Janet Mock on the “Underground Railroad” into Child Prostitution for Transgender Youth- and why he thinks that’s a good thing.

February 2, 2014

Gay Male Janet Mock thinks child prostitution is "empowering"

Gay Male Janet Mock thinks child prostitution is “empowering”

A sense of community, sisterhood, resiliency, resources, strength. It was like our underground railroad of resources to navigate a system not built for us. And for me that’s what sex work gave me.”- Janet Mock on his child prostitution experience.

Janet Mock says child prostitution is “liberatory” and “empowering” for transgender children in an article and series of videos he published this week. He describes an “underground railroad” of adult males that introduce transgender minors, including himself, into sexual relations with adult men for pay, which he celebrates as “making us feel desired”.

It is hard to imagine a public figure celebrating child prostitution and publicly testifying to personal knowledge of an “underground railroad” that coveys minors into sexual acts with adults without –at the very least- being questioned by the FBI. But in this case it is supposedly different, because transgender children are different.

According to trans activist and author Janet Mock (whose adopted name, he explains, is a reference to his desire to emulate musician Janet Jackson) sexual exploitation is not a bad thing for transgender children because an innate desire to experience sexual exploitation is, according to him, intrinsic to the condition of transgender males who want to be perceived as female.

Some excerpts from Mock’s blog and vlog:

***
I was 15 the first time I visited Merchant Street, what some would call “the stroll” for trans women involved in street-based sex work. At the time, I had just begun medically transitioning and it was where younger girls, like my friends and myself, would go to hang out, flirt and fool around with guys and socialize with older trans women, the legends of our community.

The majority of the women I idolized engaged in the sex trades at some time or another – some dabbled in video cam work and pornography, others chose street-based work and dancing at strip clubs (an option reserved for those most often perceived as cis). These women were the first trans women I met, and I quickly correlated trans womanhood and sex work.

I perceived the sex trades as a rite of passage, something a trans girl had to do in order to make the money necessary to support herself. I had also learned (from media, our laws and pop culture) that sex work is shameful and degrading.

Sex work is heavily stigmatized, whether one goes into it by choice, coercion or circumstance. Sex workers are often dismissed, causing even the most liberal folk, to dehumanize, devalue and demean women who are engaged in the sex trades. This pervasive dehumanization of women in the sex trades leads many to ignore the silencing, brutality, policing, criminalization and violence sex workers face, even blaming them for being utterly damaged, promiscuous, and unworthy.

So because I learned that sex work is shameful, and I correlated trans womanhood and sex work, I was taught that trans womanhood is shameful. This belief system served as the base of my understanding of self as a trans girl, and I couldn’t separate it from my own body image issues, my sense of self, my internalized shame about being trans, brown, poor, young, woman.

Though I yearned to be among women like myself, I also judged them for doing work that I swore at 15 I could never do. The work and those women didn’t fit my pedestal perched Clair Huxtable portrait of womanhood.

Yet my economic hurdles were real and urgent, and I couldn’t deny that witnessing the women of Merchant Street take their lives into their own hands, empowered me. Watching these women every weekend gathered in sisterhood and community, I learned firsthand about body autonomy, about resilience and agency, about learning to do for yourself in a world that is hostile about your existence.

These women taught me that nothing was wrong with me or my body and that if I wanted they would show me the way, and it was this underground railroad of resources created by low-income, marginalized women, that enabled me when I was 16 to jump in a car with my first regular and choose a pathway to my survival and liberation.

———————————— 

“I did work at other places while I was doing sex work. So for me, I worked at a clothing store, I worked at a fast food place, I worked at boutiques and all these kind of things, you know. But nothing would compare to the check that comes from being a sex worker. That money was quick. Quick money enabled me to do things more quickly. And for me my body issues, my body image issues, the way I felt about myself- those were urgent matters. And for me frankly at that time as a seventeen, eighteen year old there was no waiting another year for things. I needed them now. And so for me yeah, there is this shame attached and a stigma attached to being a sex worker for me, but there’s also the other things I got from that. A sense of community, sisterhood, resiliency, resources, strength. It was like our underground railroad and resources to navigate a system not built for us. And for me that’s what sex work gave me.”

———————————————————————

When sexologist Michael Bailey published “The Man Who Would Be Queen” which reviewed decades of research on male transgenderism- he was pilloried by transgender activists for publicizing the obvious sex-role basis of male transgender identity. Transgender for males is an embrasure of the sexualized role imposed on females, while transgender for females is an attempt to escape that same role. A photo of Bailey’s five-year-old daughter was obtained by trans activist Andrea James who posted it on the Transsexual Roadmap website captioned: “cocksucker”. Activists hastily set up a panel to denounce both the book and its author.

But the demonized Bailey never in a million years suggested that adopting female sex-roles meant that pedophilia or child prostitution was good for anyone. Janet Mock does exactly that: and is celebrated by the transgender community for doing so.

When 16-year-old Cassidy Lynn was in headlines recently as “the first transgender high school homecoming queen” the media never reported on his sexual exploitation by adult males, even though it was quite public and came up on a cursory internet name search. Cassidy quit school apparently to pursue his involvement in these activities, which we know because he posted about it at length, including multiple video blogs, but the mainstream media deliberately chose not to report. The transgender community also maintained silence, presumably because the truth might undermine the wholesomeness of the “girl-next-door” homecoming queen narrative for the transgender political agenda. But it’s more than just the transgender community turning a blind eye.

As Janet Mock shows us, because the transgender movement frames exploitation as “affirming” of a male sexual identity based on female sexual roles, it therefore considers sexual exploitation a “liberatory”, and “affirming” experience, even for minors.

Janet Mock is a former People Magazine online editor and graduate school alumni of the NYU School of Journalism. When not promoting child prostitution as an affirming experience for transgender youth he promotes his book, “Fish Food”. “Fish” is the transgender community word for actual women and is a pejorative term for how such men perceive the smell of female genitals. Mock’s book has now been re-titled as “Redefining Realness”. “Realness” is the transgender community word for successfully passing as a member of the opposite sex.

You can read the above cited article “Sex Work Experiences” on his Janet Mock dot com website. GenderTrender does not link directly to sites which promote pedophilia and the sexual exploitation of children.

.

134 Responses to “Janet Mock on the “Underground Railroad” into Child Prostitution for Transgender Youth- and why he thinks that’s a good thing.”

  1. hearthrising Says:

    Has anyone noticed that the Janet Mock narrative has changed over the months? Every time I run across something about JM it’s like a snapshot of a different person.

    • GallusMag Says:

      He is sooo full of shit.

      Pro-prostitution Trans Activist on the Elle Report aint buying what Mock is selling. Not one bit.

      http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theellereport/2014/02/02/ms-janet-mock-under-age-sex-worker-my-inquiry

      at around 15:30-


      “ I just feel like it’s a little… I feel NOW coming out with this “revelation” and coming out with this book, is completely based on her own self interest and her own profit-making ability. But -I don’t have a problem with that. But when you want to call someone an activist and when you want to call someone an advocate: they need to have a cause. And they need to promote that cause. And they need to be transparent and they need to be honest from day one.

      So personally, I feel that I’m a little betrayed because if she would have come out with this four years ago when she first stepped onto the scene, I could have had a lot more respect for her. Me personally, I’ve LOST a lot of respect for her because I feel like she’s wrote this book, she’s come out with this revelation and its simply for her own personal self- interest and to profit off of the trans community. Just like a lot of the other LGBT organizations in this city and in this nation have. So I feel like she is perpetuating the same ideology and propaganda that a lot of these other organizations are perpetuating. You’re not being completely honest about your story, you’re not being completely forthcoming about your story, and that I believe breaks the trust with the community.

      Instead of coming out and saying “Listen, I was in this situation, and I managed to get out of this situation”, and specifically if she would have – what is she doing in her activist role to try to reduce the harm and the risk of the trans sex worker? Or are you just trying to make money off it? Or are you just trying to profit off it like a lot of these other LGBT organizations are? This is MY inquiry. Why are you NOW coming out with this “revelation”? To sell books? To make money? This is my question. Why was this not in the past when you were trying four years ago to develop resources, to help girls NOT END UP IN the sex work industry? Why were you not telling your story then? Why is it NOW are you telling your story. I find it personally, because I looked up to this individual and I was inspired by this story I was led to believe one thing, and it was something completely different. Like my hypothesis, like the hypothesis of other trans individuals that I have spoken to extensively about this subject, we feel, my constituents feel, that their was a degree of deception in this Janet Mock advocacy and her activism.”

      later in the broadcast:

      “Why wasn’t THAT the story in 2011 with your “It gets better” and “Girls like us”? Is it just for a dollar? So that you can make money? And where were your parents when you were running the streets at sixteen? How is it possible that a sixteen year old could be on the streets prostituting themselves and still manage to get good grades -enough to get a scholarship to go to college? I’m not saying it’s impossible. I just want to know how it happened – or “maybe I better buy the book and read it”. But then I have to give you money to get information that I should have access to. And I don’t really feel like a true advocate, a true person who is about “the cause” has to make someone pay for information. Especially when you’re a part of the community. This really upsets me because I feel like in order to create positive change, in order to power-share, we have to have honesty, we have to have transparency. And when people are not honest about their story, when they don’t have enough courage to come out with their story and have that be the platform that they stand on from day one, it makes me have to question everything they do and everything they say.”

      hahahahahaha!


      • Did Janet Mock go to college? Or is this “college” like the ones “Dr Vanderbilt” went to?

        “How is it possible that a sixteen year old could be on the streets prostituting themselves and still manage to get good grades -enough to get a scholarship to go to college?”

        I don’t know much about American schooling or what “good grades” determine scholarships.
        I know a guy who got a full scholarship to the ANU (Australian National University) by achieving an ATAR of 99.95 (highest mark). This guy was the hardest worker I have ever seen, essentially forgo all non school activities to ensure this.

        He also was required to maintain a Distinction average (70-80%) on all assessment items. Come exam time and he is beyond stressed.

        I don’t see how it is possible to be moonlighting as a street walker and still get good grades. It just doesn’t seem plausible. I’m not saying it’s impossible, just very unlikely.

  2. Leila Says:

    It just strikes me that trans women and feminists clash so much because they have entirely different priorities. The priority of feminism is dismantling a patriarchal system that oppresses women, while most trans women mainly want to be seen as women and therefore fully embrace patriarchal norms imposed on women. While we fight against the harm of compulsory femininity, the poverty that overwhelmingly affects women and leads them to engage in survival sex work, etc. trans women view this as affirming and empowering, because what matters is people confirming their identity. It’s the same reason that the Vancouver Rape Relief was sued by Kimberly Nixon. Because who actually cares about the vital services it provides to rape victims? The important thing is validating trans women’s identities.

    and all thing is modern, mainstream feminism apparently. ugh.

    • Adrian Says:

      Yep. The M2T (particularly M2T that are more obviously non-passing) NEED the existence of “femininity” as a costume always forced upon women to be maintained, because it is that “femininity as costume” that allows them to put it on and use it as a shibboleth to get other people to “treat them as women.”

      If we get to a place where clothing is not correlated to assumptions about genitalia, and genitalia is not correlated to assumptions about thinking and mandatory submissiveness, then how will those obviously male-appearing M2T ever get people at the grocery store and wherever else to realize that they want to be called “Ma’am?”

      They put on “femmy” clothing and hope that someone sees the dress and heels and thinks “well, it must be a woman, because men don’t wear heels.” They want to be seen using the women’s room because then people will thinking “well, I was unsure before, but it must be a woman, because men don’t use the women’s room.” The entire game is based on this. This is why that guy who did the sit in in the women’s room at the bar had to do what he did – the bar had a (safe!!!) single-holer “family restroom” they offered him to use, but the whole point is it’s not about “safe peeing” (at least not only that) – it’s about being coded by observers as women and getting that validation.

      Without strict gender boxes, there’s no way to gain any identity from sitting in the “opposite” one.

      And that puts the current 2014 mainstream “born in the wrong body” narrative 180 degrees in opposition to me and my own goals. What’s worse is that those people who are insisting on the rigid gender coding then turn around and try to tell ME that I’m somehow “forcing them to dress femmy” or whatever else because I won’t consider them “women” otherwise.

      Yeah, whatever, dude. I don’t consider the dress to make you a “woman” now either.

      • Yeah Right Says:

        you’re not very nice

      • Nina Says:

        @Yeah Right great comeback. I haven’t 100% decided how I feel about this whole mess but people like you sure don’t give me any pro-trans vibes. Here’s the issue: gender-critical feminists raise reasonable points/questions, and then pro-trans activists call them names (including epithets that treat their womanhood as being bad, or the fact that they are feminist being bad), threaten to rape them, kill them, etc. In this case you’re going to try to invoke the idea that women are supposed to be “nice” all the time, even when people aren’t nice to them. Is that your whole argument? She said that pro-trans activists are trying to preserve and trap women in gender norms so your only rebuttal is to try and trap a woman with a gender norm? Do you even listen to yourself? Adrian is not your mommy. If you think she’s wrong say why you think she’s wrong, don’t just try to push her back into the box. It was a weak effort anyway.

  3. Jane Says:

    A question for feminists who endorse Janet Mock:

    I have seen many feminists of color such as Melissa Harris-Perry and Mikki Kendall complain about the sexualization of young black girls.

    How do you reconcile this with centering a trans woman who describes underage prostitution as “empowering”? How does your unquestioning endorsement of the sex trade benefit young girls of color, or of any color?

    I know working class moms who have a hard time finding non-sexualized girls’ clothing in stores where they can afford to shop. This dovetails with the liberal media pushing the normalization of prostitution through shills like Mock and Melissa Gira Grant. This is all about the corporatocracy and its media wing grooming young women to be self-objectifying whores, and the cultural left is complicit.

    You on the cultural left need to take a hard look at your internal contradictions. Those of us on the real left have had it with your hypocrisy, your greed and your out-of-touch pomo bullshit. Enough with the constant switching between systemic and individualist analyses to protect male entitlement to female bodies and labor.

    Andrea was right. You can’t have your whores and your politics too, assholes.

    • Adrian Says:

      Not a Mock endorser, but just a side comment – on quite a few of the trans blogs I’ve seen, particularly those written by M2T of color, there is an interersting intersection where they consider part of the extra misogyny aimed at black women in particular to be that they often aren’t considered to be “feminine” or somehow historically not considered to be “women” in the same way that white women who were viewed as “frail beings who of course need the protection of men” were.

      Starting from that place, when/if those particular M2T dress in certain “femme” or even sexually revealing ways, and “successfully” find themselves objectified or sexualized by men, it’s a victory of “passing” of sorts, and so they view it as a good and positive thing, more evidence of being accepted as women, real women, because real women attract this type of objectification.

      …if that makes any sense. Coming from that angle, I can sort of see how someone subscribing to that view might indeed find prostitution (or more to the point, being accepted by a punter, chosen as product) to be validating or empowering.

      …which probably takes us back to this idea of the entire “being treated as a woman” involving subjugation.

    • Gertrude Carlyle Says:

      i know right? melissa harris perry is *obsessed* with mock and i predict will have her on her show to talk about this article. and
      she will never see the contradiction in her position.

  4. Jane Says:

    Further evidence that the pro-prostitution movement is a death cult, from the Tumblr of a self-described “junkie ho”, Caty Simon, who incidentally is Melissa Gira Grant’s ex-girlfriend:

    http://marginalutilite.tumblr.com/post/75354003095

    Simon quotes a trans woman’s lecture on the injustice of mandatory HIV-testing for prostitutes:

    Next up, it’s clear that you do not understand how HIV is transmitted. Despite what you may think, HIV is no long a death sentence, it is a chronic condition that, in Canada at least, is relatively manageable with the correct treatment. HIV meds used consistently bring your viral load down to low or undetectable levels. From all of the available scientific research, we know that it is damn near impossible to transmit HIV when your viral load is low or undetectable. It is far, far easier to transmit Hep C than it is to transmit HIV — yet I don’t hear you (or the Government for that matter) freaking out about that.

    {…}

    The real problem here is your AIDSphobic stigmatizing of sex workers and people living with HIV. It’s 2013, get with the program and, in the words of Tumblrs everywhere, check your privileged assumptions. HIV is not a crime, your AIDSphobia ought to be, though.

    Ugh, bigot, why so AIDSphobic? Not like it’s any big deal now.

    • Guls Says:

      Having worked for many years in the HIV healthcare sector I’d like to congratulate Simon on her cynical manipulation of the truth: sure, medicine has improved to the point where being HIV+ is no longer a ‘death sentence’, but the meds are expensive and the side-effects can still be at the very least, inconvenient and at worst seriously debilitating. And she seems to ignore the fact that we’re relatively lucky in the minority world: the general population – never mind ‘sex workers’ in many countries simply don’t have access to these meds. And if testing’s not mandated for high-risk populations; if the outreach programs – often staffed by volunteers – aren’t made available and publicised then the drugs don’t get to the right people: ergo, contracting HIV is still, in effect, a death sentence. And just because a condition is nominally treatable that doesn’t mean acquiring it is desirable, does it?

      As for Mock, it strikes me as remarkable that he can look back wistfully at his time in the sex trade as a valuable opportunity for growth whilst denouncing ‘nasty’ RadFems. Apparently violent abuse is a better teaching tool than intellectual discourse. Bonkers!

      • Jane Says:

        Why should a swingin’, streetwise Western hooker-by-choice care about the spread of treatment-resistant strains of HIV and gonorrhea, or its effect on poorer countries? Sex-poz is not sustainable.

        Melissa Gira Grant, On Whore Stigma and Slut Shaming:

        http://postwhoreamerica.com/on-whore-stigma-and-slut-shaming/

        “Lately I’ve been considering how ‘slut shaming’ grew – unacknowledged – from the experiences and intellectual contributions of sex workers who first identified ‘whore stigma.’ Slut shaming exists now as a critique external to sex worker feminisms and politics, applied mostly by women without sex work experience to describe the loss of social capital they suffer when assumed to be whores. What’s been lost is the centering of people who are marked as whores, in the assumption so common within attempts to resist ‘slut shaming’ that being a whore is the worst thing to happen to you. So long as we cling to that notion of the slut or whore as the ultimate outsider, we reinforce whore stigma. This should be obvious.”

        Oh if only you women would stop clinging to that whorephobia we’ll all be free!

        Once again a libfem places the onus on women to change a stigma that originates with men, while leaving men invisible. It’s not men who have to change; it’s women!

        This is a waste of women’s precious time. Every woman could decide that being a whore is the greatest thing ever, and it wouldn’t change how men think about it, or stop them from abusing women marked as whores. They don’t listen to us. On some level libfems probably know this, but since brokenness loves company, they try to snare other women into wasting their time.

        I’m all for helping the women who want out, but if you really want to go down that road, it’s on you. The nerve of saying to feminists “I choose to do this incredibly dangerous job, and it’s your responsibility to make it safe”.

        Talk to men, sex-pozzers, since they’re the ones who make you unsafe, or just get real. Stop wasting our time with this shit.

      • Motherhood Says:

        OMG he looks just like Sugar Ray after a fight. That he can look back wistfuly to his days of prostutution are not surprise to me. Those were his glory days. In his sick women hating mind that was the nearest he would have ever been to “being a women” because his ideal women is a whore. And god knows he can’t play the virgin. He is so scanky I really have a hard time looking at him. Those women taught him–really I would love to hear what they have to say about the attention seeking stupid prick. God I am sure he never shut up.

      • Choco Says:

        @Jane I love your comment so much! This is what I want to tell all super empowered sex pozzers: Thats’s great that you want to be a whore. But me and millions of women are fighting NOT to be seen as whores. We don’t have that luxury of choice because of our ethnicity, religion, education, sexuality etc. Our right to say no is just as important as your right to say yes. If they would just adopt a little bit of critical thinking, they’d realize that under the patriarchy all women are whores by default in the eyes of men.

      • Jane Says:

        Thanks. The libfem stances on trans women and prostitution reflect their belief that some people deserve harm reduction and some don’t. In both cases they argue that the people who serve male interests deserve protection: trans women activists get to erase the biological basis of misogyny and deny females organizing/safety rights, and prostitutes reinforce male sexual entitlement to female bodies. The people who don’t serve male interests, namely females who seek self-determination, do not.

      • Choco Says:

        It seems like the patriarchal narrative around prostitution is changing while the institution itself remains the same. In the past prostitutes were the rapeable class meant to protect the “good” women. Now prostitutes are the “good” women because they serve male interests, unlike those bad women who don’t have sex with men on demand. Either way women as a class don’t win.

      • Jane Says:

        Perhaps the timing of Mock’s revelation, the MSM’s uncritical support for it and the pending Amnesty paper isn’t accidental. World War T has been pretty successful, so now they’re starting World War P. The economy’s going nowhere for most people, and there’s a lot of angry unemployed young folks who were hoodwinked into huge debt for useless degrees. Legalization makes economic sense for the elite, as it’s one more way to extract value from increasingly desperate proles. Also, the internet has been a disaster for the porn industry. They need a new model, and real life sex acts cannot be digitally bootlegged.

        What better way to sell it to young people than with social justice cant? Who better to sell it than delusional postmodern liberal academics, pundits and bloggers? “What’s wrong, bigot? Are you an uptight right wing prude? Don’t tell me what to do with my body!”

        The shills are too dumb to see the brutal race-to-the-bottom that would ensue with legalization. Look at what happened to formerly good jobs like meat cutting and take it from there. If there’s one thing that differentiates the sex-poz third wave, it’s their utter inability to see the big picture.

      • Rb D Says:

        I had to look at his forehead for several seconds while this site fought my browser. That is one massive dude forehead ridge there. Matches his shoulders.

        “OMG he looks just like Sugar Ray after a fight.”

  5. Random Radfem Says:

    As Inigo Montoya would say: Agency- You keep using this word and I do think it means what you think it means. His “agency” as a young male prostitute and his experiences within a community of other male prostitutes has nothing to with women- it has nothing to do with women’s empowerment and bodily autonomy. In any case, “agency” is explored through existing power structures and it this case, one should take a look at the systemic abuse and exploitation of poor, gay men of color. All child prostitutes are victims, they are never the “agents” of their own abuse. What a disturbing crock of horseshit.

  6. Siobhan Says:

    Part of the reason that this guy creeps me out is that he took the name of the “real” Janet Mock, an amazing woman and nun who is the head of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Sister Janet Mock is smart, centered, compassionate, and incredibly effective, one of those people that you keep thinking about long after you meet her. The contrast is disturbing, as she is so real, and so committed to women, and he is such a fraud.

  7. belindieG Says:

    So if Mock never mention the Trans thing–would he no longer feel special? He kinda, sorta passes. Did he write his application essay for NYU about being Trans?


  8. I can’t help myself, this hijacking of the Underground Railroad thing reminds me of that awful, awful “Harriet Tubman sextape” thing that was around the net a few months ago.
    No matter what women do, how impressive their smartness, their braveness, their strength, their force of will, men always will try to force women back into the role of sexual servants of mankind.
    When right-wingers call us whores, they at least have the decency to admit they intend it to be a slur. But those on the liberal and left side of things demand we take it as a compliment and then have the audacity to call us whorephobic when we don’t want the great women heroines reduced to sexual servant of men. Being a prostituted woman is not shameful. But prostitution is. It is one of the most obvious tools and institutions to perpetuate the status quo of ‘women are there to serve men’.

    This man takes one of the most iconic institutions against historical slavery to promote modern slavery. His tales of the pleasures of underage prostitution are bordering to pimping. He is no different than those so-called loverboy pimps who groom, coerce and force young girls into prostitution. He as an adult male is trying to coax young people into prostitution by glorifying it. If he did that to an individual kid on the street, everyone would know he is a pimp. So he has a huge platform to preach to countless young liberal feminists and boys (his laudations of prostitutions are described in a way that will also reach young girls, not only those who consider themselves “trans”). Any harm coming to those he lured will be his responsibility.

    • GallusMag Says:

      He is disgusting. He is grooming young boys into this behavior.

      Guys like Janet are confused. Because to men, fucking anything at anytime is a “good” thing. Gay men like Janet will troll parks and railway stations and public restrooms seeking anonymous “tricks” with other men night after night. Look at Paris Lees. Paris trolls alleys in laydee-face looking for rough-trade to blow. He just can’t get enough dick. “I like the odd one night-stand as much as the next girl. Not to mention the occasional orgy, nights out in sex clubs and casual sex with strangers in public. Threesomes with people I picked up at fetish nights. Giving strangers blowjobs in the park. Getting my tits felt on the bus home by randoms.” http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/should-trans-people-have-to-disclose-their-birth-gender-before-sex

      So for these guys to get paid for what they already do for free is just a bonus. Now when they start sexually abusing minors that is a problem. But since Janet is a grown man who was himself groomed into this behavior as a minor by adult males he apparently makes no distinction between the sexual abuse and exploitation of boys (including his own abuse), and the rampant anonymous sex between adult gay men like himself.

      • Guls Says:

        ‘Janet’ – Cockney rhyming slang for the male organ: as in, he stepped up to the urinal and whipped out his Janet. Lol. He must be aware on some level, how revealing is his adopted moniker, surely? Michael Jackson – not an out tranny, but a self-loathing fuck-up for all that – openly modelled himself on Elizabeth Taylor. The whole generation of Jacksons has used fame/body mods to try and escape their abusive background.

        It strikes me also, how you, GM and other commenters here readily extend human concern to male victims – young boys – of gender dimorphism whilst (some) trannies refrain from extending the same courtesy. We’re groomed to be selfish but the information and wisdom is there to be accessed if we’re open to it.

      • Choco Says:

        That article is absolutely infuriating. I wish we could call a moratorium on grown men calling themselves “girls.” While reading this drawn out masturbation fantasy, I can’t help but think of an article I read about women who accompany their husbands to sex clubs and orgies. They said that even if they felt uncomfortable having sex with another person, they would “take one for the team” to not ruin their spouse’s good time. It’s just so fun to be a girl.

        And yes, if you trick another person into thinking you have non-surgically the non-altered genitals of the opposite sex, congratulations you’re a rapist.

  9. sex-negative Says:

    How gross is it that he describes grown men inducting children into prostitution as ‘women in sisterhood’

  10. Jane Says:

    Repent of your non-prostitute privilege!

    Every non-prostituted person has power over you? That’s a bit of an overstatement there, sugar.

    She’s close to saying non-prostitute status is a source of unearned privilege. If that’s true, those who have it need to be divested of that privilege, eh?

    This is really the end:

    pastachips: I’ve seen anti-SWer orgs call her killer a “punter”; no evidence of that😦

    pastachips: aside from the obvious fact that he was NOT a client because CLIENTS PAY FOR SEX.

    CharlotteNB: Murderers POSE as clients; they aren’t, though

    No true punter! Call the League Against John Defamation! Are these people for real?

    But look at how they shift responsibility to abolitionists:

    https://twitter.com/fornicatrix/status/430144988522233857

    It’s the same misogynist reversal as blaming radfems for male violence against trans women.

    • Teal Deer Says:

      I wonder if we’ll be getting a “cis”-like word soon, for those of us whose hoo-hoos are unemployed/amateur?

    • morag99 Says:

      Jesus. It’s very important not to confuse rapists and killers with the nice men who purchase girls and women for sexual use? Because Johns are hurt by this unfair association with sex-murder, which may make it that much more difficult for them to access the fucks they are, as a matter of birthright, entitled to?

      What do we want? Justice for Johns!
      When do we want it? Now!

  11. mamadiana1 Says:

    are you bleeping kidding me?. fella you are one very sick f@#k

  12. druidwinter Says:

    Reblogged this on winterdominatrix and commented:
    Well, well, well, child prostitution, You mean Pedophilia and rape. These children are being mislead into drugs, being ripped off, victims of crime and- almost certainly have to turn to other forms of crime when they are older, and have no other skills or education to fall back on.- like being a hooker is what being a woman is all about, typical for men with woman fetishes.

    Women in prostitution actually experience a different reality then the made-for-TV boys’ adventure they are pushing..

    Joel Rifkin, Gary Ridgeway, Pinkerton, were all long-time ‘johns’ that got bored paying for regular sex, and devalued women to the point where making them have unwanted sex and endure humiliating acts were not enough to get their frustrations and anger over women ‘out.’

    Rory Conde was a long-time ‘john’ only killed 6 prostitutes. He would get so angry at his wife, they were targeted as a substitute woman to kill in place of his wife when he had marital problems. His wife was his target, not the prostitutes.

    Prostitutes sell the right to abuse women, especially when they are willing to put the ‘john’s’ right to buy them and a pimps right to sell them- over their human rights. If the guys can get away with the woman not getting paid’ it seems to enhance the ‘buyer’s experience’, because it is ‘not work,’ it is not sex, it is selling female abuse.

    Women are targeted on their ability to be used in prostitution. Teens are targeted on FB, Debt bondage and drug addiction are tools used to keep the women poor, while money changes hands between parasitic and abusive men.

    It is a mistake to think prostitutes are targeted for being sexy -that is a pimp’s lie’

    Like ‘rapists’ Criminal Males objectify and target ‘women’ for violence for their sex[being a female] & status[as an object to use for narcissistic gratification], not the woman’s ‘job’.

    So far, women with drug addictions, regardless of their job- are #1 targeted for violence. It is an obvious weakness, in depressed states, PTSD women self-harm and medicate in dire circumstances.

    The largest number of working prostitutes are homeless drug addicted females. -But these women’s voices are marginalized right ouf the sexworker ‘rights’ pool along with the trafficked women that want out.

    The ‘every hooker for themselves’ attitude is selfish and narcissistic, because of the multitude of women that are hurt by this form of slavery that they want to ignore because of the naive promise of ‘lots of money’.

    Truck drivers that were discovered to be killers, would target hitch hikers, runaways and female drug addicts that prostitute- equally. There are not as many hitch hikers as the 70s, but many serial killers from that time targeted them over prostitutes.

    Women should not be defined as ‘things that prostitute’ over being ‘women with money/ drug problems.’

    Some of these diluted women are proud to toot that they are doing this for a living and a month away from being a homeless prostitute, likely Are the very-same outspoken ‘activists’ that brag about drug use’ on other boards-but the truth is, they need drug treatment because they are protecting their drug problem that is supported by their prostitution, and would not want to protect pimps/buyers over themselves if they did not have a drug problem.

  13. Rb D Says:

    Only a man could say this: “(…) low-income, marginalized women that enabled me when I was 16 to jump in a car with my first regular and choose a pathway to my survival and liberation.”

    http://missingpeople.net/home.html

  14. Jane Says:

    Time to get out the popcorn:

    http://feministingDOTcom/2014/02/05/piers-morgan-and-the-psychology-of-the-privileged/

    Piers Morgan: As for all the enraged transgender supporters, look at how STUPID you’re being. I’m on your side, you dimwits.

    Feministing: Translation: ​”I’ve never beaten up someone because they were trans. I’m clearly on your side. So what if I get angry when trans women tell me about the ways my language was inappropriate and triggering? You people are just too stupid to recognize a supporter when you see one.” Enough said.

    Piers Morgan: Being transgender doesn’t give you the right to slur, distort & ridicule someone who supports the issue 100%. Shame on you @janetmock.

    Feministing: Piers Morgan just told Janet Mock that her lived experience does not give her the authority to define how she wants to be treated.

    So they’re all trans-royal as well?

    Nothing will turn back the tide of crazee until it inconveniences men, so bring it, libfems. Please.

    • Jane Says:

      Oh darn, looks like Morgan has agreed to repent, or at least give Mock some more publicity:

      My guess is CNN gently encouraged him to give in due to the Twitter uproar.

      ps. Please forgive me for writing a novel on this post, Gallus. This site has the best conversation I know on the subjects you cover.

    • Teal Deer Says:

      If “authority to define how she wants to be treated” isn’t a clear statement of privilege, I don’t know what is. I don’t know of any real women who are allowed to do that.

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        EXACTLY, Teal Deer. That is an excellent point. It’s so sad that none of the funfem blogs have the guts to acknowledge that.


    • Fucking hell…I read the comments on Buzzfeed reporting the Charles/”Janet” side of the story.

      Any time someone points out “He was actually born with a penis, so Piers wasn’t wrong to state he was a male” the deluge of “transphobia” appears.
      Someone even said in the comments “Wow, I didn’t realise it was biological” after someone talked about the hormone wash theory. Did any of these people take science in fucking high school?

      I read the transcript too. Charles is having a hissy (even though Piers was super accommodating) because he referred to his past?

      There was a woman on there who was RAPED by Roman Polanski at 13 and she didn’t fucking bitch about being asked about it. What do these cocks want to be asked out? Make up tips? Who’s hot and who’s not? For fucks sake, everyone gets asked about their past in interview. Some people get asked incredibly painful shit about dead spouses, bad relationships and drug problems. Charles KNOWS he is a male, otherwise he wouldn’t be a fucking “trans advocate”. His whole celebrity appeal is based around that. He hasn’t done anything else to warrant attention.

      What a major level shitlord.

      These people are disgusting.

      • Adrian Says:

        That’s just it, though – they want to come on TV and be interviewed as women, to be validated as women. They want to be on TV, come across as “so feminine! Such a woman! So hot! Way hotter than that frumpy chick behind the camera or the receptionist we saw on the way in” and be asked only about oppression or “see, they’re such women (such amazing strong women!) but why does everyone hate them?”

        In reality, if you go on TV, the host will want to ask you questions about just why you are on TV, why you are special or notorious enough to be on TV. If you go on TV as a “trans advocate” they are GOING to ask you about being trans, and they are going to start from the obvious reality of what that means, namely “so you were born a man, and now…?” If it’s a tabloid show they are DEFINITELY going to ask about the status of your wang. The TV studio knows that some huge portion of the audience has a penis and can’t imagine losing it, and is dying to know all the details about that. These people are famous for one thing – being trans and supposedly conventionally “hot.” That’s it. So that’s where the interview is going. It’s practically a lighted runway in the one direction, that is where the interview is going.

        Anyone with half a brain cell should know that this is what’s on offer. If he wants to decline the interview, fine, if he wants to take it but insist on changing the subject every time, fine, but to act as if he had no idea this would happen?? Just wut?

    • Anon Male Says:

      I knew he would cave.

      http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jared-leto-heckled-accused-trans-677290

      All Jared had to do was hang out and give swag bags, I presume; but god save you if you don’t have anything these people want or you don’t have the power to pay them off. We should keep egging them on to burn Piers down to the ground and salt his bones.

      I do kind of miss the old days when everyone was all up about Judith Butler and performances (before brain sex was scientifically “proven”) because at least the arguments were interesting. I can’t fucking believe I just said that.

  15. GallusMag Says:

    Golly I guess old “janet” might not be so popular among talk show bookers right now. I mean controversy is good for ratings, and ratings are what media markets- but at the expense of having a fawning, supportive interviewer tarred as “anti-LGBT” a week after his interview was conducted? For the crime of merely iterating the themes that comprise the book being promoted?

    “My Journey to Womanhood”, right? It’s a sex-change confessional, like hundreds of equally dull versions published over the last fifty years.

    I mean seriously what does Janet Mock have to offer besides his tale of converting his body through medicine and surgery to imitate women? The fascinating tale of being an IT employee and online editor at People magazine dot com? So what. The experiences of a haircutter or a bricklayer are probably more interesting. Janet IS the freak show. He has nothing but “transgender” going for him. What other “work” has he done? Nothing. He is a professional “He-She” no different from those working the midway at the ten-in-one. The only interesting thing about Janet Mock is that he has tried to –as so many men have done before- disguise himself as female, at least partially. What else is there to discuss?

    Nothing.

    This shit is boring.

    We see the same thing over and over with cross gender performers who think their “transformation” is the living end. They write their books and “tell their stories” which provide a millisecond of interest to an audience interested in fleeting novelty. Then: they got nothin’.

    “Warrior Princess”, “How a Bee Sting Made Me a Woman”, “I Want To Die A Woman”, “My Husband: Betty”, “I Was a Helicopter Pilot But Now I’m a Woman and Therefore Lack the Innate Sex-Based Ability to Pilot an Aircraft But I am Sexay”, “I Went to the Emergency Room for an Appendectomy and Discovered I am a Woman!”

    I mean really.

    At least jendur body-modders like Amanda Lepore (who is against males like himself trying to pass themselves off as actually female) make music, make art, do work. Calpernia “Like Big Dicks” Adams, whatever you think of him, objectively produces music and (arguably tacky) gay cultural artifacts. But he does something. Makes something. Werks.

    What does Janet do? Nothing. Absofuckinglutely nothing just like every other jack-ass peddling nothing but his own tired “transformation” narrative. His “mock” horror at seeing his own briefly salable narrative being reflected back to him by the media outlets who generously offer him promotional time is hilarious. Or: what is less interesting or rewarding than “hilarious”? Lets go with “ironic”.

    • Adrian Says:

      You say “Janet IS the freak show. He has nothing but “transgender” going for him. What other “work” has he done? Nothing. He is a professional “He-She” no different from those working the midway at the ten-in-one. The only interesting thing about Janet Mock is that he has tried to –as so many men have done before- disguise himself as female, at least partially. What else is there to discuss?”

      EXACTLY this. They’re famous for one thing, they’re able to go on TV precisely because they’re famous for one thing, and then they get all scandalized because the TV show asks them about the one thing they’re famous for?

      The hell?

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        I just sent an email of support to Piers Morgan, and I’ve posted at cnn.com as well. The silver lining to this is that the trans lobby is showing themselves to be the ridiculous, obnoxious, entitled jerks that they are.


  16. This Janet Mock/Piers Morgan thing has really gotten to me today. If Janet actually worked as a street prostitute, why didn’t she mention her dead friends? Lord knows, I have enough of them, and I never did sex work, I just hung out at the bar. I wrote about one such friend on my blog today, bless her soul.

    I also wrote an angry post about the JM/PM publicity stunt. I wish I knew a better way to stand up against this – tumblr is great for what it is but not a big enough audience to actually put a stop to this. I would appreciate any help in strategizing that anyone wants to give. And Gallus, as always thanks for everything you do.❤

    http://snowflakeespecial.tumblr.com/post/75721773016/lisaquestions-so-this-is-piers-morgans

  17. Jane Says:

    LOL @ Toni D’orsay, “Expert on Trans Lives”:

    Piers Morgan isn’t having it:

    Much of Twitter isn’t having it either. Even many liberal commenters at Huffpo were taken aback by Janet Mock’s behavior and the ensuing Twitstorm. What took them so long?

    This sort of rhetoric:

    is backfiring. Dissent does not equal violence or denying one’s humanity. No belief system is above critique.

    Dzodan on Piers Morgan: What are we going to debate if he graciously concedes ppl humanity?

    When did Piers Morgan ever question Janet Mock’s humanity?

    Pomo liberalism appears to be jumping the shark, now that they’re becoming an annoyance to men.

    • Ashland Avenue Says:

      Who the hell in this stupid shitstorm is saying they’re not human?! Frankly, I am LOVING this! (Well, except for poor Piers Morgan being attacked like this.) But I am LOVING seeing these freaks show themselves to be the illogical, selfish, abusive assholes that they are! Good job, guys!

      • Adrian Says:

        “They’re denying our humanity” and “I refuse to debate the fact that I am human” and similar rhetoric is tossed around all over Tumblr any time someone questions the trans “born in the wrong body” theory. If you don’t fully validate them as women and completely shut off your entire brain to the obvious, if you dare to possibly suggest that maybe, JUST MAYBE, there are things about being a woman and growing up as a girl that those M2T simply AREN’T PRIVY TO, well then you’re “denying their humanity” by viewing them as “freaks” and Othering them. That phrasing is pretty much a shibboleth by now.

        It seems a bunch of people have come into the fray from Tumblr (which isn’t surprising as all the usual players are asking for support and “boosts” and people to go tweet and everything) and they don’t realize that the audience is a bit different, or something.

        But yeah. True colors are coming out.

      • Adrian Says:

        Also note the other common phrasing – “violent assault.” For “misgendering” (i.e. WORDS) and otherwise just daring to state the obvious, which is that Mock was born a male child (again, WORDS). But somehow this is “assault,” and not just regular assault either, no, it’s VIOLENT assault. You can’t go any more over the top from there, it’s hit 11.

      • Motherhood Says:

        Yeah they are human males, period full stop. This is a bit off topic. The dime has dropped. This old girl can be a bit slow. I am not kidding when I say I am not versed in much “feminism” (I avoided it for personal reasons) and I come at this on intuitive level rather than an ideological one. Still I have been called “radscum” imagine that. Which speaks to the fact that these men are unable to see any nuance and just hate all women. So this is what I put together and how I came to it. I happen to have zero taste in clothes, not bad, not good, just none. I do not care as long as it soft, or warm or whatever. My husband has a good eye and is just more visual, he makes a salad and he use 3 different colored peppers. I make one with one green pepper– so he picks my clothes and matches outfits for work—a win win situation because I can’t even match things nor do I care to figure it out. So he said one thing looked better with another and for the life of me I could not figure out why. And then it hit me. The idea of feminine is male. It is a male aesthetic and male ideal super imposed on women. So of course these men going running for the heals and fishnets because they made up the whole notion of feminine in the first place to pleasure themselves–all of them. These guys claiming to have “pink brains” are just an off shoot of maleness. So the all talk that princess shit and idea that some orange tube dress is womanly is their own male vision. In their twisted minds we failed them—they are saying you want something done right you gotta do yourself. So it is like six different strains of misogyny twisted together. That anyone even accepts the absurd narrative of Trans is based in that fact that male arousal and male sexual pleasure is so sacred and elevated in most societies that nobody dares to say— autogynephilia. And part of it is to gather as many unwilling partners as possible and force them to take part. Po mo is more male centered than most branches of Islam and more oppressive. Combine the ideology or theory with a bunch of people with anti-social and borderline personality disorder and you got the Transgender Umbrella. And hell women need more than an umbrella. They are pissing on us and getting off. Look at this re unwilling partner and utter narcissism from some blog he calls himself the male lesbian

        “Where do I start. So… It’s been a rough week. My wife has difficulty accepting social standards. She also has difficulty watching me transition. She knows its something I must do but she can’t watch.

        Ok..

        She has her own house, just waiting for the final stuff to be done before she moves in.

        Then… Monday she took an overdose and ended up in hospital. She is fine medically, no damage but mentally, all she says is that she failed, because she is still here. That she will be all alone. What ever I say, she still says she will be alone.

        She has so many friends who call in, who go running with her, swimming, every day. And she repeatedly says she will be alone. The house is 3 minute drive, 10 minute walk. And I have said she is welcome back for coffee etc, any time but nothing makes any difference.

        And I really feel its all my fault. If I wasn’t transitioning, she wouldn’t be moving out. And I don’t know what to do. I’m responsible for her taking an overdose, and I have no one to talk to. It’s crap!” All about him–him him him. http:// amalelesbian dot blogspot dot com

      • moira Says:

        @Motherhood–

        “The idea of feminine is male. It is a male aesthetic and male ideal super imposed on women. So of course these men going running for the heals [sic] and fishnets because they made up the whole notion of feminine in the first place to pleasure themselves–all of them. These guys claiming to have “pink brains” are just an off shoot of maleness. So the all talk that princess shit and idea that some orange tube dress is womanly is their own male vision. In their twisted minds we failed them—they are saying you want something done right you gotta do yourself.”

        YES! Exactly. You can see it in the TRANSform me show with Laverne Cox–the three trans “makeover artists” essentially telling the woman that she’s got a female body but is failing to feminize it the way she is “supposed to”-you can see it in “Cassidy Lynn”‘s twitter feed, you can see it every time someone says how much better the “trans*women” are at being women, than women, you can see it when they call Gallus and the rest of us “lesbimen” or when Red Durkin’s facebook is littered with autogynephiles simlutaneously using *~misgendering!!!!~* slurs like “lezbro” against dykes and calling them “cis” in the same breath.

        This is so well put. They think we failed them, and they are saying, “you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.”

      • Gertrude Carlyle Says:

        if something is a “violent assault” then they can rightfully respond to it with violence too, right?

        beware the big mtf chorus – first started coming from the tumblr trannies but now repeated by laverne cox and toni: “its violence to call us a man”–this is a way to raise the stakes.

        this means that women will eventually be physically attacked for calling some transwoman a man since “its violence!”.

        that is how you respond to “violence” – with more violence. they are setting the stage for it. this is a set up to attack women who will not call the trannies women.

        they’ll argue that violence can be met with violence.

        i see exactly where this shit is going.

      • michelle Says:

        “this means that women will eventually be physically attacked for calling some transwoman a man since “its violence!”. ”

        There is no ‘eventually’ to it…some of the assaulted victims of Crishaun ‘cece’ McDonald were females. The trans-brigade keeps pointing to McDonald as a ‘victim’ but always ignore that he crossed the street to confront people over the fact they knew he was a man.

    • GallusMag Says:

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHALOLOLOlolololololHA the face the woman on the “panel” makes when the guys says a man can have a penis and still be a woman. HAHAHA omg imma try and screen cap it.

      HahahahaHAHAHAHAHA
      Please please pleeeeeeassseeeeee Tumblr! Make a GIF out of her facial reaction to that statement! Hahahahahaha!

      Penis…Woman…Whaaaaa?

      LMAO.

      @02:30 of the panel discussion vid here.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/janet-mock-piers-morgan_n_4735145.html

      • GallusMag Says:

        HAhahahahaha I’m still laughing. Funniest 5 seconds on the internet today.

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        That’s freakin’ hysterical! I loved the part in the second interview where Mock attempts to describe the whole “I was born a baby, not a boy, I was just assigned as a boy!” bullshit. You know, that whole “coercively-assigned-as” crap. Yes, because it was just a big, evil cabal of meanies who saw your penis when you were born and said “boy.” ‘Cause the whole world is just out to getcha, and you’re the most oppressest. I’m so glad I don’t live like that, with that kind of bizarre level of persecution complex.

      • Motherhood Says:

        oh that’s priceless, coffee out my nose–hahahahah. I wish we had a whole series of womens’ expressions when they hear: Penis….Woman

      • GallusMag Says:

        @Motherhood- lmao- holy shit. I predict a future video installation at MOMA featuring nothing but screen after screen of women’s facial reactions when being told Penis: Female. That’s art baby!

      • Motherhood Says:

        @GM, yes an a whole art network 10000’s of women with expression.

      • moss Says:

        This whole thing has been a blessing; the majority of comments seem to be at least somewhat trans-critical and are from people that can in no way be labeled ‘radscum!’

      • Tomyris Says:

        Gallus,

        I know I’m way late on this but it doesn’t look like anyone got around to it. Here’s your gif of Amy Holmes’s reaction. I might make a larger, longer version with Marc saying his line and captions and stuff. Anyway, enjoy!

        http://i.imgur.com/lm5oa2P.gifv

      • GallusMag Says:

        Hahahaha! Thank you SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!❤❤❤


  18. Reblogged this on Privilege Denying Tranny and commented:
    This is all very interesting in light of the Piers Morgan fiasco. The comment by Leila is dead on “It just strikes me that trans women and feminists clash so much because they have entirely different priorities. The priority of feminism is dismantling a patriarchal system that oppresses women, while most trans women mainly want to be seen as women and therefore fully embrace patriarchal norms imposed on women. While we fight against the harm of compulsory femininity, the poverty that overwhelmingly affects women and leads them to engage in survival sex work, etc. trans women view this as affirming and empowering, because what matters is people confirming their identity. It’s the same reason that the Vancouver Rape Relief was sued by Kimberly Nixon. Because who actually cares about the vital services it provides to rape victims? The important thing is validating trans women’s identities. and all thing is modern, mainstream feminism apparently. ugh.”


  19. “I did work at other places while I was doing sex work. So for me, I worked at a clothing store, I worked at a fast food place, I worked at boutiques and all these kind of things, you know. But nothing would compare to the check that comes from being a sex worker. That money was quick. Quick money enabled me to do things more quickly. And for me my body issues, my body image issues, the way I felt about myself- those were urgent matters.”

    In other words, the minimum wage jobs weren’t enough to keep him in the hot clothes, coolest makeup and hair style, and manner of living he wanted. Unlike some women who might turn to prostitution to feed their families, it’s not like he had a child at home to support. It was all about making money for “body image issues”. I love the sentence, “Quick money enabled me to do things more quickly.” I guess it would. Being a male ho (can I say ho on this blog) is one way to make fast money. Watch the video again. He was even grinning when he was talking about the quick money from working as an underage prostitute. I thought teenage prostitution was illegal.

    Since I’m not black, I can’t speak to what black people have experienced throughout history. This is their history, and I don’t think a white person could ever truly understand the discrimination and the deep scars from slavery and Jim Crow laws. Having said this, I have to respond to the way in which Mock used the word “underground railroad”. I’ve never heard the word underground railroad used in connection with teenage prostitution. After watching this video, it’s clear to me that Mock wasn’t risking imprisonment or body harm by guiding people out of bondage. If anything, Mock states that teenage prostitution is quick money. This is a biography and very old photograph of Harriet Tubman. By any standards, she was not a handsome or attractive woman. She lived with a head injury that caused seizures from a beating. The underground railroad is sacred because people actually put their lives and livelihood on the line.

    http://www.biography.com/people/harriet-tubman-9511430

    Harriet Tubman would be turning over in her grave.

  20. GallusMag Says:

    LMAO:

    “Trans activist Janet Mock returned to Piers Morgan Live last night to discuss her accusations that Morgan was “transphobic” and tried to “sensationalize” her life during an interview about her new book, Redefining Realness, which sensationalizes her life on her own terms.”

    http://www.queerty.com/why-is-it-so-offensive-to-just-say-that-transgender-women-grew-up-as-boys-20140206/

    Not offensive to say that child prostitution is a good thing, though. Welcome to LGBT circa 2014.

    • moira Says:

      I know, right? It’s fine to tell young people to go become streetwalkers if they need “sisterhood” and community, when we all know it leads to disproportionate likelihood of addiction, rape, and murder. No problem. Just don’t get in the way of a trans* delusion; that’s the ultimate in offensive.

      Are they for real? Is that what Mock means by “redefining realness?”

  21. obuolys Says:

    Piers Morgan just learned that one can never be an ally to trans-psychos, and that’s because they aren’t looking for alliances, they want submission.

  22. Jane Says:

    I found that study referencing trans crime rates that Gallus referred to a while ago:

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

    Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.

    Yet another reason why “cis privilege” is bullshit. “Cis people” is an artificial class, created to slander and control females by assigning them the violent tendencies that males, including trans women, share as a group.

    Motherhood is right. Postmodern liberalism is about hiding male violence and protecting male power. If they can make us feel responsible for crimes we don’t commit, they can waste our time and energy.


  23. Motherhood, you are simply brilliant…you nail it!

    ” And then it hit me. The idea of feminine is male. It is a male aesthetic and male ideal super imposed on women. “

  24. GallusMag Says:

    Hilarious!
    By end of this piece I had a hard time telling Janet’s quotes from the parody. lol
    http://retransition.org/2014/02/oh-janet/#sthash.orgF4zwx.dpbs

  25. GallusMag Says:

    More of Mock’s raves on the positivity of “the agency” of childhood sexual exploitation and the prostitution of children:

    “And so, all of these forces are what kind of push young trans people and queer youth, period, into underground economies like sex work. For me, that’s what led me there as a young person. And so I used that agency. I used my body. I traded sex to get the medical care that I needed growing up, and for me to erase that record of my life would be untrue. And there’s no sense in telling my story if I’m not going to tell it fully because there are some girls out there who are going through this right now, and now they will see that they are not the first to go through this, and they’re not alone. And that there’s nothing shameful about having the agency in your own life to choose what you want to do with your body to care after yourself in an environment and world that tells you that who you are should not exist and should remain shameful and secret.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/janet-mock-interview_n_4746097.html

    • Choco Says:

      Oh thank you Janet Mock for giving me the courage to look within myself and embrace my inner whore. I feel so complete now that I submit to the demand of men and present myself as a pornified caricature. I would also like to thank all the men who called me a whore for wanting o get a higher education. I hope for a world where all girls can get a false sense of empowerment from their victimisation by men. Now for the rest of the day I’ll tilt my head and giggle and gush about you make such a better woman than I do. Self actualization is such a beautiful thing.


    • looks like he is the next one to get harassed. Anyway – I like how the disgusting behaviour of trans activists starts to backfire.

    • Jane Says:

      In additional to framing intellectual dissent as dehumanization and hate, pomo liberals are busy conflating opposition to any of their indulgences with racism:

      There is no middle ground. You either support everything they want 100% or you’re an irredeemable bigot.

      This was actually retweeted by Mikki Kendall (@Karnythia), originator of the #solidarityisforwhitewomen hashtag. Kinkshaming is racist? Has it really come to this?

      It’s heartening to see all the liberal objections to the savaging of Morgan. If this is how you can expect to be treated for expressing support, why bother? Perhaps peak pomo isn’t so far away.

      • Adrian Says:

        Absolutely – the current “pomo” framing pretty much defines “feminism” as a racist (or explicitly “white supremacist” if you follow some of the more edgy popular people) ideology that is naive and misguided and thus only ever cared about middle class white women, and only in the 50’s, so it’s (1) completely out of date, (2) racist, and (3) naive, all in one! If someone disagrees with any of the big players, the first response those big players jump to is often “lol you must be white.”

        And people who hang around in those pomo circles were being asked to go onto twitter and fight for Mock. It’s interesting to see the comments of other “outsiders” (people who don’t lurk around and snark on this sort of thing and so are only first ever reading these twitter personalities due to this current news story), as they basically have a “WTF?” moment.

    • Jane Says:

      Also, how do Kaveney et al account for the many people of color who dissent from the sex poz pomo lib line? They’ve been completely erased from the narrative. No true WOC? It seems to me that this erasure is itself racist, yes?

      Once you center your politics around individual choice, you’re more likely to engage in pretzel logic to defend your pet practices. And since they’re all based on individual feelings, your only tool to discredit opponents is accusations of hate.

      • Adrian Says:

        Yep, “no true WOC,” Uncle Toms, “self-hating,” “I know you’re really white and I refuse to believe otherwise unless you mail me a selfie,” it goes on.

        For all the whining about “appropriation” that so many of those people engage in all the time, it’s amazing how they fail to see how so much of their appropriation of the “strong sensible WOC fighting for justice against oppression” image is itself offensive to many.

  26. Rb D Says:

    Every one of Pickton’s victims (many disposed in a meat grinder) were First Nations, “Indian” and Metis. Everyone of the women who has survived that and is now exited and who lead our not-for-sale movement are Metis and First Nations. Indian, aboriginal, whatever you call them. Everyone of them is against men of any type whoring our sisters.

    • morag99 Says:

      Exactly Rb D. What do “choice” and “agency” mean to dispossessed and prostituted First Nations girls and women? Most everyone knows about Pickton’s crimes, but they don’t necessarily know that this happens everywhere and all the time– that the most disposable women in Canada are Aboriginal. They just disappear, and it’s rarely mentioned on the six o’clock news. It’s impossible to know this, and to be pro “sex work” at the same time. Janet Mock–this “underground railroad” and nebulous “agency” B.S.–is profoundly insensitive and offensive.


  27. Gallus, I don’t know where you find these brainy quotes, but they are priceless gems.

    It should be obvious to anyone that Mock has a tendency to fling words out there with no idea as to their meaning. The particular context in which Mock uses these words and phrases is bazaar to say the least. From what we are told, Mock is supposed to be a journalist and writer. Tossing out words such as “underground railroad” (black history) and “agency” (social science term) is supposed to impress people, but it comes off as immature and asinine. People are left scratching their heads to get some meaning out of it. Butchering the true historical meaning of these words is surely the sign of an undisciplined mind. If it weren’t so sad, it would be comical.

    Read these sentences and notice how the words and sentences are strung together.

    “A sense of community, sisterhood, resiliency, resources, strength. It was like our underground railroad of resources to navigate a system not built for us. And for me that’s what sex work gave me.”

    What is an “underground railroad of resources”, and how does it relate to Mock’s escapades as a teenage prostitute? I know that Mock prefers the term “sex worker”. Porn producers of all stripes use the term “sex worker” as if selling one’s body or making porn videos is just like any other ordinary occupation. It’s just a job. There is an “underground railroad of resources” involved in “sex work”. Some people call it human trafficking, or pimping. Did Mock lead teenagers out of a life of selling their bodies on the streets, drug addiction, or HIV? Was Mock just like Harriet Tubman, the Moses of her people? On one hand Mock defends sex work and the quick money, and then he says he feels some sense of shame attached to it. If Harriet Tubman were alive to day, I’m sure she would tell teenagers to stay off the street because no child should be involved in sex work of any kind. Period. Harriet Tubman would put the fear of God into the hearts of the pimps and drug dealers. The way that Mock uses the term “underground railroad” just shows how ignorant he really is.

    Apparently, Mock must have taken Sociology 101 at some time in his life. I’ve heard the term “agency” before. It’s often used by sociologists. Agency basically means self-determination, volition, or free will. It is the power of individuals to act independently of the determining constraints of social structure. Poor and marginalized people often lack agency due to a variety of factors while the wealthy have more choices.

    Sociology professors need to rewrite the definition of “agency” because they have it all wrong. It’s the money underage prostitutes get from their Johns or from the porn producers.

    “And so, all of these forces are what kind of push young trans people and queer youth, period, into underground economies like sex work. For me, that’s what led me there as a young person. And so I used that agency. I used my body.”

    The words, “And so I used that agency” basically means he sold his body for money before he was old enough to vote. It’s clear that money equals “agency” to Mock. “Agency” is the same as money.

    When hookers stroll the streets, they are “using their agency”. A pimp says to one of his girls, “You didn’t bring back enough “agency” tonight. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    • Adrian Says:

      “When hookers stroll the streets, they are “using their agency”. “

      You know, it strikes me that this is pretty much the same thing all those whiny “men’s rights advocates” and “Nice Guys” say when they go on and on about how it’s women that really control everything because women can sell sex, have sex with the boss for easy promotions, and all the rest of it.

      Disgusting.

  28. Sundazed Says:

    Thank you for this article. As a male I was for a long time very much on board with the PC Cult of the world. Supporting trans women for their rights.
    This has changed over the last few months. I suddenly took my time to look into some of the accusations I heard regarding trans women and what IU found (besides this blog) was case upon case upon case of horrifying stories from biological females and how they have been treated by trans women.
    This has changed my opinions and nowadays, while I do still believe there are some genuine transsexuals out there, for the most part the so called trans community seems to be made up with 95% of regular men claiming to be women to satisfy their own personal agendas.


  29. There is a good tumblr commentary about the janet mock case and the current state of trans actvism in general:

    http://pogoniptrail.tumblr.com/post/76246987748/why-i-dont-feel-sorry-for-piers-morgan

    • GallusMag Says:

      That IS a good post. Of course, I always find posts like this which extensively refer to information reported exclusively by myself, while seemingly bending over backwards not to source the lowly GenderTrender, a bit disheartening. Obviously the author is a regular reader of my blog, and values my reportage greatly, which is why they cite information I exclusively present, while avoiding the source. If you permit me to whine a moment, there has been a lot of this since I started this site. A “radical feminist” woman once started a website whose sole purpose was to rewrite my posts using upper class sanitized language so to better market my reportage to “authorities”, meaning those with political power or upper class schooling. To those who read me and depend on my work for what they do, while avoiding citing me due to their issues with working class language and my KICK-ASS tone, I say: Fuck you. To those educated upper class folks who want to “sanitize” what myself and the commenters here produce- via outright theft- I say: Fuck you. FUCK upperclass lilywhite assholes who steal from poor and working class women WHO DO THE WORK while your lazy ass “contextualizes” it for other upper class assholes. Keep reading though “sister”. LMAO.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Petty, I know. But sometimes you just have to say it.😉

      • cerulean blue Says:

        The truth isn’t petty.

        There is a long history of the “elite” stealing ideas from everybody else. It’s not surprising that someone would steal your work, Gallus– you’ve done all the legwork, and your ideas are well-thought out and researched.

        Sadly, though, even being called out here isn’t going to stop it. Your work is too good.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Thank you so much for saying that. FWIW when I started reading the post I was thinking how incredible it was that SO MANY FABULOUS women are taking the time to speak out now, and how GRATEFUL I am for that. It is so amazing. I think I could count a very few voices a few years ago who dared to speak out. #1. Dirt. Who is, as far as I am concerned, the most important feminist voice of the past decade bar none. Also FCM, AROOO, MissAndrea, Miska, UP, Bev Jo, Julie Bindel, (possibly a few others I’ll grind my teeth at failing to remember later) were the ONLY ONES doing critical feminism back when I started. So really it is very petty of me to whine. I am so PLEASED overall. It is just irritating because you spend your LIMITED VALUABLE time documenting shit – facts, research, citations, and some just exploit and whitewash it just because they want to re-make it as “respectable” for academics and men and upper class women. I should be grateful, and I am. But it still sticks in my craw.

      • GallusMag Says:

        BTW I think I’ve added very few new “ideas” to critical feminism. The basic gender critique of radical feminism was parsed by women forty or fifty years ago. Daly, Raymond, and many many others. My small contribution is not in ideas (I’m not that clever!) but reportage, research, and TIME spent doing so. Also, consistency and keeping the lights on – and the haters at bay!- at an internet space for far more talented and intelligent women to share their thoughts. Its pure work. That is what is so irritating to me as a working class woman when the upper class educated class uses exploits and invisibilizes my LABOR because it offends their class, and they feel entitled to scrub its origins.

      • cerulean blue Says:

        Well, since you’re not willing to give yourself credit, I will. I read quite a few rad fem blogs– all good– but I’ve learned the most here.

      • Motherhood Says:

        GM, I don’t know if it is noticeable but I am not all warm and fuzzy and I do not slather praise. But No doubt you are the simply the best in covering. And this blog–it may make history. Certainly it has saved people and informed and it really an act of social justice. I do think that in the future Trans will look just as monstrous as breeding the uber mench. And I say that as the child of Holocaust survivors. Academics–not exactly the forefront of intellectual honesty.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Thank you Motherhood! I’m just having a ridiculous ego tantrum and probably attacking a very good person. Pay me no mind. I’m not perfect! lol.

      • GallusMag Says:

        I agree that women en masse will eventually regard the trans politic as a social, medical, political crime against women (and gays).

      • GallusMag Says:

        A really really nice person who shits on and exploits working class women and steals their labor. Oops! Still pissed.

  30. Mormo Says:

    So basically…men find pornography and prostitution empowering… Makes sense… the objectification of the female body will never hit them in the core like it does with real women, after all it’s not their existence that’s degraded and sexualized. It’s just fun times for a bunch of self-loathing, women-hating, creeps.

    • Sundazed Says:

      Yes, That is the way to many men are about yes. Its not fun to be part of that class but that’s how reality is and it feels good every time one can honestly stand up towards men that defends this, for their own personal pleasures of course, no matter if they laugh at me or if they want to beat me up (that happens almost as frequent as the laughing part I might add).
      My mother taught me to be part of the solutions not the problems through out life, being an ally with women is for me to do just that in this matter.

    • morag99 Says:

      ” … the objectification of the female body will never hit them in the core like it does with real women, after all it’s not their existence that’s degraded and sexualized … ”

      This is so true, Mormo! Thank you. With men, including men in dresses, the sexual objectification skims the surface and bounces off. It does’t, and probably can’t, hit the core as it does with females.

      Because, when a girl is born, the bullseye target is automatically installed on/in her body. She cannot, despite her efforts, or her subjective identity, opt out of being a target for degradation and objectification. The patriarchal system which promotes, or allows for, her objectification precedes her existence, and is a much greater force than any single individual’s refusal to be a sexualized object. It’s also greater than any man’s desire to BE a sexualized object. He can try and try, and by presenting as a woman, have some limited “success.”

      But this success, as someone like Janet Mock tells us, is experienced as validation, empowerment and agency, instead of as a deep wounding of the self’s integrity. He can seek and enjoy objectification, and make money from it, because he is immune to its most destructive effects. As a male, he’s had all his shots. Who cares about the daily, violent reality for real females, when the superficial, costumed aspects are so much fun to play around with?

      You know, at least with average “cis” (snort!) manly-males, they know well enough to distance themselves from the taint of femininity. Why, some of them even get down on their knees and thank God that they weren’t born female. They don’t care about women either, but they do know that womanhood is not a good deal!

  31. Seris Says:

    One thing I’ve wished for is not for ill to come to these misogynists but just for their actions and attitudes to be exposed to the cold light of day, to as many people as possible. They can go after a person here and there, silence them, threaten them, make them feel all alone, but they can’t do it to the whole damn world.

    What they’re doing just can’t withstand reasonable, ethical scrutiny, and that’s one big reason reason they’re so NUTS about people questioning them. They know what they’re doing doesn’t make sense and doesn’t follow even their own stated moral and social standards.

    The sooner this narcissism and misogyny is exposed, the better. I think the reason they’ve been able to get away with the stalking and the threats so far is because not enough people have been aware of how they operate.

    • Sundazed Says:

      Agreed.

      Personally I’ve been doing some work in doing this but its hard to do alone. And I also believe that the trans community do exist of some really genuine people but their voices are silenced as well by this male trans mob.
      Some time ago a trans women, that got into a discussion with one of these more “bigger voices” of the trans community (I can’t tell their name from the of of my head now) on twitter asked him to stop harassing and intimidate others.
      Not a good move, “she” was attacked and it ended with her deleting her twitter account.
      So while a woman such as Lierre Keith, DGR is being labeled a transphobe because she believes in every biological females right to have a spaces free from males, no matter what we males identify ourselves as, has a minor mob following her wherever she goes to harass her it’s totally fine for these “transphobia” yelling people to harass other trans sexuals.

    • Lint Says:

      Pardon my butting in, but that was an excellent article you linked to, SkyLark. Thanks for sharing. I especially enjoyed this section:

      “Transwomen say these differences are trivial – that girlhood and a female body are irrelevant to being a woman – but this violates the subjective experience of actual women’s lives. Women cannot experience their fertility as trivial, much as some would like to. Women cannot see their upbringing as girls as unrelated to their experience as women. This is subjective truth – women’s subjective truth – that transwomen claim as inconsequential. As opposed to what – objective reality?”

      and

      “…is it only the subjective feelings of those subjectively assigned to be people whose opinions matter?”

      Love it!


  32. […] We get that you grew up as a gay boy who was ushered into teenage prostitution by what you describe as an “underground railroad” of adult gay and transgender men. You characterize (even glamorize) your own childhood sexual exploitation by adult males as a positive and empowering experience for you and a desirable right of passage for gay male “transgender” children in general. […]

  33. Motherhood Says:

    Well look who is in the Alantic Monthly–I hate this guy. He need to spring for having his hair line pulled down. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/creating-a-living-image-of-a-transgender-woman/284131/


  34. […] Bear Bergman should be asking Janet Mock a few “curious questions” about Mock’s reputed advocacy of child prostitution and grooming. Is that in her book too? (I’m on the holds list at the library. Don’t worry – that will be […]


  35. […] 2.) Janet Mock referring to prostitution as a “rite of passage” for trans women seeking to transition early in their lives, preferably as minors. So getting raped is pretty much seen as inevitable. (x) […]

  36. OHappyDay Says:

    A bit late to post, but wow I am pissed. Advocating the sexual abuse of children ( yes paying a child for sex is sexual abuse ). Advocating giving children dangerous drugs that block growth, followed by chemical castration. Adults, play whatever stupid games you want but please leave the kids alone. Just leave them alone. Just leave them alone.

  37. Joe Clark Says:

    With this and similar postings in mind, I waited for my turn to read a library copy of Redefining Realness. Going through it with a fine-toothed comb, I found that the book – in stark contrast to the postings you excerpt – carefully describes transgender prostitution, of whatever age, as a shameful and degrading last resort imposed by the dominant order. Janet Mock explicitly addresses structural factors. She did not use the exact vocabulary of radical feminism, but her acknowledgement of systemic forces is comparable.

    I certainly have no explanation for the disparity between what she wrote in her book and online. I was surprised to find what I found in that book – e.g., p. 175 middle:

    somewhere within I knew I had been groomed to do it. I had been isolated as a child, raised by absent parents, sexually abused, trained to pleasure men over myself, led to feel a sense of detachment from my body, and haunted by a realty of economic powerlessness.

    She does, however (188 bottom), essentially state that one’s “path to womanhood” does not necessarily require a vagina. (Citation needed.) But she also (191 bottom) honestly depicts her revulsion at seeing another MTF’s newly-constructed vagina analogue.

    Redefining Realness is a complex bit of work even if it is seemingly belied and contradicted by Mock’s own online writing.

  38. ophelia6 Says:

    Some of you are a bunch of hateful people just as awful as the men who oppress you. The fact that a born male, who as a child identified as being a woman, should be celebrated by you cruel, misunderstanding human beings. The fact that an individual forced into the patriarchal system only because of what was taken into account between their legs (and not taken seriously for what they believe or FEEL) can not bare to live that way should be considered with a little more tact and humanity. And those who spew about those little trans beings growing up and having male privilege then you’re forgetting that more often than not males squash, belittle, or cast out the non-masculine. Outcasts and minorities don’t reap what societies norms consider their own. They go through a different kind of struggle but its one many don’t survive. To think that this is the bs that those who do survive have to deal with by fellow females/feminine souls or what have you that demand and expect to rise above oppression and patriarchal, unfair systems. And shame on the writer of this article and those who continue to call her a he/him. I pray that no child in your family is trans because you’d destroy them sooner and faster than the rest of the world.


    • We are not your “fellow females/feminine souls or what have you”, sir. You are neither female nor do you have a feminine *anything*..

    • Ashland Avenue Says:

      You know what “should be considered with a little more tact and humanity”? The lived experiences of real women, which MtT are constantly trying to claim and own. Something else that “should be considered with a little more tact and humanity” is our desire not to have to share our private spaces and groups with men, due to eons of violence against women. But I know, only trannies’ boundaries matter!

      And “Ophelia”? FFS.

    • liberalsareinsane Says:

      Clutch those pearls hard, man.

    • Teal Deer Says:

      Just because you’re “non-masculine” doesn’t mean you’re female.

      • Anon Male Says:

        yeah, I thought it was sex, gender (which has nothing to do with trans now), and brain sex: the latter of which is the only thing that counts. It’s like the dude hasn’t even caught up with his own movement.

        READ A FUCKING BOOK, Ophelia. We’re not here to do your trans homework for you!

      • morag99 Says:

        “READ A FUCKING BOOK, Ophelia. We’re not here to do your trans homework for you!”

        Maybe he should start with Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

        Spoiler alert: things don’t end well for Ophelia. Femininity, done properly, will kill you.


  39. Hateful misanthropes only poison their own souls,


    • I know right?

      I’m sure sick of these tranny misanthropes threatening to rape and kill actual women. They are poisoning their souls.

      Why don’t you go lay that sage advice on your friend Roz Kaveney and tell him to leave women the fuck alone?

      Nobody wants him or his shrivelled dick near them.

      • morag99 Says:

        “Why don’t you go lay that sage advice on your friend Roz Kaveney and tell him to leave women the fuck alone?”

        Good old Roz isn’t a misanthrope; he despises only women. Ha! And if only we could open our hearts and minds to that, our mean souls might be saved.


  40. We are family, I got all my sisters with me so that means no chain of fools.

  41. Chistian Says:

    *she

    To the pugnacious author of this article. Go find your own way and stop piggy backing off of other people’s lives. Wench.


  42. […] she, since Ray ″Sylvia″ Rivera and other males in dresses like ″Janet″ Mock (who compared underaged prostitution for ″trans teens″ to the Underground Railroad) are just as passionate […]


  43. Reblogged this on A Thinkers Delight and commented:
    Reason 172,599,001 as to how I know he’s still a man? The media and society are not using his sexual past to shame him as they would a woman and instead they have totally ignored this glaring problem (you found yourself through child prostitution? Really?) and turned him into a golden calf they shower with money and fame.

    The fact that he even has the balls (pun very much intended) to discuss this so cavalierly and nonchalantly is quite male of him because anything that connects males to sex has a lot less stigma attached to it then it does for women.

    Reason 329,299 as to how I know he is male? Referring to women- the very people he wants to emulate- is totally fine but call him a “he” or a “boy”, it’s a problem. Oh the arrogance!? If he don’t take his double-standard having ass on somewhere…


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: