines state, ‘A male to female transsexual person with a gender recognition

certificate may be refused location in the female estate only on security grounds

– in other words, only when it can be demonstrated that other women with an

equivalent security profile would also be held in the male estate’ (Ministry of

Justice, 2011). Gender recognition certificates in the UK can be obtained

without any need for hormonal or surgical treatment.


Persons of one biological sex who consider that they have a ‘gender identity’

stereotypically associated with the other sex do suffer discrimination and need

protection. A problem arises, however, when ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ are confused, to

the extent that male-bodied persons gain a right to enter spaces set aside for

women. In such a case, a clash of rights is created. Persons who wish to express

a gender identity not usually stereotypically associated with their biological sex

need to be accommodated in ways that protect them, but do not conflict with the

rights of women.



* That there should be a recognition in the legislation that possession of a

mental ‘gender identity’ is quite different from ‘sex’.

* That the legislation should be constructed in a way that does not allow a malebodied

person to have a right of entry to spaces that need to be women only (i.e.

female only) for the purposes of security, privacy, dignity or in order to enable

members of that group that suffers discrimination on the grounds of sex, to meet

separately for political purposes.


Allen, Vanessa (2009, 5 September). Transsexual killer and attempted rapist wins ‘human

rights’ battle to be moved to women’s prison. London: The Daily



Brennan, Cathy and Hungerford, Elizabeth (2011). “Gender identity” legislation and the

erosion of sex-based legal protections for females.


CW Arkansas (2010, 10 March). Friends of man arrested for sexual indecency are



Dunn, Mark (2012, 26 July). Serial killer Paul Denyer quizzed on four jail rapes in six weeks.

Melbourne: Herald Sun.


Frye, Phyllis (2000). The International Bill of Gender Rights v. Cider House Rules

International Bill of Gender Rights. William and Mary College Journal of Women and the

Law. Vol. 7 (6). 133.


Golgowski, Nina (2012, 4 November). Parents’ outrage as transgendered woman is permitted

to use the women’s locker room ‘exposing himself to little girls’. UK: Daily Mail.


Jeffreys, Sheila (2005). Beauty and Misogyny: harmful cultural practices in the west.

London: Routledge.

KATU Communities Staff (2011, 6 July). Detective: Man dressed as woman went into pool

locker room. Milwaukie Katu.


Mackinnon, Catharine A. (1989). Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA,

USA: Harvard University Press.

Ninemsn Staff (2011, 18 April). Man dressed as mannequin found in mall toilet. Australia:

Nine News.


Rufus, Anneli (2010, 12 October). Cross-Dressing Peeper Infiltrates Cal Women’s Locker

Room. California, USA: East Bay Express.


Smith, Anthony (2012, 25 July). ‘Granny-killer’ refused hormones in prison. Gay News




[Complete list of submissions and DOWNLOAD PDF HERE- Number 408]

26 Responses to “The Right to “Gender Identity” : A Clash with the Rights of Women – submission to the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill – Professor Sheila Jeffreys”

  1. Marie-France Lesage Says:

    “Whilst women and feminists seek to unwrap the boa constrictor of gender roles from around the necks of women and girls, the notion of ‘gender identity’ supports and maintains them.”

    Exactly! Very well said.

    I just want to shout at every genderist on earth:

    Keep your fricking gender obsession away from me! I have a SEX. It’s in my DNA. I do NOT have a gender. That’s sexist, woman-destroying, female denigrating crap and I want nothing to do with it.

    I am female, not feminine. I am a woman, not a gender role stereotype.

    These are real breasts, not bags of silicone. They make milk. They were designed by millions of years of evolution for one purpose: to feed human young. My bloody womb bloody well bled every month for forty years! That is exactly the way that nature made me and every other woman on earth.

    I’m a female member of the mammalian species homo sapiens sapiens. Back the fuck off, dudes in drag. Your gender games make a mockery of who and what I am, what my mother and sisters are, what my thousands of grandmothers and great-grandmothers were.

  2. Marie-France Lesage Says:

    ” * That there should be a recognition in the legislation that possession of a
    mental ‘gender identity’ is quite different from ‘sex’.

    * That the legislation should be constructed in a way that does not allow a malebodied person to have a right of entry to spaces that need to be women only (i.e. female only) for the purposes of security, privacy, dignity or in order to enable members of that group that suffers discrimination on the grounds of sex, to meet separately for political purposes.”


    The fact that some confused creature believes that his “lady stick” belongs in the girls loo doesn’t make it so.

    Women wanting to meet together in private to share our experiences with one-another and organize against our oppression as women is NOT sexist or discriminatory against males in mascara and tights.

  3. loveangellove Says:

    Reblogged this on loveangellove.

  4. karmarad Says:

    Cogent and thoughtful submission. Professor Jeffries is deservedly considered a leader in this important area of women’s rights. This must not be ignored.

  5. Beth Says:

    I really loved this.

    The accusations of transphobia can’t be spewed at this piece. She says that discrimination against trans should not be accepted and that they should have protections too. She didn’t deny them as people, she merely expressed concerns with the issue of female rights being eroded.
    I want to print this and frame it.

    • Nan Says:

      Um, Brennan has said the same thing. Repeatedly. It makes no difference. The insane trans thugs will go after her just as they did Brennan and they will dismiss her support of civil rights as a “diversionary tactic.”

      • Beth Says:

        I know Brennan said that same thing in her letter to the UN. I thought that was brilliant as well. I did notice, despite not dehumanising them or watering down trans concerns, she still got shit for it.

        I also noticed in my argument about trans in the bathroom on the Julie Burchill article that my concerns about “cis” men abusing the privilege was met with “we just want to use the bathroom”, “you’re crazy” and “men won’t undergo HRT just to abuse women”. Even though I did quite clearly state I don’t think MtT’s would hurt me, it was ignored.

      • GallusMag Says:

        There were two UN submissions on Gender Identity. One in 2011 and one in 2012. The 2011 submission was co-authored by Catherine Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford. The 2012 submission was authored by Elizabeth Hungerford.

  6. tufhjgjyhy Says:

    Whoever wrote that forgot about female’s sports.

  7. […] I posted the text of Professor Sheila Jeffeys’ submission to the Human Rights and Anti-Discriminat… […]

  8. GallusMag Says:

    As some of you may know, my posting access to my GenderTrender blog was suspended at the end of the business day on Friday January 18. My last post, on Friday morning, was a collection of screen caps: a random sampling of the abusive and threatening tweets directed at Suzanne Moore following her “SEEING RED: THE POWER OF FEMALE ANGER” article re-publication.

    Prior to Friday morning’s post I did five controversial posts in succession:

    1.) I outed an MD and Phd who threatened to murder a bunch of radical feminists, also specifically targeting myself and Cathy Brennan. 1/10/2013 FRI

    2.) I posted the text of Professor Sheila Jeffeys’ submission to the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 1/12/2013 SUN

    3.) I posted the entire text (and published imagery) of Julie Burchill’s “Transsexuals Should Cut it Out”, which was subsequently censored in toto by the Guardian/Observer and for which she is now facing a government criminal inquiry. 1/13/2013 MON

    4.) I posted commentary and photos and a partial re-blog of Dirt’s article calling out the racism and homophobia at the core of the initial trans response to Suzanne Moore’s use of the term “Brazillian transsexual” in her “SEEING RED: THE POWER OF FEMALE RAGE” article. 1/16/2013 THURS

    5.) I posted a video of Precious “Jewel” Davis, a (self-professed) gay drag queen who recently “turned trans” from the “We Happy Trans” project . 1/16/2013 THURS

    What a week!

    My blog is “newsy”. When things are going on, I post them. And there is a lot going on right now. Specifically, there is a peak of public discourse around the feminist critique of gender. We have about a week before the general public becomes bored with this topic (as they do with all topics). Right now, this discourse is peaking- into the mainstream- in a way I’m not sure it has ever done before. This is a critical time.

    Some of you have taken issue with the language Julie Burchill used in her now criminalized article and claim her bombastic tone has undermined the message. As if there was EVER a platform for that “message”. Suzanne Moore wasn’t “bombastic” and look what the fuck happened to her! Some of you have actively taken steps to discredit Burchill or distance yourself from her. Must step lightly, you say. Throw her off the boat! Backstabbing is a pointless discussion to have at this point. Clearly the trans politic is seizing the moment to re-frame their violent suppression of feminist – of WOMENS and LESBIAN voices- as an anguished “what about the menzzzz” cry to promote further censorship and no-platforming of feminist gender critiques, but remember, that is the same tact they use whether you are rude or polite. The polite Conway Hall feminist conference was no-platformed by the MRA/Trans alliance with terrorist bombing and murder threats. Mainstream feminist discourse has been taken over by males in an “oh so polite” way- backed up by threats of rape and death. Feminists who have tried to discourse with the trans politic have been- at best- mocked and distained. Whether you give an inch or a mile. Burchill simply chose to take on the abuse in stead of her friend Suzanne Moore. Julie is not a stupid woman. She has lanced a boil. That boil is the silencing of feminist voices by the transgender lobby. Whether that wound heals or encapsulates will be determined by our response. She has directed attention to this issue by throwing herself on a pyre into the angry mob. Immolation. That Burchill broad kicks some balls and goes down swinging. And where the fuck are you?

    Let’s not waste this opportunity, shall we? We have the world’s attention. LET US SPEAK.

    Unfortunately for me at GenderTrender, my voice has been silenced now by my website host at

    Yesterday Janet Mock of People Magazine, (he of “Girls Like Us” fame), decided to start a campaign against my blog. Early Friday morning (before my Suzanne Moore Tweet post) I became aware of a censorship campaign against GenderTrender, and all wordpress radical feminist blogs. There have been a million of these campaigns, but Mock is a very powerful man.
    Mock initially became enraged when he read my post (Number 4 above) and saw a photo of himself, and “misgendering” (because it mentioned that he was male) and decided that women have no right to discuss or post photos of public figures on feminist blogs. Instead of filing a complaint with wordpress or messaging me with his demands (or just shutting the fuck up) he started a twitter campaign to ban my blog which was quickly seized by trans activists smelling blood in the water following their successful censorship of Burchill and success in driving Suzanne Moore off of twitter. All the usual suspects came on board within minutes: Hetero female “fag” Stephen Ira, Lefty “TGirl” inventor of the ladystick Savanna Garmon, Transfeminist Natalie “Die cis scum” Reed and all the rest. NO DISCUSSION of TRANS ACTIVISM by WOMEN they railed. GAG THESE BITCHES.

    When I did not notice Mock’s campaign (because I never check my tweets and I was sleeping) he engaged his pals to post news articles complaining about’s hosting of gender critical and trans-critical blogs. The proposed banning of all female voices re: politics relating to gender, especially mine. I took action when I became aware of Mock’s campaign, specifically his charge that the public news-site photo I had used was off limits. To placate his male rage I replaced that pic with an alternate screen cap from another (NBC) appearance, and I kindly tweeted him that I had resolved his photo issue. Seriously, these guys literally think they can lobby on the national news and women have no right to discuss it. HOW DARE IT SPEAK???

    I posted a few of the Suzanne Moore tweets, went to work, and when I came home my blog had TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND hits. And I was LOCKED OUT by

    I now have NO WAY to POST on MY OWN BLOG due to It’s all well and good for feminists to have blogs and such that are gender critical, as long as no one is paying attention to them. You can post the most intelligent, elegant legal critique of the ways “Gender Identity” status negatively impacts woman AS LONG AS NO ONE READS IT. AS LONG AS NO ONE IS LISTENING. Women can have their tiny corners, their sekret cabals AS LONG AS NO ONE IS READING. Let the gals blow off steam in dark corners on Facebook. As long as it doesn’t hit the mainstream. Let the edumacated upper class folks have their little talks that no one finds interesting or engaging. But god forbid feminist voices start being heard en masse. God Forbid Julie Burchill says what EVERY FUCKING WOMAN ON EARTH IS THINKING. GOD FORBID Trans Media Watch cites GenderTrender as a SOURCE in the women vs. gender discourse.

    Someone said this as a comment on my blog recently, much better than I’m about to mis-quote, but it was basically that the transgender politic around the social hierarchy of the sexes is so utterly flimsy that it can tolerate no critique whatsoever from women, and as a male-centric philosophy the realities of female experience CANNOT be tolerated., hosted by Automattic, has prevented me from posting this on the blog I have built up from the ground against all odds. And Gosh who cares about that? Who cares about Bindel and Greer and Jeffreys and Brennan and Moore and Benvenuto and Burchill? We still have our little corners where they can’t silence us. Keep voices hushed. Avert your eyes, sisters. Let’s spectate.

    IF YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANY OF THIS – and I know many of you DO, I encourage you to RAISE A HOLY FUCKING SHITSTORM about the silencing of feminists who critique GENDER and PLASTIC SURGERY and MUTILATION and RAPE and FREEDOM FROM THE PEEN and ETC ETC ETC.

    I mean this literally: SPEAK NOW or FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE.
    Have a blog? UPDATE IT TODAY with a focus on FREEDOM OF SPEECH for women. COMPLAIN about death threats on women- and NOT to your “friends” on Facebook. COMPLAIN about CENSORSHIP of women. Call the fucking news agency. Call ten fucking friends to meet on Tuesday night to set out a goal-oriented political action plan to support freedom of speech for women. ASSERT the right for women to DISCUSS POLITICS even if those public figures are “TRANS GENDER”. Make that lame fucking account so you can leave that comment on that awful news story. Take action every single fucking day. But ESPECIALLY TODAY. It’s time to say NO to the censoring of women- even if they are more (or less!) plain-spoken than you would like.

    You liked GenderTrender, you counted on me- well I have been ELIMINATED. Fucking GAGGED because people were listening.

  9. […] Women who question the notion that men (or Male to Constructed Female trans folk) have the right to redefine what Female IS, without ever consulting ACTUAL FEMALES, are being silenced, threatened, and deleted out of current discussion, in the same way that their sex is being denied out of existence by current Trans Theory and Politics, and the subsequent laws which are increasingly denying their rights. […]

  10. Ah….. Patriarchy in the disguise of postmodernism!

  11. Reblogged this on feministesvegetalien and commented:
    It really irks me! ………………..

  12. […] Gallus Mag’s comment/post on her blog yesterday, giving a round up of some of the events: […]

  13. gypsyrose1972 Says:

    Yeah, that’s a lie. She asked you to stop using her copyrighted martial and you said no. She then DMCA’d you and WP responded according to their DMCA policy.

    You’ve nobody to blame but yourself. Such crocodile tears!

    You weren’t “silenced” – you broke the law and this is what happened. Next time, don’t break the law.

    • GallusMag Says:


      lame-ass liar

      • michelle Says:

        would you expect anything less from Mr. Williams? He couldn’t tell the truth to save his life…everything that one posts is a contorted and distorted narrative to fit his world view.

  14. doublevez Says:

    Not lost on me that the authors of the last two hits are both 1.) males pretending to be women, and 2.) in high paying IT jobs.

    I’d like to correct EVERYONE here about one thing. Neither Gallus or any of the other radical feminists have been “silenced”.

    They have been ATTACKED. Their property has been damaged and stolen, and they’re energy diverted for a short time to deal with the criminal acts against them, and us.

    But SILENCED??? LOL. .

    Good to see you back. We all knew it was just a question of time. That commodity that women seem to have inestimable and continually replenishing supplies of. (snerk).

  15. doublevez Says:


  16. Bev Jo Says:

    Welcome home, Gallus Mag, our courageous champion! XOXOXOX

  17. […] Trans dogma says that nobody’s ‘gender identity’ can ever be questioned, making it easy for male sexual predators to use ‘gender identity’ as an tool for accessi… […]

  18. Brunhilda Says:

    Yay! Originally, (about 3 weeks ago) I started out as someone who was confused by the concept of transgenderism/transsexualism (‘why does wearing a dress make you female?’ etc.) based on what I knew.
    After actually reading the literature (various Radfem blogs, as well as non-Radfem blogs, to compare the logic, or lack thereof), I am now a radfem.

  19. […] gender non-conforming children for chemical castration and a lifetime of medical intervention, or ‘trans inclusive’ guidelines that make it too easy for an abusive man to get into women …), but what I wish to discuss here is how trans theory offers a model of ‘oppression’ […]

  20. Sketcher Says:

    Where have I been these past 15 years? I thought we’d won it in the 80s. Yes,I will set up a blog, and fight, and discuss. Sheila Jeffreys’ application was the most thoughtful, fair and rational argument and still, it’s not being listened to. Human Rights Commission? Men’s Rights Commission.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: