Trans*Figurations – Natacha Kennedy

February 21, 2015

69 Responses to “Trans*Figurations – Natacha Kennedy”

  1. Mortadella Says:

    He’s claiming gender non-conformists in history as trans people. Always speaking for the dead.
    And, yeah, unnatural obsession with children — check.
    Demonizes at least woman for noticing a man is in reality, a man –check.

    I’m surprised he didn’t serve Kool-Aid.

    His wig lacks luster and volume. **tsk-tsk**

    I wish I had the hooch to play a drinking game in which I take a shot every time he says “gendah” and “cis.” But alas, I’m down to half a bottle of pinot.

  2. shediogenes Says:

    ok, so gender is not a social/cultural constuct that is harmful, that needs analysis and deconstruction, but “social cisgenderism” is a harmful social construct to be named, merits analysis and deconstruction? Because it prevents transgendered people from living their authentic lives?
    Gender is a set of inherent traits you are born with AND its forced upon us? Did I hear that right?
    It seems the next devolutionary step in postmodernism is to so deeply twist logic that we are driven insane and simply give in to whatever we are told. I feel like my brain needs to be rebooted after listening to him, like he has put scratches in my record… in my record… in my record…. It’s maddening. Then there are parts of what he is saying that sound dangerously close to radfem gender analysis. It’s as if, given enough time, they will eventually come to all the conclusions 2nd wave feminists came to. He is borrowing from the structure of gender analysis, but turning all the conclusions on their heads.

    Right from the top he acknowledges some ppl take issue with “cis” but then casually tosses out TERF and the audience just sits there, obedient. Sixteen minutes of intensive gaslighting that has left me with a feeling of vertigo, this guy gets a stage, but Sheila Jeffreys gets protested? I… I dont have the words, I feel as if I’ve just become more stupid for having listened to that whole thing.

  3. Bea Says:

    “She could win pretty much any fencing battle no matter what she was wearing.” What does what someone wears have to do with their competence?

    “She committed a crime that could only be committed by a woman.” What kind of crime is that? Indecent public menstruation?

    “I wanted to have those shoes but I knew I couldn’t have them.”
    Boo hoo. That’s hardly a tragedy.

    “Cultural cisgenderism” is literally just gender. He’s implying that women like sexism.

    TERFs are the supposedly the ones responsible for transphobia, yet he says very little about the males who gang raped the trans woman in his anecdote.

    “I’m not trapped by my body, I’m trapped by your beliefs.”
    I didn’t invent biology/reproduction. I’m not going to kill or rape you for wearing a dress and makeup. I don’t go out of my way to harrass trans people. How am I hurting you again?

    This dude has a BAD wig, awful drag queen hand gestures…how many people in that room do you think are saying to themselves, “SHE is a REAL WOMYN, born female, definitely not a weird ass dude in a dress!”

  4. AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

    This is a man. This is the Emperor’s New Clothes, one thousand percent. How can some old fairy tale STILL BE TRUE???? Insane.

  5. AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

    If I watch this much longer, I am going to start laughing out loud at the astounding incredible stupidity of it. This rises to the level of Republicans in the US running for President, and some of their gaffes. It’s a fucking MAN.

  6. AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

    I have to stop watching this. He is a moron. I’m going to start getting enraged here in a heartbeat.

  7. a cat Says:

    Christ that was shit. That was some of the most rambling pseudo academic nonsense I have seen in my life. Some of it was blatantly untrue, some of it was bloody stupid and some of it was propaganda.

    We also got the famous “TERFs want to kill us all” tripe. Dude, I’m born woman and I’m around five foot tall. If I tried to kill you, you could use your dudely muscle to fend me off. Stop pretending the aggressors are radfems. They are not. They are men.

  8. Bev Jo Says:

    I know, he could call “cis” women “women” and other men like himself, “men.” It’s really very simple.

  9. Ashland Avenue Says:

    The usual obliviousness. He talks about how the male fencer from the 18th century was able to “get away” with dressing like a woman, because of his great skills at fencing, which was held in high esteem. He admits that having that sort of societal power allowed that male fencer to do whatever he wanted, in that case to dress as a woman. Nobody dared question him, because he could wave a freaking sword (*smirk*, double entendre intended).

    Here it is well over two hundred years later, and nothing’s changed. Male power = we women/plebes are supposed to accept without questioning whatever the dudes want to do. The thing is, Kennedy doesn’t even begin to see that. I can’t smdh enough at his white male blindness!

    One other thing – I’m gonna be that person again, and remind all y’all that if you love this blog, try and throw some dough Gallus’ way. To keep this blog stellar takes a lot of time and effort on her part – it’s not just someone posting their own thoughts; it takes a ton of research and news tracking, as well as time moderating comments to keep out the trash. Time to show your appreciation if you can, folks. 🙂

  10. morag99 Says:

    Gallus, I noticed you filed this one, first, in “Comedy.”

    Snort. Yeah, what the HELL is he doing with his hands? And the frequent wig-touching? It’s just too much. Perhaps he should go back to Lady Impersonation School for a refresher course.

    This reminds me of what a theatre director once said to one of his actors during rehearsals. Something to the effect of: “Okay, now you’re just acting.”

    Break a leg, “Natacha.”

  11. soporificat Says:

    Sigh. I was only able to get through about a minute of this. The smirk, the self-consciously “feminine” gestures, and the blah-blah-blah trying to legitimize the word “cis” were all just too much for me.

    Pro-tip from an actual woman: it is not professional to have a hair style that requires you to constantly stroke or flip your hair. Clip your hair back or get a different hair cut (or in this case, wig). Yeah, yeah, i know you think you are “sexy.” You are not. You just look like a narcissist.

    Oh right, this is the dude who is a man when it’s convenient and profitable, and is a “woman” when it feels sexy and fun. Such strength of character.

    I await the excellent analyses of the women on this blog who are made of sterner stuff than I am.

  12. LC Says:

    So he explains the origins of ‘cis’ and that some find it offensive without ever addressing the question of WHY those people(women) find it offensive. From the video, one would assume it’s because women are too stupid to understand Latin.
    “Cisgenderism is outside the experience of most people”- gee, maybe that’s because it’s a made-up concept that describes sexism, which is outside the experience of most MEN. As in, the guy in the video.
    “A crime that could only be committed by a woman” In other words, if the police had correctly identified his biological sex, he would not have been arrested. HOW AWFUL FOR HIM.
    I feel like if someone were allowed to translate his speech, the audience members would simultaneously have a peak trans moment: “Oh, so that’s why it all sounded like bullshit.”

    • CKDexterHaven Says:

      It’s pomo-speak, isn’t it? Shit ideas hidden within complex, obfuscating language.

    • GallusMag Says:

      “Tacit means it is communicated without language”. Okay Mark/Natacha. Thanks dood.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Someone should transcribe this speech and publish it on the front page of the Goldsmiths College newspaper. LMAO.

    • morag99 Says:

      ‘ “Cisgenderism is outside the experience of most people”- gee, maybe that’s because it’s a made-up concept that describes sexism, which is outside the experience of most MEN.’

      LC — yes, this was a funny moment in his talk, where, for a split-second, he admitted that that’s all “cisgenderism” means. He was describing sexism.

      Sexism, only with three extra syllables. Extra syllables to contain the fictional concept of powerful females “oppressing” males, based upon their biological sex. It means that “reverse sexism” wasn’t working for them (for many reason, the existence of “sex” being one of them), so they had to come up with another word. A fancier, obfuscating one.

    • janetwo Says:

      Dear Dude with the Terrible Wig,
      Next time you want to discuss why women dont like to be called cis, dont fabulate, just ask them. Or read this blog.

  13. CKDexterHaven Says:

    Just to note – he is speaking at Conway Hall, the venue which backtracked on hosting a RadFem conference due to pressure from an MRA and transactivist unholy alliance. If TERFs are so murderous how come they don’t threaten conference venues out of hosting transgender speakers? Oh yeah, because radical feminists don’t threaten violence to their opponents.

    On another note, I can’t believe what wishy-washy thinking passes for academic scholarship these days. My professors, who would probably be written off as crusty, old dons by the likes of Natacha, would wipe the floor with this level of thinking.

    Plus, he’s a man in a wig! Nobody, but nobody, genuinely believes these guys are women. I don’t even believe Natacha is deluded. He knows nobody thinks he’s a woman but he gets off on intimidating people into repeating his lie.

  14. Mortadella Says:

    Also, take note; he’s wearing all black to distract everyone from noticing he has an obvious male body. It doesn’t work, but points for trying…not.

  15. VC Says:

    I know that trans people read this blog, as they occasionally post here. It would be immensely enlightening, to me at least, if they would comment on Natasha Kennedy’s “gender presentation”. (I don’t care for the term, but I am aware that it’s accepted jargon in some academic circles.)

    Kennedy makes no effort to sound female – if you heard him without seeing him, most people would simply assume that it’s a man speaking. SK appears to be free of makeup. Kennedy’s clothing, from what we can see, could be worn by a man – Steven Tyler typically wears far more ‘feminine’ attire. There are very good wigs and hair extensions in the world, But Kennedy’s hair hat is atrocioud. By its appearance, and the constant fiddling, it appears more like a ceremonial marker of rank than an actual head of hair.

    Given all that, not to mention the odd physical gesturing, how can Kennedy expect the average person to read him as female, and accept him as such? Does this guy own a mirror? He seems to believe in a kind shamanic ritual transformation that magically turns him female, when he dons a few sparkles and a bad wig. Which is just fine, as long as he confines his eccentricity to his home and circle of friends who are willing to play along. But the wider world is going to see him as a man who dresses funny. He cannot imagine that women would be comfortable sharing intimate space with him. He’s a dude, for God’s sake!

    I have no wish to physically harm Kennedy or any other trans person. But I’m also not interested in participating in his delusion, unlike the compliant students who sit there listening to him spout his nonsense. We are now at the point where we have to start discussing transgenderism for what it is – a fetish, a delusion, a mental illness.

  16. >:) Says:

    He is wearing a popular stripper-wig, LOL

    • GallusMag Says:

      I don’t get his wig choice. I really don’t. The severe center part accentuates his male forehead and the dark roots draw an arrow to his manly face.

      I’m not mocking him. Truly. I just think it would be very easy for him to look better.

      • >:) Says:

        Dark roots works better in dimly lit strip clubs, he probably first saw it on a stripper and gets off on pretending to be her.

      • It really is an odd choice, especially since there are some really good wigs out there. They’re expensive, of course, but once you’ve blown thousands on becoming an unreasonable fascimile of a woman why cheap out on one of the first things people notice? I think most would be better off with (good) wigs because when their own hair doesn’t work. My husband is a graphic designer and does a lot of photoshopping in his job and he actually pointed out to me that male hair and female hair look nothing alike. I’d never noticed, but once he pointed out the differences they were glaring. So yeah, I think they’re better off with wigs.

        But, as I’ve said before, I don’t think most of these “lesbians” are even trying. They’re white males, the bare minimum has always sufficed for them, why should their “presentation” be any different.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Too much male-pattern baldness to go with his own hair I should think:

      • >:) Says:

        It seems he can switch back to ‘man’ when he needs to re affirm that he is a white male with sexual rights demanding action.

      • morag99 Says:

        I agree about the severity. Also, it’s too long and it’s too “young.” Unlike most mature women, these men don’t seem to understand — or care — that too-young styles are not transformative. One still looks one’s age, or, due to the contrast, even older.

        This wig is better. Especially if it was more ashy in colour:

      • GallusMag Says:

        Oh yes! That’s a much better choice. Even just moving the part over and adding a bit of bangs would do wonders for him.

      • GallusMag Says:

        I’m put in mind of a Blanchard quote in the ‘Transgender Triumph’ piece the conservative publication the Weekly Standard is running this week (where GenderTrender is also quoted!):

        ” Dr. Rachel Levine, a balding, bespectacled fiftysomething doctor who transitioned five years ago and was appointed on January 27 by Pennsylvania’s new Democratic governor Tom Wolf the state’s first transgender physician general, can look to the uninitiated like Phil Silvers in a wig. “They’ll look at themselves in the mirror, and they’ll see what they want to see,” Blanchard said. “It’s not necessarily what you see.”

      • GallusMag Says:

        Side part, little bit of bang…

        Ehh. That one might be a bit David St.Hubbins…

      • GallusMag Says:

        See? He looks so much more plausible, and I’ve changed nothing but his wig. Side part, little bang, more in his natural color.

      • GallusMag Says:

        It’s the First Annual Academy Award GenderTrender Makeover! Congrats, Mark! You Win!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • morag99 Says:

        Oh my god, Gallus! That second one, with the side-bang and loose curls in two-tone blond, is just smashing.

        Really, so much better.

      • morag99 Says:

        But, he also reminds me of Roman Polanski in The Tenant:

      • GallusMag Says:

        “That second one, with the side-bang and loose curls in two-tone blond..”

        Now, what I’ve done here is select a wig exactly opposite to the color of his eyes, which brings them out (think green-eyed red-head).

      • morag99 Says:

        Did you also try red hair? A nice strawberry blond? Something tells me that would also work with Mark’s eyes and complexion. Or, maybe I’m just stuck on that still shot of Roman Polanski in a red wig. If you take a closer look, the resemblance is quite striking — both as a men in typical man-style, and as men in drag. They have very similar faces.

      • GallusMag Says:

        No, sadly I was only booked for a five minute session for this affair.

      • Bea Says:

        Isn’t it odd that his hair looks so bad considering he internalized all those messages meant for girls growing up?

        The wig is far too full, too. Older white women rarely have that thick of hair. He does get a tiny bit of credit for not wearing an overly shiny synthetic wig. My guess is that his inability to properly perceive how awful he looks is part of the delusion package.

      • Lemoni Says:

        Oopa Natushkina will be worried as provided regular fashion advice on this forum:

        The hijacking of reclaim the night Looks like they waited for Schwarz The Deathstar to leave the Forum before mission accomplished by CN Lester ‘Les’

      • Smits Says:

        I love this thread. If only we could get our own reality show, Laverne Cox style, to teach ugly dudes with oestrogen-enduced moobs how to look slightly less terrifying. “TERF Eye for the Trans Guy-I’M SORRY I MEAN LAYDEE AHEM”

      • RR Says:

        Lololololol! I love when you put your stylist cap on, GM! And Morag, you found his doppelganger, it is uncanny! Fittingly creepy film, too, the essence of man’s insanity as a product of his sexual obsessions and internal ghastliness. His terrible existy-ness! :p Women’s insanity is brought on through the gas lighting and psychological abuse of these ghastly men. I would not piss on the man if he was on fire, but his films do not make heroes of damaged and destructive men. Women’s subservience to abusive pretenbians like Mark who live to gaslight, silence and abuse women will never be enough for them. Does everyone know he is not even a full time crossdresser? He just puts on a wig for women’s conferences but publishes under his actual dude name? Wow. Does he wear that red-light special to his coffee klatch with Moore? Does she pretend he looks beautiful???
        The women who play along and worship his shadow will eventually realize how much he fucking hates them. Whether they have the gumption to withdraw support is not so certain- many of them are very invested psychologically, socially, and some financially dependent on promoting the transcult.

        Glad you are going strong, GM. I can’t say much I respect and appreciate what you do here- GT is always a refuge from the storm of Orwellian mind-fuck male-centering fauxmanism ❤

      • morag99 Says:

        “TERF Eye for the Trans Guy-I’M SORRY I MEAN LAYDEE AHEM”

        Ha! Yeah, Smits, they are guys alright.

        How about “Wigs by Terf: New Curls for New Girls”?

        Radio advertisement voice:

        “Are you a brand-new girl without a curl on your head? Don’t despair, buy some hair! Head down to Seventh Avenue and pay a visit to Wigs by Terf. Their EXCLUSIVE collection of wigs come in all colours, styles and sizes to fit your man-size skull. There is literally no other place on Earth where a TERF will welcome you with open arms, sooo … come on in, girls, and get your curls today! Consultations are free! Appointments are preferred. Cash only. Some exclusions may apply.”

      • morag99 Says:

        “And Morag, you found his doppelganger, it is uncanny! Fittingly creepy film, too, the essence of man’s insanity as a product of his sexual obsessions and internal ghastliness. His terrible existy-ness! :p”

        You see it, too! Yes, an uncanny likeness, and creepy too.

        Polanski is ghastly rapist, and like most intelligent and artistically talented men, he KNOWS it and his conscience does not suffer. Polanski, Woody Allen and many others, make “art” from their sexual obsessions and from the pain of their “terrible existy-ness” — snort!

        It’s no surprise that “transwomen” have a similar preoccupation with their existence and with how females somehow threaten their existence by — you guessed it –existing while female. That’s why they’re putting on wigs and trying to get rid of the word itself.

        Ugh, it’s so gross the way he was coming on to Moore on Twitter and trying to convince her that radical feminists are always physically violent toward the trans. If she wants to see violence, she should tell him, over coffee, that he looks as lovely as a Brazilian transsexual. Oh my god.

      • kesher Says:

        I think he’d just take the Brazilian transsexual comment as a compliment. Maybe Mrs. Doubtfire?

  17. @Morag

    Spot on…

    “LC — yes, this was a funny moment in his talk, where, for a split-second, he admitted that that’s all “cisgenderism” means. He was describing sexism.

    Sexism, only with three extra syllables. Extra syllables to contain the fictional concept of powerful females “oppressing” males, based upon their biological sex. It means that “reverse sexism” wasn’t working for them (for many reason, the existence of “sex” being one of them), so they had to come up with another word. A fancier, obfuscating one.”

    I can’t stand the word “cis”, and no one outside of trans/queer circles uses it. When it’s applied to women, it makes no sense, and the logic, if one wants to call it logic, falls apart.. By and large, femininity, submissiveness, and stereotypical “feminine” and “girly” characteristics are forced on women. Attempting to apply the word “cis” to the real life experiences of girls and women is highly offensive.

    No woman is “cis”, and it’s not a word that we made up to describe ourselves. This is from Culturally Bound Gender.

    “Cis” is a term that pretends to define an oppressor class, but instead works by lumping both the oppressors and many of the oppressed into a single, unified whole. What this means, in practice, is that women—who are also an oppressed gender minority—are being treated like they are not only the oppressor class, but in fact the part of the oppressor class that needs to sacrifice the most, risk the most, and argue the least….

    Terming “cis” the oppressor linguistically erases the oldest and most common form of oppression on the planet: male supremacy. It allows members of one oppressed group to claim they are “punching up” while in fact hurting another group of oppressed people. It allows a reversal by which other oppressed groups are viewed as the primary perpetrators of oppression.

    “Cis” benefits men. It can only benefit men, in the same way that redefining white supremacy as non-black supremacy can only benefit whites. You can’t fight an oppressive system by redefining its victims as its aggressors.”

    • morag99 Says:

      Yes, Skylark, this is what the trans want “cis” to mean. But, while they are succeeding in selling all kinds of lies about women, lesbians and feminists, I don’t think “cis” is a success.

      I read a tweet from a feminist the other day — I wish I could remember her account name — and she said something like this: when someone identifies herself as a “cis woman” that’s just her polite way of saying she’s a “real” or “actual” woman.

      I think this is true. When liberal people hear “cis” they know it refers, not to an identity, not to what trans want it to mean, but to the immutable reality of biological sex and sexual dimorphism. Nobody, not even the most misogynist, gender-essentialist, devoted trans ally, is fooled by this weasel word.

      So many people pretend to believe in “cis” out of fear, yes, but those same people also are also just condescending to transgenderists, treating them like volatile children who need to be humoured by mommy-figures. Radical feminists are among the few who refuse to coddle and indulge their fantasies and, instead, talk on-the-level with these ridiculous, narcissistic, badly-behaved men.

  18. Gallus, great makeover!

    Gallus, I know you don’t like people posting links to videos, but this is such an awesome video from a brilliant young woman.

    “The End of Gender: Revolution Not Reform”

    If it’s too much trouble to embed the video, just copy and paste the link or go to youtube and type in “The End of Gender: Revolution Not Reform”.

    They tried to pull their McCarthy type tactics to bully and silence her, but she isn’t so easily intimidated. It’s disgraceful the way she was treated for just making a video that didn’t align perfectly with their post modern, neoliberal view of “gender”.

  19. Wednesday Says:

    Couldn’t continue watching after he started voguing.

  20. Andresg Says:

    What tha hell I’m dumber after that video, I don’t understand why the medical community doesn’t speak up on this twang topic I don’t mean the gps or practicians but the researchers I know at least 3 neuroscientists that are trouble but the latest politics shaping of science

  21. Bea Says:

    Found out that whiny misogynist “trans woman” Will Radick petitioned Breitenbush Hot Springs in the NW to reverse their policy which allowed women to hold retreats without men. The female-only, lesbian-centric Women in the Woods retreat has been hosted by Breitenbush for over thirty years, and is now required to allow “self-identified women” (genderist males) into their safe space and clothing-optional soaking pools.

    This is NOT OKAY. A few men in dresses should not be able to erode half the population’s rights this easily.

    Here is their contact information:

    Phone: 503.854.3320

    Breitenbush Hot Springs
    PO Box 578
    Detroit, OR 97342

  22. Congrats on the mention in the WS, Gallus. I’m sure you got more readers as a result. I thought the article was pretty fair.

  23. AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

    Look at the shoulders in the audience – I think most of the audience is male…..

  24. Who the fuck does this dude think he’s fooling?

  25. Lemoni Says:

    What transwomen need from and learned from feminism is to create a ‘suspect class’ of female which contradicts the immutability of sex/gender.

    The hallmarks of a suspect class:

    # A record of strong public and political opposition to their existence,
    # Vulnerability to existing laws that will subject them to significant harms as soon as they are born,
    # A tiny and closeted membership that is likely to be politically ineffective,
    # Status as a “discrete and insular” minority,
    # Immutable characteristics,
    # A lack of responsibility for their genetic status,
    # A lack of relationship between their genetic status and ability to contribute to society, and
    # Stigma.

    Having attempted to achieve these characteristics they will expect the State and Lawmakers to legislate and intervene via political process on their behalf as a victimized group.

    In other words they are ‘testing’ the introduction of human cloning on a massive scale once the tech is near perfected. They will then proceed to eliminate women entirely and clone themselves.

    Thats why they are so desperate to ‘pass’ and feminists are their main obstacle.

    The dressing up in gender specific clothing and bad wigs is a decoy to establish ‘a lack of relationship between their genetic status and ability to contribute to society’ poor Natacha felt like a ‘girl’ from the age of 4 but didnt have access to hormones is a complete fabrication. Its all to do with eugenics, big pharma and Law.

  26. Lemoni Says:

    They can now add a head to someone else’s body

    But they have yet to invent a decent wig!

    I wonder what happens to the laydee brain on transplant to a ‘foreign body’ will this change the set DNA code ?

    • Bea Says:

      I had a terrifying thought. You know the Falun Gong organ harvesting camps in China? What if those became the source for young women’s bodies for all the middle-aged white military IT dudes wanting a “sex change body transplant”? Then they’d slap on a little darker foundation and call themselves WoC.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: