Identity Politics will be Intersectional or they will be Bullshit

June 12, 2015

transracial rachel dolezal bruce jenner


[*Post title stolen from Roslyn HERE]

373 Responses to “Identity Politics will be Intersectional or they will be Bullshit”

    • kesher Says:

      Ah, Meredith Talusan who thinks MTTs should get special affirmative action for acceptance into women’s colleges, because they have so much to teach us about male privilege.

      That they do, indeed. Peak trans for everyone at Smith!

      • GallusMag Says:

        Talusan raised over 75,000. on GoFundMe to start a non-profit to “teach women in the Philippines how to knit”. He never started the non-profit and dropped the campaign six months later. I asked him what happened to the money and he accused me of “TERF harassment” and refused to answer.

        Maybe he can teach women how to do an interpretive dance that culminates with a backflip onto a dildo up the ass. Seems that’s what he’s best skilled at:

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        Here’s an article about Talusan. Being an article from The Frisky, it falls all over itself defending this asshole; but do read the comments, which allude to a different story. Oh wait, here’s another story, this one from Salon, wherein the comments are rather more enlightening than the article. Apparently there are plenty of folk out there who believe Talusan has, shall we say, issues.

    • Mormo Says:

      from above article “Cisgender women argue that trans women are placing an undue burden upon them, by forcing them to reconceptualize their womanhood, as though such a burden is unique in the context of equal rights struggles for all people. Europeans had to reconceptualize what it meant to be human in order to accept that their slaves and the indigenous people they conquered or killed were not animals. ”


      they don’t have to “identify” as human. Did this jackass even think about what he was implying when he typed this out?

      Stop comparing racial prejudice with the problems faced by people of one sex desiring to be another. It’s ludicrous!

      • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

        Thanks for sharing this. I wasn’t aware there was a history of exclusively females having exclusively male slaves and then also there were these indigenous males that females were conquering and killing. I’ve studied lots of history and apparently there is a big huge hole in my education. But now, I feel I finally have that final piece of the puzzle. With this fresh perspective, I now see that the witch burnings in Europe were an aberration, a real outlier. It wasn’t like that AT ALL most of the time. It was women going out and killing and enslaving and conquering males, all over the planet. I stand corrected.

      • soporificat Says:

        The other major problem with this argument is that the author places class:women in parallel to class:white. It’s a sleight of hand to redefine women as the oppressor class. It sure is a topsy-turvy world they live in!

        Of course, MRAs love to perform this neat trick as well. It must be weird to be so delusional.

      • kesher Says:

        Slaves and indigenous peoples were human enough to be Christianized. Interesting how they weren’t human enough to be treated with basic dignity, but they were human enough to be incorporated into Jesus’s flock. It’s almost like Europeans never needed to “reconceptualize” humanity.

  1. Seen on Twitter:

    The deluge of mockery there has been just hilarious. Trans and libfems have wasted no time puking up word salads trying to stem the deluge, but you can’t stop the funny:

    Oh, my side.

    ps. For some reason I’ve started posting on Twitter. Feel free to follow or chat with me there, ladies – Jane (the first)

  2. GallusMag Says:

  3. stchauvinism Says:

    Reblogged this on Stop Trans Chauvinism.

  4. Transwomen not only exist, THEY LIVE 🙂

  5. australopithecene Says:

    I like people saying, “This is different, it’s about someone appropriating an oppressed class.” Because women aren’t oppressed.

    • flahe Says:

      Other reasons that even comparing it is totally transphobic and mean:

      “Ethnicity has nothing to do with reproductive organs or hormones, things that CAN actually be altered with science. Like, no matter what gender you identify with…your ethnicity was predetermined before you even began the earliest stages fetal development”

      Unlike Sex I guess, which can totally be altered by inverting a penis into a Neo-Vagina and wasn’t determined in utero at all.

      Comparing transracial/transethnic with transgender is totally the same as comparing homosexuality with bestiality/pedophilia and trans people exist in ALL CULTURES AND ALWAYS HAVE and it’s like a medically documented thing that some people have “Sex dysphoria [which] is the experience of discomfort and or disconnect with the natal sex characteristics of their bodies”

      Because I guess hormones and srs are a requirement for being a Hijra/Two Spirit etc.
      Sex and gender are different, but a crossdresser, culturally specific gender rhole defying person (eg Hijra), transsexual and idek drag person are not to be differentiated they’re all TRANS, except for when it isn’t convenient then they are totally FAKE trans. Being trans is about the disconnect between ‘bodily’ characteristics and expectations about those, but every gender noncomformer actually still counts. And Medical documentation of anything is always accurate and especially in psychopathology has never been revised :). I wonder what the argument will be when some transabled people will turn up. I have compassion with people suffering from dysphoria, but I remain unconvinced that the medical evidence is sufficient to argue for srs and hormones as adequate treatment. I do wonder if people will understand these questions when they see transabled, will they argue that you should cut of a limb, if you feel like you ‘have to’ to be happy? Or will they just argue that it’s offensive and be done with it. Or understand that it#s time for other types of treatment for dysphoria?

      • kesher Says:

        “your ethnicity was predetermined before you even began the earliest stages fetal development”

        This reminds me of the good-natured argument that my boyfriend and I had over whether or not Vin Diesel is black. My boyfriend claimed that it’s obvious just by looking and listening that he’s black; I didn’t really know one way or another, that whatever his ethnic background, he could easily pass as white due to his skintone. It turns out that his father is black, so, according to the American one-drop rule, he’s black as long as he doesn’t try to hide it, and it seems that Diesel is proud of his heritage, so good for him. But it really illustrates that race is such a social construct, it doesn’t even really matter what you look like. Although, I’d presume that Diesel doesn’t really experience racial profiling from law enforcement.

        So the idea that your ethnicity is predetermined during fetal development is ridiculous. Your appearance is determined by fetal development; how other people perceive your appearance, or your heritage regardless of appearance, depends on social constructs and the resulting perceptions of who you are. Kind of like how, as much as trans cultists screech when they’re “misgendered”, it they look like men, people are going to treat them like men.

      • KgSch Says:

        From what I’ve seen is that the argument is that being “trans-abled” is a brain defect and is the inverse of phantom limb syndrome. All I see is a bunch of bored, able-bodied twits whining. Privilege and good heath is wasted on those people.

        It also ties into being an autogynophile. There is a man pretending to be a woman who chainsawed his legs off:

        Another man, mentioned on gendertrender, appeared on an episode of National Geographic’s “Taboo”. The documentary talks about how he wanted to be paralyzed from the waist down even since fondling his aunt’s leg braces as a child. (Sounds like a sexual fetish there.) The funny thing is, the “Taboo” documentary talks about how he pretends to be paralyzed but never mentions that he pretends to be a woman. He also goes to Dyke Marches in a wheelchair caring a sign that says “differently-abled dyke” and tips the chair over to get attention sympathy from unsuspecting lesbians. He admits to being jealous of disabled people and is often written about as if he is actually a woman/lesbian. (He was also working in a STEM job, big shock.)

        For the women fetish, these dudes argue that they have “ladybrains” or are intersex and for the disability fetish, they argue that they have the inverse of phantom limb syndrome. It’s once again a bunch of privilege men fetishizing a group of oppressed people. Maybe if they really want to feel disabled, they could pay the outrageous medical bills for disabled people.

      • So I suppose according to these folks, since race and skin color are so different and determined at the moment of conception, there’s no one with vitiligo or other conditions that change their skin color. No one with albinism or other conditions that make them “interrace” and an unusual phenotype for their family. Melanin, since it’s a pigment molecule and not a hormone molecule, must be totally different. Only one kind of body chemistry can be transitioned. No one has ever “transitioned” to living as black using melanin and written a book called “Black Like Me.” Nope.

      • Siobhan Says:

        What can I do to stop this incorrect notion of “every embryo starts as female?” Because that is not true. Every embryo starts out undifferentiated. As with almost every other component of human development, hormones and enzymes make a big difference in how different traits are expressed. However, an XY embryo will never have a uterus or ovaries.

        Even in the case of complete androgen insensitivity, like the child of a friend of mine, when the response to the male hormones is completely blocked, the child does not become fully female. That child will have testicles, not ovaries, and will not have a uterus or fallopian tubes. This is true intersex, folks. The child I know had to have the undescended testicles removed because they posed some kind of cancer risk. She does not have a penis, she will never have periods or a pregnancy, and her vaginal opening is very short and she will never be able to have penetrative sex without some surgical interventions. This is a young person with a genuine medical issue that impacts her life. This is NOT a pornsick man who, after years of objectifying and exploiting women, decides that he fancies himself a woman on the inside.

        Back to race, your skin color and facial features are also determined by enzymes. Think how obnoxious it would be to claim that “every embryo starts out as white.” Every embryo starts out as an undifferentiated mass of cells, that’s all.

      • Julianna D Says:

        But how is race (skin color) passed on? Could be by…idk… Male and female reproduction?

        No no no, that cannot be right. Sex is a construct! Only identity is real! But only when it comes to race, but not sex, which is totally not real.

        I have a headache….

      • At one point in time during my embryonic development I had gills. Therefore I am a fish.

    • heyiknowher Says:

      I like the ones saying that it’s different because race is a social construct (as if gender isn’t) and sex is biological and that Bruce isn’t claiming that he’s a woman, he’s claiming he’s a TRANSwoman. Um..okay, please keep not making sense.

      • flahe Says:

        Ugh, I wish that was the case if trans women were only claiming to be transwomen (which they are ffs) and not biologically female and accept boundaries by women we really wouldn’t have a problem

      • kesher Says:

        I’d have fewer problems with MTTs if they accepted the label of “trans women” as something distinct from women, which it is. They could then pursue what they lie about wanting, full legal rights and basic respect as human beings. But their being men, that isn’t enough. They have to co-opt/steal our very existence and rob us of all the accomplishments we’ve obtained for ourselves over the last century.

      • Relieved Says:

        I am also of the opinion that trans is not as MUCH of a threat to me so long as they are considered a third category and the bathroom law has the “do not misuse” provision. In fact, I have used club bathrooms in the “rave days” the presence of male transexuals and was not concerned (considering what goes on in club restrooms..whatever).

        However, I was raped in a bathroom by a man, and it took him less than 10 min. to rape me and get back to his table where he was eating with his girlfriend (he told her that he was “helping” a drunk girl who was “sick” in the bathroom), so I know how fast it can happen. It literally can take a man less than 10 minutes to rape a person, and that person will likely be in such bad shock that they won’t scream rape or report it quickly.

        People think women who are raped quickly run and scream rape, but that is not necessarily the case. I was literally speechless and dumb for three days after the incident and could not speak English just sort of a repetitive whimpering mumble. After that I was subjected to intense ridicule by the cops for reporting stranger rape. Well, at least they don’t call it the fucking Texas IN-justice System for nothing!

        It’s embarrassing to talk about, but fuck it: my point is I know that many women can relate, and our right to bathroom privacy and threat of rape is SERIOUS. Rape is life destroying and I’ve suffered for years with PTSD from that shot. It never goes away. The body always remembers even if the mind wants to forget.

        If the translobby continue to demand to say they are true women like us I will fight them everyday of my goddamned life. Men who are trans will not and will never be women, and dick bearers don’t belong in women’s spaces because of safety issues concerning. Period.

      • flahe Says:

        @Relieved wow, what a piece of worthless scum. And the empathy black holes that are cops are not better. God the girlfriend, he probably abused her one way or another aswell.

        I am not a militant on the bathroom issue (I believe in contingencies basically and thank the existance of stalls), but this story just shows how dismissing the feeling of fear by women as hysteria and paranoia, misses women’s reality by miles.

        I wish I could comfort you in any way, thanks for sharing something so painful!

      • Julianna D Says:


        Hi Relieved,

        What a horrible story. My heart breaks for you. I hope you are in a better place now.

        I, too, was raped quickly by a man I did not know, though I had talked to him earlier in the night. I was visiting another state with friends, and one of their friends had a house party. I left with a (gay) male escort to walk me to where I was staying, and this man followed me there. He waited for us to say our good-byes and literally popped out of the bushes once the other man was gone. He threw me to the ground, ripped my pants, and raped me before I even knew what was happening. It was over in probably less than five minutes.

        I was in shock. And remained in shock the entire next day, petrified of seeing him again.

        Everyone thinks you should be screaming or fighting or something, but most people who haven’t experienced violence in their lives don’t react that way. When the violence is sudden and out-of-the-blue, people freeze. Predators expect that.

        Stay strong, sister. You are not alone. Hopefully, others reading here will learn from our experiences.

      • liberalsareinsane Says:

        I think “trans women” should just stick with the terms ‘pervert’, or ‘mental case’. They’re not women of any kind. Period. Even if they put “trans” in front of it. And, no, they don’t get to use ‘she’ or ‘her’ either and they sure as hell do not belong in women’s spaces.You give men/mental cases an inch they take a mile.

        As for worrying about these dearies rights? Bwahahaha. They’re straight MEN they got plenty of rights.

      • Teal Deer Says:

        “(I believe in contingencies basically and thank the existance of stalls)”

        Where I live, there have been drug problems in our public parks, so most restrooms in the parks have no doors on the stalls. I’d be so freaked out if some 6′ 2″ MTT sauntered in while I was there.

      • KgSch Says:


        I second your comment so much. Heterosexual men have plenty of rights. “She” is an honorific only for females/girls/women and those men are not women!

  6. I'm No Cissie Says:

    “So if you’re keeping track, the explanations for why Rachel Dolezal is a problem but transgenderism is courageous are: “Fuck You,” “LOL.””

    This. ^^ Liberal “allies”, in particular, are only able to jeer, rather than try to explain. At least the poster at the reddit link on the prior post took a stab at explaining.

    • Oak and Ash Says:

      The more detailed reasons for why transgender is real but transracial isn’t seem to work out to:

      1. Gender is genetic, but race is cultural.

      2. Gender is cultural, but race is genetic.

      3. Gender is simple, but race is complex.

      4. Gender is complex, but race is simple.

      5. All of the above.

  7. ImNoCissie Says:

    I almost peed myself from the irony:

    • kesher Says:

      Jos Truitt, white male appropriator extraordinaire has a problem with white people shooting to the top of leftist leadership positions. lol

  8. Dana Says:


  9. jusluclipr Says:

    You need an equivalent word to TERF?

    Just say no to T-REX – TransRace EXclusionists.

  10. Lulu Says:

    As a Black woman, all I can say is that I love Rachel Dolezal. God bless this woman.We thought Bruce’s Vanity Fair cover was peak trans, and then along comes Rachel. I am loving it. Watching the twanz community/allies twist themselves into pretzels, to convince the rest of us that transracialsm is a farce and nothing like transgenderism, has been a delight.

    I love you, Rachel. My sistah. Stay Black.

    • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

      Your comment inspired mine. I wonder if any of the gender-critical perspective will make it through to her, if she will realize SOME of people’s reaction to her comes from her “reveal” being so close to Jenner’s?

      And I wonder about the timing – why didn’t we hear about this a year ago, 3 years ago? It’s just so perfect, I wonder if whatever set of circumstances brought about her very public “identity crisis” now – did the Jenner cover in any way, any indirect way, bring them about? Or just completely unrelated.

    • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

      When I saw that Caitlyn Jenner photo I was in pain, emotional pain, extreme searing emotional pain. If there is “peak trans” there is also “rock bottom trans” when you feel hopeless, the entire world is INSANE, there is no recovering from this intellectual lie, it is the BIG LIE that will attract to it a bunch of other lies, a great big ball of lies crushing me out of existence. I hit “rock bottom trans” with that Caitlyn Jenner pic.

      And then comes Rachel!!!!!! And I’m having myself a second wind, a resurgence, new hope, whatever you want to call it. I AM BORN AGAIN!!!! LOL. Yes indeed. Luv Ya Rach!!!!!

    • endthewoo Says:

      “orange is the new black”

      aka: we’ve been tangoed

  11. GallusMag Says:

    “In an interview with CBS affiliate KREM 2 News on Friday, Dolezal maintained she is black.

    “Yes, I do consider myself to be black and that’s because … you know, that’s how I identify,” she told the station.

    “I actually don’t like the term ‘African American.’ I prefer the term ‘black,’” she said.

    Dolezal said she has nothing to say to critics outraged by her racial identification. She also said any concerns people may have about misrepresentation of her race is something she’d rather discuss only with the black community.

    “It’s more important for me to clarify that with the black community and my executive board than it is to explain it to a community that I, quite frankly, don’t think really understands the definitions of race and ethnicity,” she said.

    Dolezal encouraged critics to “maybe think about W.E.B Du Bois that said race is usually biological, always cultural.”

  12. Elle Says:

    Washington Post article (just change “Rachel Dolezal” to “Caitlyn Jenner” and “black” to “a woman” in the title):

    What Rachel Dolezal doesn’t understand: being black is about more than just how you look

  13. KgSch Says:

    Wow, the “transracial” people have showed up. By the way, I really liked the list of insults on the other post about this. (“I’m more oppressed than cis-black people because everyone denies my blackness! I only enact racist stereotypes to pass!”) Good stuff. It’s exactly similar to what men who impersonate women say about actual women of all races. I will have lots of fun trying to watch liberals on-board the trans trend justify this.

    They will probably come up with some bs though, since now the white guy with a ton of money who donated to Reagan during the AIDS crisis is the now most oppressed person ever because he got plastic surgery that most people couldn’t afford. I saw this comment on one of the trans-critical articles where the person was claiming that “trans were more oppressed than a ‘poor queer female of color’*” and that everyone should be treated as well as white men. Bruce Jenner is a white man, and a very rich and conservative one too. No amount of plastic surgery will change that.

    (*Don’t you get pissed off when people use “queer” as a way to avoid saying lesbian? I know I do.)

    • a cat Says:

      Yes. I think “lesbian” has become code for boring and staid whereas “queer” sounds fun and exciting. And the “what would you prefer to see downstairs when you and your partner both get your kit off?” Transphobic.

    • Jesse Says:

      “(*Don’t you get pissed off when people use “queer” as a way to avoid saying lesbian? I know I do.)”

      Possibly stupid question: What is “queer”? I was always taught never to say it, because it’s an insult, but some people seem to use it to describe themselves, or even as a term of pride. (I was also always taught to say gay, not homosexual, as the latter sounds kinda medical, but I’ve had actual gay people burst out laughing when I mentioned what I was taught.)

      • KgSch Says:

        You’re right, queer is an insult but some people used it as a reclaimed slur. Now, it’s just a generic term that includes the trans cult and is a pseudo-euphemism for “pansexual”. When used to describe women, it’s just a code to say “she may be open to fucking men.”

        A lot of gay men still use that word. Some lesbians use it, and not to reclaim the word but because they don’t want to big “happy” queer family to find out that they really only like women. Queerness/paying lipservice to being pansexual is okay, but being a lesbian (who is “transphobic” just by existing) is not. Funny though, it’s okay for men to be completely gay and reject FTTs. It’s an erasure technique to make lesbians invisible too. For example, Wanda Sykes is obviously a lesbian and obviously black, but she gets described as a “queer woman of color” a lot.

        The meaning of the word “queer” has been so diluted that it includes autogynophiles and heterosexual couples who like BDSM. I used to be in an alphabet soup group and when I started going there it was mostly lesbians and other women, with a few gay men. Then it shifted to be mostly male with autogynophiles and really weird heterosexual couples who thought that they were queer because of their “wild” sex life. Or because she played sports and he was a cheerleader in high school.

        I’ve gotten crap for not believing in the myth of sexual fluidity and not calling myself queer. Not calling yourself “queer” is “excluding” the rest of the “community” (like I agreed to be grouped in with those oppressive nutjobs.) If you take pride in being a lesbian, it’s not the word for you.

        a cat is right about how lesbians are equated with being boring and “queer” is exciting. I don’t see what is new and exciting about fucking men or paying lipservice to the idea because you’re too afraid to embrace being a lesbian. Conservatives want one woman as property and liberals want all women to be public property; both those things require women having sex with men.

        “Homosexual” is kind of a clinical word, but I’d much rather be called a homosexual than “queer” because it’s more accurate.

        I hope that explains it. The short version is that queer is an insult for homosexuals, but gay men and some lesbians used it as a reclaimed slur. Now it means a ton of different things and is a way to avoid saying “lesbian”.

      • kesher Says:

        Queer is supposedly a reclaimed slur.

        It seems like it’s being used as a catchall term for anyone who fits in the LGBT soup, which is a problem for a number of reasons: many gay men and lesbians don’t want to be called a slur without their permission; many special snowflake straights are calling themselves “queer”, making the word completely devoid of meaning; “queer” seems to imply bisexual to some degree, so it’s almost becoming forbidden to call yourself anything other than “queer” in the event someone thinks you’re a gross “monosexual” who doesn’t want sex with MTTs.

      • Dogtowner Says:

        Or we have the good old days (1990s) at the Wall Street Journal: homosexual on the front page, gay on the back page of the front section, and faggot on the editorial page. They didn’t need a word for lesbian because the editorial staff did not know such a woman existed.

      • Mormo Says:

        “Queer’ basically means “strange” and became a slur for gays (mostly feminine guys) during the turn of the century. In the 60s/70s gays tried to reclaim it as an identity. ( though even today it’s still used a slur) Sometime around the 80s/90s “Queer theory” was developed. THe word’s meaning has been stretched to include ANYONE that’s not “hetero-normantive” (which is any perceived deviation from “normal” heterosexual relationships; it’s a crock of shit ). Queer’s current usage erasures the unique struggles of gays and lesbians by lumping them in with everyone else in the LGBTQIA blah blah.

        A lot of lesbians find it offensive, because it’s come to replace the word “lesbian” as though “lesbian” is some kind of dirty word.

      • Jesse Says:

        Wow, thanks for the informative answers, everyone. I was worried that I’d get chewed out for not researching it first, but I have actually asked around about “queer” and never got an answer that (1) made sense and (2) didn’t scare the hell out of me. (Pick one, folks.)

    • coelacanth Says:

      KgSch, one correction: you wrote: “it’s okay for men to be completely gay and reject FTTs.” There is no way you could know this, but in reality, oh no, it is so not okay for any gay man to reject any FTT even in print! Most women or heteros would not know this (because this history has been erased) but gay men were forced into our version of the cotton ceiling 10 years ago! “Genital preference = racism” is the concept. Or as one queered male wrote: misogyny in gay men makes them bigoted towards female genitals on hot men — that’s like being a racist. What?!? Oh yes. Transmen are the new gay and any gay man who will not have sex with one is a racist. The vagina of the gay transman is male, you see (the new trans science says so — google Buck Angel). Any gay men who resist are bigots haters kapos right wing racists.

      Queer eclipsed gay in 1995, first as an insane postmodernist quack-pot theory (gay men are all really transgendered demi-women and all lesbians are male) and currently queer is as an SJW Identarian Religion with its own PC Inquisition.

      LBGTQ is just another name for the new queer which means trans, and includes other non-heteronormative left wing SJWs especially if they are heterosexual fetishists, autogynophiliac swingers, otherkin BDSM furries, etc. I walked by a queer leather street event in my city a few years ago because up until then the event had been solely for gay men. I saw a man in leather whipping a woman chained to a post. Someone told me the event was now queer. I left.

      As a 60 year old gay man who has been through the past 40 years from homosexual to faggot to gay to queer which means trans; and after being thrown out of the LBGTQueerTrans world for being a gay terf for refusing in print to acknowledge that “gay” transmen were men, let alone gay. I have now reverted back to the term, homosexual. It reminds me of better times. That statement is sadly not meant to be ironic.

      • TheDailyMale Says:

        I recall reading in the LGBT forum at about ten years ago a very lengthy thread in which a furry argued strenuously that it was an identity like lesbian and gay which belonged with them. The lesbians and gays in the group told him to take a long walk off a short plank. At the time I had no idea how widespread the issue was and would become.

      • I’ve also seen trans women and trans men attacking gay men online but never in such a way like it happens with lesbians.

        Also I noticed that it’s mostly trans women who get angry as fuck about the dating and attraction issue- even if it’s about ftms. But in the end everything has to be about them. Always.

        Another thing I noticed it when it comes to lesbians – bi women, “pan” women and trans women do the attacking.

        Gay men mostly get attacked by trans men and trans women.

        No one attacks straight men or straight women. Because they aren’t easy targets and the backlash would be intense.

      • kesher Says:

        I’ve seen a lot of straight women also attacking lesbians for not wanting sex with MTTs. It’s a combination of prioritizing men in everything they do (as vile as it can be, it’s also something they’ve been groomed to do since the day they were born) and, of course, good old-fashioned lesbophobia, where a woman who won’t accept penis is a threat just by existing.

      • Bea Says:

        No one attacks straight women? What about all the straight women married to men who then decide to “transition to female” getting called bigots and unsupportive for not wanting to “become lesbian”? Sorry, but all women are getting attacked by trannies for not redefining their sexuality to include “eunuch with breasts in a stripper’s uniform.”

      • KgSch Says:

        You live in Canada right? I think where I live might be a little different because I live in a red (conservative) state in America and did not bump into the heterosexual version of trans until a few years ago. The alphabet soup group at my college had one female who was claiming to be a het man and one male claiming to be a het woman who would show up at the group every once in a while but they never bothered me. When the autogynophiles started showing up, we did get some fag hag FTTs who wanted to be sexual with gay men, but they usually ended up just dating the bisexual males. No rape threats against gay men though. They were pretty much left alone but lesbians weren’t and we were supposed to think deeply about why we didn’t like men.

        I have seen some of the things online that Lily mentioned, but I haven’t seen gay men get attacked by the trans cult at the same level as lesbians with the rape and death threats. I do think Lily is right that the trans “women” make it all about them so they spend more time sexually harassing lesbians than gay men. FTTs are female after all, so MTTs aren’t going to put as much effort into hassling gay men for them.

        Oh, and Buck Angel and her fanclub are creeps. I hate queer theory too.

        I think that the notion that the best way to show your support for a given group of people is to want to fuck them is ridiculous. A lot of people who wish to date someone who is a different race than them aren’t doing it for pure-hearted reasons (such as when it’s a fetishization case).

      • “What about all the straight women married to men who then decide to “transition to female” getting called bigots and unsupportive for not wanting to “become lesbian”?”

        That’s a different issue because unlike lesbians they don’t reject male bodies. This is what I’m talking about. The lack of attraction to the opposite sex.

      • Loup-loup garou Says:

        I reverted to the term homosexual as well when it became clear that “queer” meant “anything goes,” and that most straight men (and even a number of gay men) have some sort of filter installed that prevents them from hearing the words lesbian or gay when a woman uses them about herself.

        It’s unbelievably easy for any woman to get called “lesbian” (or “fucking lesbian,” etc.) by some guy who wants to express his disapproval of her (for any reason under the sun), but almost impossible for a homosexual woman to refer to herself as lesbian or gay and have the same man accept that as a factual statement.

        For the time being, saying “homosexual” cuts through a lot of the crap. It’s true that the Religious Right prefers this term as well (because they think “gay” is too nice a word), but “homosexual” didn’t originate as a slur, and I’m not going to let them have it. I might feel otherwise if I lived somewhere with a lot of Bible-thumpers, but I’m surrounded by liberals.

      • Susan Nunes Says:

        Speaking of Democratic Underground, you get banned from there if you say anything along the lines of what is critical of the transgender movement. You get called a “terf” and a million other things if you dare question the narrative. You are done. Of course there is no really intelligent exploration of the very real problems with transgenderism. People just aren’t free to say what is actually truth about it without being kicked out of there.

      • GallusMag Says:

        This is hilarious. I have zero sympathy when gay men who have actively prioritized their heterosexual transwomen brothers for years over actual lesbians and women, stomping all over us together in true brotherhood, finally get their just desserts:

        HEE-LARIOUS I tell ya!

      • TheDailyMale Says:

        Susan Nunes, there have been gay purgues at DU. Nasty conformist place.

      • Dogtowner Says:

        I followed the link to the article by the gay man at Daily Kos and I am DEEPLY OFFENDED by his use of the word woman to describe these sick, violent freaks. These are not women, they are men behaving as the worst sort of men behave. If you’ve found out what they’re like why keep kowtowing to them?

    • Siobhan Says:

      I think a lot of young lesbians call themselves “queer” to indicate that they are open to relationships with “transmen.”

      It’s mental gender pretzel twisting – if they like butch women, but all the young butch women are declaring themselves to be transmen, they can’t be lesbians since lesbians are only attracted to women and they must, must honor the claim that transmen are men. So they call themselves queer and just insist that they are open to anything, even though they really are not.

      • judysdreamofhorses Says:

        YES. I’ve encountered a lot of “queer” lesbians with that pretzel logic. And then things get even more complicated when you throw trans women into the mix, because they’re women, right? You have to be attracted to them. Of course, these queer lesbians are not into women with dicks, they like butch women with vaginas who consider themselves men. So now they can’t call themselves lesbians because they don’t love ALL “women.” Tumblr is full of women trying to figure out what on earth they can call themselves as women who only like people with vaginas. And the response they usually get is “transphobe.” A more polite response is usually “vaginaphile” or “gynophile” with a light sprinkling of “however you should rethink your orientation because it’s transphobic.”

        Honestly, it would be hilarious if it weren’t so creepy and homophobic. Coming to the realization that I’m a lesbian and that’s okay was hard enough. It was so important to know there were other women like me, there was a word for what we were. I wasn’t some kind of freak because I only liked women and not men. And now those confused teenage girls – who could have been me – are right back at square one.

  14. Jesse Says:

    Godfrey Elfwick is making heads explode on Twitter, with his #wrongskin hashtag. It’s a definite “Will I laugh or cry?” to see how many people refuse to get the joke.

  15. No name Says:

    She is now saying she is ‘trans’- racial

    • GallusMag Says:

      That’s not her. She was at but she pulled her account.

      • No name Says:

        I am actually relieved, and hope she is ok.
        – there is visible support for her because she did spend the last 17 years as an activist helping people, while Bruce spent his entire life as a coddled white sports star that supported Reganomics.. , under #racheldolezal + #Brucejenner, more people are saying, if BJ is allowed to pretend to be a woman, why can’t RD pretend to be black? And ‘lay off her’ type of tweets.

        Many people from the black community are surfacing on twitter and expressing concern for her treatment by transactivists who are calling her all sorts of things- they are scurrying around trying to stop people comparing her to good ole brave Bruce- mostly, it kills them that a born-woman is stealing BJ’s male spotlight away, and ‘she is making him look bad’ wahhhhh! For many people, it took the second shoe to drop before they went peaktrans, and she made them see the light, She inadvertently became a minority activist that brought to light to the mainstream- trans white male domination of women’s human identity and services.

        I guess trans activists are trying to say she is a liar and Wahhh!, Stop comparing her to Bruce, ‘Bruce’ was brave for pretending to be a woman publicly and ruining 3 marriages- and she was bad for doing the same thing, [but not dragging others into it, besides her brother]- to become a civil rights activist. This is forcing more people to ‘peaktrans’.

        I wonder if she became an activist because of her adapted brother? The more I look at her situation, I can understand why the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but- her intent was not to hurt people[even though, she may have stirred the pot a few times, She has actually done more for the black community than Lavern Cox coddling white men that killed women in prisons.].

  16. australopithecene Says:

    Now that everyone is asking what’s the difference, transactivists are going to have to come clean about ladybrain. Once that pubic discussion starts, it’s all over. That’s all they’ve got, and it’s crap.

  17. Oak and Ash Says:

    The two cases are, in fact, completely different. Of course, it was wrong–even fraudulent–of Rachel Dolezal to masquerade as a black person while doing actual work for the NAACP.

    But Bruce Jenner has never even pretended to support feminism, so he’s a hero in satin lingerie.

    • I'm No Cissie Says:

      Excellent point. I’m not aware of any high profile trans that work on issues affecting the lives of actual women.

      On the internet, when trans involve themselves in websites that are ostensibly “feminist” and about women’s issues, they become about trans issues instead.

      • kesher Says:

        Most high-profile MTTs don’t even work on issues that affect the lives of other trans, unless we’re talking about the likes of Jennifer Pritzker and their attempts to trans as many children as possible.

        MTTs use the suffering of poor, minority MTTs to shut us up, and then they proceed to do nothing about their plight. Yet another reason why trans activists are indistinguishable from MRAs.

    • Susan Nunes Says:

      They aren’t completely different at all–both of them are trying to be something they aren’t and will never be. That is the bottom line.

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        My humor may have been a bit too dry here. Although I believe the two cases are similar, the comment was a response to those who seem to believe Dolezal is evil but Jenner is heroic. They’re equally wrong in laying claim to an oppression not their own–the one difference between them being that Dolezal actually seemed to be working with and for the group whose identity she appropriated. That in no way justifies her deception, but it’s interesting to see so many white liberals attacking her so soon after applauding Jenner’s first appearance in ladyface.

      • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

        As the Janet Jackson song goes: What have you done for me lately? Here’s looking at you, Cait.

      • Susan Nunes Says:

        I totally agree, Oak and Ash. The hypocrisy is just stunning.

  18. gaydude50 Says:

    I love everything about this post and everything about the trans community doing backflips to explain why transracial isn’t legitimate. I was sort of disgusted with the reception of Caitlyn, but many of you were right. That may have been peak trans since it allowed trans-critical articles to start appearing in mainstream media.

    Can’t wait to see them implode and then maybe we can kick them out of the alphabet soup of LBGTWhatever

  19. Great thread….love the title, photos, comments…

    So my mom was an activist feminist in the 1970s, my childhood. (She founded my city’s DV shelter.) In my experience, all feminists at that time were “radical” because feminism itself is radical.

    Radical feminists are *visionaries*. So much of what feminists wanted that was “radical” back then is now mainstream. I remember when some men didn’t think rape was even a thing! If the woman succumbed, it’s because she wanted it. If she looked a certain way, was out too late or alone, returned or was purchased an expensive meal, went to the man’s room, then she deserved or expected it. Women couldn’t get their own credit cards back then. The feminists that I always knew celebrated gays and lesbians. Back in the 1970s, that was radical. Today, somewhat mainstream.

    It wasn’t easy being radical back then, just like it’s not today. It can be very frustrating and discouraging at times. But if feminists aren’t overturning apple carts, then something is wrong.

    But, we RadFems, as usual, are on the right side of history. I don’t know how long it will take for the rest of the world to catch up, but we will bring them to their senses just like we always have.

    Btw, I don’t consider anyone who supports pornography and prostitution a feminist. I’m sorry, but nothing will change my mind. Feminism is about women reclaiming their power. Porn and prostitution are natural products of a patriarchy designed to enslave women. The buying and selling of humans is slavery, duh.

    Anyway, transgenderism is the perfect storm for a motley crew of insanity: “munchausen by proxy”, autogynphelia, homophobia, misogyny, unethical doctors, Big Pharma…

    • JiJi Yuli Says:

      ” In my experience, all feminists at that time were “radical” because feminism itself is radical. ”

      Recently, I explained the difference between liberal and radical feminism to my non-feminists friends (as in “person that doesn’t identify as feminist because it’s not cool but supports most feminist ideas, even the radical ones”): I was pleased to see that they didn’t understand how liberal feminism could be called ‘feminism’ and didn’t understand why radical feminism was called ‘radical’: a movement that supports women’s submission to men as a ‘kink’ or because ‘she chose it’ is not feminism to them as it doesn’t liberate women from men’s dominance… and a movement that criticizes the selling of women’s bodies for men’s sexual/social dominance is plain and simple feminism, nothing radical. They said they assumed “radical feminists” were the women who want to exterminate the male population, not the women who want to fight men’s misogynistic tendancies (well, unless you think misogyny is inherent to men of course…).

  20. CisWomanPrivilege Says:

    Never thought I’d say this, but I can’t be more happy that Brucilda got on the cover of VF. This WrongSkin and transracial thingis gold. You get to see old sacks m2ts arguing how this is “different” to being transgender. Why? Because “Bruce didn’t choose to be a woman, he was always a woman!” and “you can’t choose to be black you’re born or not”.

    Rachel somehow has a personality dissorder for calling herself black (but Brucinda doesn’t despite refering to Bruce and Caitlyin in third person? lmao), Rachel can’t be black because “she lied in her job resume” and because “she is appropiating black culture”, but what about Brucilda and other autogynephiles who are literally appropiating women-only spaces (while putting us in danger) and even the right to say the word vagina?

    To them, Rachel isn’t black and won’t ever be black because she lied and “hurt her parents by abandoning them” but didn’t Brucilda abandoned 6 children, never gave any money for child support despite being millionaire, was caught masturbating by her daughters while wearing his underage daughter clothes and caused lots of emotional pain to three different families?! Oh lawd!

    Also, what’s funny is that transpeople always say they were born that way and they always “knew” they were in the wrong body, but transracials didn’t. They just chose a race later in life. If so, can someone please explain to me these videos?


    One of a girl, one of a boy. Both under the age of 6. The girl is literally in tears because she wants to be black; the boy, is using mud to change the color of his skin. If that isn’t enough evidence that transracials people exist, then what is it? How come that isn’t, but Bruce saying “I’ve always been a woman” is?? If this has to be pushed to the extreme so people realize how nuts these mentally ill transpeople are, sign me up.

    • endlessleeper Says:

      the hypocrisy is astounding. trannies are always talking about how they were “misgendered at birth” and how their parents don’t understand their fetish or whatever, but an actual woman “disobeys her parents” (i.e refuses to be owned) and she’s despicable and mentally ill. lol k.
      and gender and race are both social constructs, so who says you can’t be transracial? aren’t these morons all about ~diversity~ as long as it suits their agenda? the emperor really doesn’t have any clothes on. if only someone had called that oh say forty years ago…

    • I'm No Cissie Says:

      Let’s hope big pharma never sees these videos and starts a transracial child movement.

      • For only half a million dollars over the life of your child, you can save them from certain suicide and misery by starting them on irreversible melanin treatments! Side effects unknown, off-label use only!

      • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

        LOL, why am I laughing, the sheer IDIOCY of it all!! We should create fake videos of trans-things…hmmm, trans, trans, what do I feel like transing into today…transbanker…business suit, briefcase, aftershave, $300 ties (will Medicare pay for my $300 tie I NEED IT!!!!!!!! because deep inside I KNOW I AM A BANKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

      • ImNoCissie Says:

        I’m just waiting for my Medicare to kick in so I can get my Caitlyn Jenner makeover and be cover girl material at age 65. Been wanting those implants and that facelift for about a decade now already.

        Wait, what? You mean Medicare only pays for 65 year old MEN to become camera-ready pinup queens??????

        That’s discrimination!

      • Bea Says:

        Racial consultant and racial therapist are burgeoning career opportunities!

        *cue advertisement*
        Were you CAWAB but know you’re actually black on the inside? Talk to a racial therapist who can sign off on your taxpayer-funded tanning sessions, perm/weave, cosmetic surgeries (facial Africanizing surgery), and AAVE lessons with a racial consultant.

      • Zemskull Says:

        Hi ImNoCissie: As I’ve mentioned here in the past, I used to work for a large employer that covered all the surgeries for transgenders, including the cosmetic ones. As a result, there were a lot of transgenders working there. The same employer did not cover reconstruction surgeries for breast cancer survivors. It was odd to sit in the same room as an MTT who had large breasts, and a flat-chested born-woman who had survived breast cancer, and knowing the health insurance plan had a role in that disparity.

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        @Zemskull–It was interesting to read this article in the New York Times shortly after your comment:

        Although this is not a case of a guy calling himself a woman, it’s another example of people in the medical system going out of their way to give a white man what he needs or wants. Notice that he bore none of the costs of the surgery that removed his extra skin–everything was donated, even the hotel room where he recuperated afterwords. He says he nearly ate himself to death because he he was bullied, abused and unloved as a child, and everyone is sympathetic. Is there any overweight woman who’s gotten that much sympathy, even if mistreated as a chlid? Hell, people will villify an actress for gaining five extra pounds during pregnancy. It would be easier for me to feel compassion for the man in the story if so many women didn’t go without necessary medical care.

        It’s all of a piece, really, and reminds of the time a male relative of mine declared that doing housework was degrading for men but natural for women. The truth is that many people believe it’s perfectly reasonable for women to be unloved, bullied, abused, ill, in pain, thwarted in their ambitions, etc., and they should just get over it and cook dinner–and make sure to look beautiful doing it!–but feel that it’s outrageous for a (white) man to endure the least bit of discomfort or frustration.

        Gallus Mag, I apologize in advance if this comment is too tangential, and I won’t be offended if you don’t let it through. It just angers me that so many medical resources are devoted to indulging an autogynephilic fetish for men while women’s real health problems too often go untreated.

      • ImNoCissie Says:

        @zemskull thank you for pointing that out. Although I am being sarcastic about the implants and face lift, women being denied reparative plastic surgery when insurance and Medicare are paying for cosmetic procedures for trans is no joke and is a real problem.

        Trans and their medical enablers are always calling GRS “life saving” but isn’t the suicide rate just as high post-op as it is pre-op?

    • Lint Says:

      Fantastic find, CWP!

    • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

      If this is in Brazil, the racial dynamic is somewhat different than in US – I just wonder where these kids are? Anyone more familiar with the dynamics in Brazil, or whatever country this is? Not sure it’s the US – could be…

      • kesher Says:

        Brazil definitely has a different concept of race than the U.S. does. Here, we go by the “one drop” rule which means, if you have any amount of black heritage, no matter what you look like, you’re black. Certainly there have been white-passing black Americans who would try to obscure their racial heritage to avoid oppression, but then they had to live in fear of others finding out who their parents/grandparents were.

        In Brazil, as in most of Latin America, there’s far less of a strict white/black divide, but lighter skin people tend to be wealthier and more privileged while darker skin people tend to be poorer and less privileged. So these kids have less reason than white Americans do to be horrified by the possibility of being perceived as black, but there still is some stigma.

      • Dogtowner Says:

        Considering that Hugo Chavez was regularly called a monkey by Venezuelan media (which is owned by the elite class) and that Evo Morales, the indigenous president of Bolivia, has been subjected to intense racism, I’m not sure how much better things are in Latin America re: race.

    • MaryMacha Says:

      Oh great Cis, now I have to feel guilty for laughing so hard at a little kid’s plight.

  21. endlessleeper Says:

    know what’s funny? i saw an article about a former soldier saying he was now a muslim woman (thanks privilegedenyingtranny), and you can imagine how much praise he got. rachel dolezal pretends to be black and the transborg twists themselves out of shape pretending that a white tranny converting to what they call a “poc religion” is legit but a white woman pretending to be black is a horrific genocidal racist, or whatever. they REALLY can’t justify being trans anything anymore, can they? 🙂 their inclusivity is backfiring on them spectacularly. hee hee.

  22. hearthrising Says:

    I hope this doesn’t create a setback for the Spokane NAACP and other racial justice groups Dolezal was involved in. I could spend all day reading the jokes at #racheldolzal and #transracial, some of which are really good, but I’ve wasted far too much time there already.

  23. background spinner Says:

    When is Obama going to congratulate her on her bravery?

    • GallusMag Says:

      It takes courage to live your truth!

      • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

        Oh, this is so good. It’s like the Republican candidates during the last two presidential elections. I never laughed so hard in my life. And it’s already kicking in, with good old Republican Caitlyn leading the way, before the candidates have even had their “straw polls” in Iowa – it’s a Laugh Decathalon!

  24. It’s so great to see everyone stating the connections between Bruce Jender and TransRachel that the lockstep neolib crowd doesn’t want discussed. This prescient young man was a week early with his insights:

  25. Lint Says:

    This is simply too delicious.

    I’m just drinking it all in, watching the spinning heads and tortured contortions of the usual suspects trying to justify Brucie’s appropriation of womanhood while slamming a woman for being transracial. So sublime.

  26. I'm No Cissie Says:

    Here’s the latest explanation for why transracial does not equal transgender. I’ve seen it in various forms.

    “One is lying about her identity; The other is finally being honest about it.”

    Someone elaborated by saying the transgender person would finally be living as their “natural sex”.

    I could have replied with numerous links to social media, YouTube vids & forum threads where it is argued that it is perfectly legit to “present” as a woman while dating and that the person “presenting” is under no obligation to reveal their trans status.

    So, transracial is a lie but transgender is truthy.

    • australopithecene Says:

      That’s begging the fucking question. “Transgender is real because it’s real; whereas transracial is stealing because it’s false.”

  27. born free & female Says:

    For you brave ladies who are wading into the comment threads to point out how similar Dolezal’s bullshit is to the trans talking points:

    Dolezal is from Washington State.
    Colleen Francis, who showed his penis to little girls in the locker room – with the support of Evergreen State College – is in Washington State.

    I will be bringing this up everywhere. Here’s a link to the police report:

    • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

      Let us not forget Professor Elizabeth Kissling, who teaches at Eastern Washington University. Prof. Kissling wrote in a 2013 Ms. blog post, that we should use “menstruator” and not “woman” to refer to “people” who menstruate, because, well:

      “Some women don’t menstruate because of diseases, cancers, surgeries, pregnancy (although they may still bleed) or menopause. Other women don’t menstruate because they don’t have functioning uteruses, fallopian tubes or vaginas; maybe they were born that way or maybe they are transwomen. And yes, there are some people who don’t identify as women who do menstruate. Some of them are transmen. Some of them are intersex. Some may have fully functioning uteruses, ovaries and vaginas but may identify as genderqueer, transgender, third gender or something else entirely. They are menstruators, but they are not women.

      “Or maybe they are transwomen.” Right. Uh-hum, right transwomen are women, right? Reproductive systems don’t MATTER AT ALL. Trendy academic jargon does. Hey, dum-dums, biological sex is not mutable – but go on, enjoy the thrill of throwing other women under the bus.

      • ImNoCissie Says:

        “Of menstruators and manhole covers.”

        Subtitle: “When intersection becomes dissection and division”

        The MRAs and other male supremacists in all their glory couldn’t have come up with a better divide and conquer strategy than this one.

        Where is the slicing and dicing of the male population according to the functionality of their reproductive systems?

        How about we call fertile men “sperm producers” even if they wear panties and skirts over their penises?

        And the less fertile can be “low spermers”. Trans with XX chromosomes who object to be called women and others who don’t produce any sperm can be “no spermers”. The impotent can be “limpos”. Men with prostate issues “Prostrati”.

        And the rest of us who have XX chromosome are women.
        Full stop.

        She can put that in her manhole and smoke it.

      • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

        I like your terminology! Not really, but you know what I mean 🙂 And I think all those neovags that transwomen purchase – call THOSE manholes!!!! Instead of the atrocious (who the hell would think that up but a man?) “front holes.”

      • KgSch Says:

        I’ve never met a menopausal woman who threw a fit because someone pointed out that only women can menstruate. Similarly, I refuse to reproduce despite toxic het and male influences being all the rage these days in lesbian communities. But, I’m not mad if someone points out only women can get pregnant. I only hate when people tell me I must have babies or my life will be incomplete.

        This article is just more exceptionalism nonsense and making sure to tip-toe around the fragile egos of the trans cult.


        I really like your comment. You should consider posting it on the article. I also have never seen men come up with new lingo based on their sperm count. They always get called “men”.

    • RadicalGrandma Says:

      Why does the public continue to call them trans-“women” and use feminine titles like she, her, etc? They’re aren’t women even when their male genitalia are removed. I’ll never say they are. They’re simply playing dress up for the most part and it’s disgusting that they want to be considered “women”, no matter how much they attempt to gender-bend.

  28. Yevska Says:

    It’s been pretty brutal out there. I’ve seen people slammed for not supporting Jenner enough in this trans*whatever argument.

    Trans-allies are fucking bullies shouting down anyone who disagrees. I had someone, who has always sided with transwomen, said that it hurt her feelings to get called a “genocidal cunt who wanted transwomen to die” because she entertained the idea of transracial and get accused of emotional manipulation.

    I’m not really seeing that there are serious questions about why you can co-opt female experience, but not black female experience. It’s just, nope not the same LALALALALA.

    • ImNoCissie Says:

      This is what is happening to Melissa Harris-Perry, who accepts transgenderism as legit and is trying to explore the possibility that “transracial” may also be a legitimate experience for some people.

      Even though she is supportive and is gently trying to draw some parallels and not even saying it is exactly the same, her progressive audience is raging on her.

      I don’t support Harris-Perry’s POV on this but it is eye-opening how any discussion or inquiry is just being completely shut down by trans and their liberal allies.

      On today’s show, she drew a parrellel between the change in appearance that is necessary for both a TG person and someone like Dolezal to “pass” or to “live their truth”. And OMG she got a blank steely stare from all 4 people sitting at the table with her.

      She also seems to be suggesting that if anything race can be more fluid than biological sex but they are not having that, either.

      The trans narrative is the trans narrative and thou shalt not question it. Trans are HONEST and have INTEGRITY and Dolezal is a witch who must be burned at the stake ASAP.

      • Lint Says:

        LOL! I can’t stand MHP but I have to give her some respect for at least doing the reductio ad absurdum thing, however guilelessly.

      • MaryMacha Says:

        “her progressive audience is raging on her”
        “it is eye-opening how any discussion or inquiry is just being completely shut down by trans and their liberal allies”

        This is great, they’re starting to eat their own.

      • ImNoCissie Says:

        It’s a total “emperor has no clothes” scene with MHP. The crowd screams that she can’t be seeing what she is actually seeing, even though all she’s actually saying is that maybe both the Emperor AND the Empress are clothed [in the “clothing” of their chosen oppressed group, of course].

      • Akira Says:

        “She also seems to be suggesting that if anything race can be more fluid than biological sex but they are not having that, either.”

        One thing I’ll give her is that there a whole lot more people with mixed ethnicity and heritage walking this planet than intersex people, whose experience transsexuals are always trying to co-opt. That should be talking point for these transracials, come to think of it!

  29. hearthrising Says:

    Am I being overly optimistic or has the lid come off here regarding suppression of articles that explore trans issues in ways that deviate from propaganda? Have LGBT organizations finally lost control of the discussion? I just read this article via Miranda Yardley in the liberal Patheos. It’s an interview with Michael Bailey about Bruce Jenner. No new information here for people who read this blog because it was covered by Gallus Mag a few years ago. But where is the outrage, the threats of boycott, the deluge of comments on “how could something like this even be published”? There are suddenly so many articles deviating from the script that even Zoe Brain can’t weigh in on every one. Is it possible that Bruce Jenner, sorry–Caitlyn, really was the trans tipping point, just in a way that wasn’t expected?

      • MaryMacha Says:

        Thanks for the link. I found the article very informative. This comment (by Kay Brown) and quote was very revealing. Especially the last two sentences.

        “A common question that non-AGP people ask is why do autogynephilic transwomen get so upset about the science? Noted science historian, sexology researcher, and author, Alice Dreger answered this best:

        “To understand the vehemence of the backlash against [the two type taxonomy], you have to understand one more thing. There’s a critical difference between autogynephilia and most other sexual orientations; Most other orientations aren’t erotically disrupted simply by being labeled. When you call a typical gay man homosexual, you’re not disturbing his sexual hopes and desires. By contrast, autogynephilia is perhaps best understood as a love that would really rather we didn’t speak its name. The ultimate eroticism of autogynephilia lies in the idea of really becoming or being a woman, not in being a natal male who desires to be a woman. …
        The erotic fantasy is to really be a woman. Indeed, according to a
        vision of transsexualism common among those transitioning from lives as privileged straight men to trans women, sex reassignment procedures are restorative rather than transformative… to call someone with armour de soi en femme an autogynephile or even a transgender woman – rather than simply a woman – is at some level to interfere with her core sexual desire. Such naming also risks questioning her core self-identity … That’s what talking openly about autogynephilia necessarily does.”

  30. gaydude50 Says:

    From the Times Dolezal article reader selected comments:

    suzanne va 2 days ago
    Perhaps Ms. Dolezal is really a black woman who was born in a white woman’s body. Is racial dysphoria a thing yet? No? Just wait a few years.

    Flag534Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitte

    SteveS Ca 2 days ago
    I thought now people are whatever they say they are and no one can criticize? How is this different from Caitlyn Jenner?

    NYT PickNo Chaser DC 2 days ago
    We live in a world where a woman can simply say, “I identify as a man”, and thereafter everyone else is expected to address her as a man. We are all dragged along, willingly or reluctantly, in this forced bit of theatre. We are all coached, over and over again, on the lines we’re supposed to utter in this forced theatre.

    Is this different? If so, why?

    She, apparently, has decided to “identify” as black. Why is there resistance to play along with this woman’s desires to be seen as something she is not? Is the fiction more far-fetched than insisting to people that you have changed genders?

    Tom NYC 2 days ago
    A lot of commenters appear to support the position that ‘a person can be anything they claim to be’–which is ridiculous on its face. I can claim to be an American Indian, but with absolutely no familial, cultural, or personal history to back that up, what sense does that claim make? None whatsoever. It is similar to ‘stolen valor’–impersonating a soldier or veteran when you’re not one. Personal identity is earned through a rich combination of experience and history (both genetic and cultural), in varying degrees. It’s not something you can just conjure from your imagination. Sure, go ahead and claim to be a bird, but be sure to jump off a building and really put it to the reality test. Guess whose reality will win?

    Steve Hagen Florida 2 days ago
    Proving once again that race is a social concept, not a biological one. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with self-selecting one’s race.

    However as her employer I’d worry that an employee who lies about her family may also lie about other, more important things as well.

    And one that the Times editors picked prominently (it’s also on the reader-picked article, but way down the food chain. She typed this with apparently no sense of irony, which had to have been hard. lol

    Lina California 1 day ago
    I do not understand why so many people are comparing Rachel Dolezal and Kaitlyn Jenner. Being trangender has a known medical explanation, in which your brain identifies differently than your actual physiology. The desire to be black or any other race has absolutely no medical justification. That is the big distinction.

    I wonder how many of the commenters who are saying race is only a “social construct” are white. The rest of us do not have the privilege of self-identifying as we choose. Maybe we can all try this: bleach our hair blonde and fill in the “caucasian” box on forms, simple as that. How many times do you think African-Americans in the history of this country wished they were white so they didn’t have to deal with their blackness, or more specifically, the injustices that came with it? As a minority myself, there were countless times when I would have given anything to look like the majority.

    Being a certain race comes with a whole set of baggage (good and bad) that Rachel Dolezal could never have experienced fully. It is not as straightforward as simply self-identification, even if that may be a part of it. There is family history, oral tradition, food, language, and other cultural nuances. There is only so much that can be appropriated until we have to recognize it isn’t the real thing.


  31. GallusMag Says:

    lolololol forever.
    From Mr. Pimp-slap “six and a half inch neo-clitoris” Monica “Fishy” Roberts:

    “I say transracial is bull crap because race is not just solely a social construct, it also has a biological component as well. Transracial is nothing more than white peeps wanting to come up with a fancy new name for appropriation. They want to have the ability to mimic another racial identity without having to deal with the historical societal baggage that comes with it.

    And it stuff gets too real for them, they can always run back to whiteness. People of color have to play from birth until death the genetic, sociological and racial hand they are dealt.”

    “It has also opened the problematic door to another discussion that is pissing me off in terms of using this Dolezal situation to attack transpeople and invalidate our sincerely held identities as men and women of trans experience.

    Every gender transition is different. For those of you trying to peddle that false equivalency of what Dolezal did with being transgender and use Caitlyn Jenner’s name in vain while doing so, you can stop that madness right now. Being trans has a medical component to it as the decades of ongoing medical research on transsexuality points out. Let’s not forget that race also impacts a gender transition.

    And as that medical evidence is increasingly pointing out, trans women are women, trans men are men, and the genitalia between your legs or your chromosomes doesn’t necessarily correspond to the gender identity between your ears.

    Unlike Dolezal, a trans person has to have counseling under a certified gender therapist, hormone replacement therapy, other optional procedures to look their gender best, and live in the targeted gender for at least a year before that gender therapist will sign off on you getting genital surgery.

    We transpeeps are living our authentic lives, not a script-flipped remake of Imitation of Life like Dolezal was unless a DNA test proves otherwise/”

    • Susan Nunes Says:

      Do these nitwits really belief that crap they are spewing? That “gender identity between your ears” is nothing more than empty space.

      Batshittery by any other name is still batshittery.

    • When you base a movement entirely on feelings, you can’t stop others from doing the same. Trans have no more right to do so than anyone else. The pomolib “words have no meaning” crowd, including Mock, brought this on themselves.

      You are not the intersectionality police, Laverne. Again, any so-called danger stems from your own choices. Transgender identity politics have been a danger to the rights of class:female to organize, self-define and set boundaries since the get-go. You are simply of the opinion that harms to us do not matter.

      Obviously a spokestrans isn’t going to pass up the chance to equate disagreement with his ideology with the desire to kill him. Transactivists claim the right to define their existence as a class, while attempting to deny that same right to class:female. They imply that denying them complete control of the discourse concerning womanhood will result in their murders. Their entire movement is based on gaslighting and language abuse. Not all of us are willing to play the codependent enabler to you.

      • Susan Nunes Says:

        This is the asshole who calls women “fish” and glorifies prostitution. He can take his bullshit and shove it up is demented ass.

      • Susan Nunes Says:

        “his” My keyboard sometimes doesn’t register.

      • kesher Says:

        Interesting how accusing them of pretending must necessarily require getting rid of them. Whether “extinguish” implies forcing them back into their “correct” gender role box or exterminating them, I fail to see how their identity being pretense necessarily leads to one or the other. The only logical conclusion to everyone admitting that Mock et al are fakers is their losing access to class:female. Why can’t they create a new class:transwoman?

      • Bea Says:

        And yet Dolezal isn’t being attacked for being something she’s not? This is all too perfect.

      • “Transactivists claim the right to define their existence as a class, while attempting to deny that same right to class:female.”


        Transwomen have a right to hold their own closed events that non transpeople are not welcome to attend, yet women do not have the right to assemble without transwomen.

        Even the Indigo Girls boycotted MichFest for not including “women with penises.”

        Transwomen can hold events that exclude women. But women cannot exclude transwomen.

        We’re not allowed to call ourselves women now, we’re not allowed to talk about vaginas anymore. They expect us to allow “feminine penises” in women’s restrooms which I guess will have to be renamed so as not to exclude trans but maybe not since they think they are women but then How can they have closed events that exclude women?

        When will transwomen demand that butch women use the men’s room because they’re too masculine for the women’s restroom?

        Their hipocrosy and idiocy proves that they just have a mental disorder. Mental problems cannot be healed via genital surgery. Nor by society indulging them. We don’t allow voyeurs to peep through our windows. Why should we let autogynphiles in our restrooms?

      • Mormo Says:

        Dangerous, violence, sucide. I always seen trans people using these words. It’s manipulative fear mongering and people need to stop falling for it. They throw the word “transphobe” around, but seriously who even cares anymore? That’s all they got up their sleeves.

    • DNA test? Did he really say DNA test? Yes he did. Amazing.

      Do we get to ask him for one? If not, why not?

      • emmajune Says:

        There is no genetic marker for race. You can not, I repeat NOT, look at somebody’s DNA and tell what race they are.

      • kesher Says:

        Lots of white Americans have some black ancestry that they don’t know about. There was a white supremacist who was found to be 14 percent black by a DNA test conducted by a British talkshow:

        So who can say if Dolezal is part black or not? Presumably she has no known claim to that ethnicity, but, especially if her family has connections to the South, a DNA test might give results that Roberts would rather not see.

      • uterusesb4duderuses Says:

        Genuinely hilarious. oh chuck, what’s in YOUR DNA? also what have you done for black women, or even women? insisted that being raped as a child made you more of a woman? oh okay. glorified prostitution as a great alternative for getting what you want? fantastic. great job there buddy.

      • GallusMag Says:

        @uterusesb4duderuses: You all are KILLING IT on reddit/Gendercritical. I’m lovin it. Someone coined the word “pantransphobic”! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL4evr

    • LC Says:

      But… Dolezal lived her “authentic” black life for years. Bruce Gender was living as a man for 60 years. Was he authentic then or is he authentic now?

    • Biscuit Says:

      Whoa. What the hell did I just read?

      Sure, there are some genetic traits that are more common in some human races than others, but the genetic differences among human races are often small when compared to the genetic differences within races.

      On the other hand, there are very obvious anatomical differences between males and females. A whole body system (the reproductive system) differs between the sexes.

      The configuration of one’s reproductive system doesn’t determine a person’s character traits, and shouldn’t determine one’s place in society, but it does determine whether one is male or female. If a person has testicles, a prostate gland, a penis, and seminal vesicles, then that person is male. One’s brain has nothing to do with one’s biological sex, as shown by the fact that many ‘trans women’ have fathered children. Fathering children indicates that one has functioning testicles and a penis and is therefore biologically male. Wanting to wear nail polish will not change that.

    • Lint Says:

      “Unless she does a DNA test that proves she has some African heritage, she is a white woman”

      Awesome. Can we hold the transgendered to the same standard?

      “For those of you trying to peddle that false equivalency of what Dolezal did with being transgender and use Caitlyn Jenner’s name in vain while doing so, you can stop that madness right now. Being trans has a medical component to it as the decades of ongoing medical research on transsexuality points out.”

      What is this garbage? As Mr. Monica Roberts has already pointed out with his call for a DNA test, race also has a medical component and decades of medical research. Transexualality is in no way unique or given some magical scientific bona fides by researched.

      “And as that medical evidence is increasingly pointing out, trans women are women, trans men are men, and the genitalia between your legs or your chromosomes doesn’t necessarily correspond to the gender identity between your ears.”

      Medical evidence is pointing out and has always pointed out that transwomen are MALE. And unlike the biological reality of chromosomes and genitalia, gender is a construct.

      “Unlike Dolezal, a trans person has to have counseling under a certified gender therapist, hormone replacement therapy, other optional procedures to look their gender best, and live in the targeted gender for at least a year before that gender therapist will sign off on you getting genital surgery. ”

      Gotta love how trans scream about “gate keepers” one minute but then are so eager to promote the idea that all their insanity is done under the auspices of the wise and impartial medical establishment. Yeah, if that interview with Brucie has taught us anything, it’s that anyone with enough money can have anything done and that trans routinely lie, plead, and threaten their way into GRS, hormone therapy etc. It’s like the wild west!

      Even if this were not true, given all the crazy, immoral shit the medical establishment does on the regular, does their approval have any moral value?

      “We transpeeps are living our authentic lives”

      If your authentic life requires 10 hours of marathon plastic surgery just on your FACE then you are not living an authentic life. What you are living is a lie.

      • branjor Says:

        The reversal that transpeople are being their “authentic selves” is ironic. That’s exactly what they are NOT being.

      • KgSch Says:

        This whole thing is hilarious! I love how race suddenly has a genetic basis*, but sex doesn’t even though there are obvious anatomical and reproductive differences between males and females. I would like a DNA test from Mock too please.
        And once again, none of these people are intersex, especially not Bruce Jenner who has six children. Having an intersex condition usually means you’re sterile.

        (There is some genetic basis for race, but only a fraction of human genes determine skin color.)

        I especially laughed at the “use Caitlyn Jenner’s name in vain” bit. Is he a god now? That line sounds like, “don’t take the lord’s name in vain.”

        I completely agree that it’s not your real self if you have to get a ton of cosmetic surgery and take dangerous, off-label drugs.

      • Johns Hopkins is a premiere hospital system in the USA.

        They stopped performing “sex change” surgeries due to the poor outcomes.

        So, no, the medical community is not totally supportive of transgenderism.

        Besides, the medical community at one time advocated lobotomies. We have evolved beyond that barbaric surgery. I hope we can evolve beyond the gentital mutilation and sterilization of gender confused people.

    • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

      using Caitlyn Jenner’s name in vain? St. Teresa, St. Caitlyn?

      • Dogtowner Says:

        Isn’t this the Eleventh Commandment? Thou shalt not take Caitlyn Jenner’s name in vain.

  32. ImNoCissie Says:

    Also – a thought on comparing Dolezal to Jenner. Jenner is in fact “out of the closet” now and being open about his transition. So no current deception – forget for a moment about how he deceived all of his wives apparently, in the past.

    Dolezal for me brings to mind Dr. V – the tran who had (supposedly) designed the innovative golf putter or something? And was completely closeted with a fantastical back story that did not hold up to scrutiny? Remember how angry transactivists were at the reporter who uncovered the Dr. V deception?

    But dragging Rachel Dolezal through the mud is great sport for some of the same people.

    A few liberal commenters have questioned or condemned the parents for “outing” her but the consensus truly seems to be she deserves the dragging she is getting right now.

    Not too many concerned about her well being or her feels.

    Speaking of which, I read in the daily mail this morning that she has an older biological brother who up til now has not been mentioned in the US press and he is charged with sexual assault, no word on who the victim(s) are. Rachel may well be a survivor of family trauma, perhaps not in the ways she has described, but still…there appears to be more to this story.

    • Oak and Ash Says:

      Even before hearing about the charges against Rachel Dolezal’s biological brother, I began to suspect she was mistreated or neglected in some way, which has led to confabulating about abuse.

      Apparently her older brother has been charged with sexual assault against a minor, and I’ve read reports that she was siding with the victim. Her parents have refused to comment on the case, which I find odd given their willingness to expose their daughter’s wrongdoing. There’s something funny going on in that family.

      And I have no patience at all with those who defend Bruce Jenner’s abandonment of his older children but condemn Dolezal for cutting off her parents.

      • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

        But how do we know that autogynephilics (?) haven’t been mistreated or neglected in some way? I feel like “mental illness” is applied to women automatically, but for a man to be mentally ill, he has to kill somebody. Think about that. For a woman to be mentally ill, all she has to do is lie, be a fraud, present herself as something she isn’t, but for a man to be mentally ill, he has to physically hurt someone else. Like there’s a double standard when it comes to mental illness. Or triple standard, quadruple – poor men of any color can be mentally ill, but wealthy white men are NEVER mentally ill – like did anyone speculate about mental illness about Bernie Madoff – or George Bush – or anyone like that?

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        I don’t consider all reactions to mistreatment to be signs of mental illness. My suspicions of abuse or neglect are not driven merely by Rachel Dolezal’s behavior–which has more than one possible cause–but also by her parents’ actions and demeanor. They seem more concerned with what people will think of the family than worried about their daughter’s well-being. Her estrangement from them, their claim that she’s “trying to destroy her biological family,” and their admonishment that she tell the truth raise a lot of red flags.

        They say they answered a reporter’s questions about their daughter because they just wanted to tell the truth, yet they had no problem refusing to answer questions about the charges against their son. Why not tell the truth about that, while they’re at it? Something’s wrong there.

        Also, it isn’t that there’s any direct causal link between how she may have been treated and what she has done, nor do I consider that any treatment by her parents would excuse her deception. Confabulation is just one of the coping methods some people choose for dealing with abuse, so when I see it (or cutting or drug addiction) I assume there’s a possibility of abuse.

        Actually, I do think some (maybe many) autogynephiles have personality and/or mood disorders, and some non-AGP transexuals may be reacting to abuse. You’re absolutely right about the double standard. What white men do seems to be given a pass as long as it falls short of mass murder, and everyone else is mentally ill the moment they fail to do what white men want.

      • Old Music Says:

        It looks like Dolezal had a very physically and emotionally abusive childhood.

        I read this article ( only a few days ago, but they have already taken it down (

        The original blog post alleged Dolezal had been raised by Christian fundamentalists, the sort who have no problem with using corporal punishment on infants (it’s been called ‘Bible-sanctioned baby beating’), and who adopt global south children to ‘save their souls’ (good summery here:

        If Dolezal is suffering from ‘delusions of race’ in order to escape her abusive past, she deserves sympathy, and we can take that knowledge (or rather the current mainstreaming of it) back to an understanding of those trans people who are also trying to escape past trauma: the women trying to escape misogyny, the lesbians trying to escape lesbophobia, and the gnc gay men trying to escape homophobia (who are, of course, nothing to do with late-transitioning autogynophiles like Jenner; I’m hardly the first to point out the toxicity of pretending these disparate groups are one demographic).

  33. MaryMacha Says:

    For once the transmafia is (somewhat) correct in stating that it’s wrong to compare transgender with transracial. Transracial, from the outside looking in, looks way more legitimate, even if and when it is appropriation.

    People can be 2,3,4 or many ethnicities. Transgender-identified people on the other hand, are all born either female or male bodied (99.99% of the time, or something like that). Anyone can have ancestors who would’ve checked a different box and not everyone is necessarily only what they appear to be. In the US people are in denial about this, especially white people. Pretty much everyone on the planet has some admixture if you go back far enough.

    You can be raised by parents of a different culture or race and therefore be more attuned to their sensibilities.

    So even if this woman’s choices rankle us, she does seem to have some measure of acceptance within her target group. (Unfortunately, so do transwomen.) The fact that she got there without costly surgical intervention may or may not be due to that not being an option. We don’t know if she would have resorted to self-mutilation and poisoning if these would have furthered her end and been available.

    Is she African-American? Probably not. No one’s heard her side of the story yet. So until the DNA tests come in, to further legitimize the American one-drop-rule, maybe we should suspend judgement. It would be up to the community she serves to decide if she’s an honorary member or not.

    There is biological reality in both situations but that reality is more ambiguous when talking about ethnicity and culture than when talking about sex. What I don’ understand is why this is supposedly, definitely, appropriation when mtt’s parody of womanhood is given a free-pass. In my book sex is undeniably immutable but culture and even race are said to be social constructs. Men of all races sooner abandon their inter-ethnic/racial conflicts and wars than they do their sexism and oppression of women.

    The reality is that people have been crossing-over the race barrier for a long time. I think the term is “passing” and it happens in different directions but (in this country) mostly to escape the limitations imposed by racism. The problem with this is that we’re not sure what it means and how to handle it. Deep solidarity or appropriation, hmmm? Though it may look more like the latter at first glance, I don’t think it’s really my call and I’m okay with that.

  34. Unperson. Says:

    Seems like there’s a new front opening up for transborg. I’m not a lesbian btw.

    • MaryMacha Says:

      The comments on this piece are incredibly offensive.

      • Julianna D Says:

        Based on your comment, I checked. Wish I hadn’t. Such misogyny and homophobia. I could only read a few comments before closing the tab. What is wrong with people?

    • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

      When she speaks you can tell she’s a woman, I mean just her facial expressions, just the way she’s sitting. Isn’t it the fact that trans-in-bathrooms has been getting so much attention, plus the Planet Fitness Carlotta (oh shit I just wrote Carlotta Dolezal! I mean Skoldowska!) was in Michigan. So maybe the trans in bathrooms effort is making it WORSE for actual gender nonconforming women? Gosh – what if I go into a bathroom in my pants and t-shirt, and they think I’m a man? OMG – casually dressed women watch out!!!! I’m waiting for this to happen to a straight woman in jeans and t-shirts – WE ARE OUT THERE!!!!!

    • Dogtowner Says:

      If she had actually been a man, she never would have been treated this way. You have to be a woman to experience that sort of treatment (or, possibly, a very femme gay boy).

    • MaryMacha Says:

      The trans’ sites are making it clear that they intend to use her as a poster girl, appropriating her experience to further their agenda. This woman is clearly female and says as much in the video. So, no dice. It actually proves what radical feminists have been saying all along: it’s all about controlling women, how we dress, act, appear, what we do, etc.

      • Unperson. Says:

        Agree, yuh, the site I picked up that video at, the male comments were along the lines of ummm boobs, boobs matter. Interesting that she waited something like 5 months to decide whether she was offended or not. For my money she’s far too petite to be ever mistaken for a tranny, this is a small butch lesbian who has eaten at this place previously with no problems. The question is, is she someone who is considering transitioning? It’s the same in Christianity, we’re all presented with the same faux moral dillemmas, are they an apostate? yannow. We’re all being played all the time.

  35. Susan Nunes Says:

    The trans crowd is spinning like a top now, with a column on the frontpage of the NYT. The trans are an oppressed group that have suffered for decades because everybody else thought they were crazy, which they are, but we can’t say that anymore:

    Of course the comments are and would be heavily censored. God forbid you tell the truth about this.


    The NYT continues its wall-to-wall trans coverage, but here’s the #1 Readers’ Pick:

    No, for most people it is not an issue of hatred or discrimination as you try to imply.

    Instead, it seems to be an issue of boredom. Just about every issue of your paper tries to proselytize about the people who struggle with their gender identity. Is this one of the most important issues of our time?

    Another reader:

    Please NYT…..enough already. This great paper is becoming obsessed with sexual orientation and sexual re-engineering. There are many other issues far and away more important to our Great Republic. Stop alienating your moderate readership.


    All transgender people deserve respect and deserve to feel safe. The same human rights should be extended to them as are given to everyone else. Violence of any kind against any individual is unacceptable. This I agree with.

    And yet beyond the haters and those who abuse transgender individuals are those of us who resent the way the transgender movement tries to dictate the conversation on gender. What if the rest of us don’t want to be called cisgender? What if the rest of us are offended by the idea that the definition of a woman is Caitlyn Jenner as she appeared on Vanity Fair? What if we think it’s hogwash for anyone to say “I am XYZ because I said so” (see also Rachel Dolezal). What if we agree with those doctors who think that being transgender is, in fact, a mental illness?

    There is a middle ground between respecting human rights and being forced to think and speak about an issue in a way that a lot of us don’t agree with.

    As with the Burkett piece, the readers’ picks are pro-reality.

    Public fatigue with World War T will only increase. The further trans descend into the paraphilia, the more it consumes their lives and relationships, until, as with a drug addiction, little is left of the personality besides the fetish.

    Trans people are all about being trans, all the time, and it only gets worse as the disorder progresses. Good luck basing a sustainable movement on that.

    • Biscuit Says:

      Quote: “Trans people are all about being trans, all the time, and it only gets worse as the disorder progresses.”

      In my experience, this is very true. My sibling has decided he’s a trans-woman and that’s all he will talk about and it keeps getting worse and worse. He had varied interests before, but now it’s all trans, all the time.

  37. born free & female Says:

    Adolph Reed has weighed in on Dolezal:

    “There is no coherent, principled defense of the stance that transgender identity is legitimate but transracial is not, at least not one that would satisfy basic rules of argument […] It may be that one of Rachel Dolezal’s most important contributions to the struggle for social justice may turn out to be having catalyzed, not intentionally to be sure, a discussion that may help us move beyond the identitarian dead end.”

    • gaydude50 Says:

      Brilliant but a little wordy. 🙂

      There’s also a slate article today where the author, a trans woman actually agrees that (1) this isn’t a completely stupid comparison and (2) there is no proven biological basis for trans. I thought that was almost refreshing. I’m sure once they find it the trans brigade will not be happy.

      The best part, though….so much common sense in the comments section. It’s heartening to read. Most of the commenters aren’t coming at it from a gender critical perspective or a rad fem perspective. They are basically pointing out the logic fail of the trans argument that they are different. But of course we know that they are all special snowflakes.

      Oh, and I got called a terf. Never been so proud!

    • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

      oh yeah. I like that!

    • Susan Nunes Says:

      Excellent piece. He won’t be invited to any news programs.

    • flahe Says:

      I had trouble understanding this. His arguments as to why transrace and transgender are comparable are clear, but I don’t understand his conclusion and on where he stands concerning racism more broadly. It appeared to me that he was basically one of those racism/sexism don’t matter it’s all about classism people? And is his conclusion that Rachel Doleazal is actually legitimate?

      • born free & female Says:

        flahe – Reed’s views on race and class are complex – he’s written far more about those topics than about trans issues, but I would describe his position as “21st century liberals are in thrall to a specific model of racism and sexism that ignores class issues”, rather than “There is no racism or sexism, only classism”.

        While he defends Dolezal from certain criticisms that make false claims about her, and notes that her deception seems to be tied to her beliefs in racial equality – in other words, it comes from a less selfish place than Jenner’s autogynephilia – he does not consider race to be something you can identify into. However, he’s more interested in discussing the underlying assumptions shared by some of Dolezal’s trans-defending critics than he is in classifying Dolezal.

        Finally, Reed takes a more trans-supporting position than most radical feminists do – but he doesn’t share trans activists reasoning that males can have female brains or female essences; those claims, he say, not only reinforce sexism, but also presuppose that trans identity can only be legitimate if it is inherent and unchosen. He suggests that trans identities can be legitimate and deserving of societal recognition without being biologically hardwired, but doesn’t get into the question of how (or why) this would happen.

      • flahe Says:

        born free & female thank you for taking time and explaining, I appreciate it!

  38. Yevska Says:

    Can I vent? I feel like I really need to get this off my chest, because Holy Mary, mother of god, I feel like it’s me that’s going crazy.

    I swear if one more trans/ally tells me “MY TRANS SISTERS ARE LITERALLY DYING RIGHT NOW!!1!one” or “there is blood on [my] hands” because I called Jenner “Jenner” not Caitlyn or pointed out old rich white dudes usually get to do what they want, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    I’m sorrynotsorry reality is hurting precious feels. …where’s that damn bingo card when you need it because I’ve filled mine up and would like my prize.

    • KgSch Says:

      You must explain to me this amazing power you have to inflict violence on people by referring to them by their surname. Are you a wizard?

      I honestly feel the same way. The “there’s blood on your hands because you disagreed with me!” nonsense is why I don’t join tumblr. I occasionally look at the train-wrecks, but not much else. Honestly, this site and some of the other radical feminist blogs are the only social media I use, because pretty much anywhere else is insane. I can’t escape the trans bs on forums about TV shows and books either.

  39. Cassandra Says:

    This has to be one of your best headlines of all time. You can’t make this shit up. INTERSECTIONALITY MOTHER FUCKER!

    Oh, and I think I found a fun new thing to say, courtesy Monica “Fishy” Roberts:

    “Unlike Dolezal, a trans person has to have counseling under a certified gender therapist, hormone replacement therapy, other optional procedures to look their gender best, and live in the targeted gender for at least a year before that gender therapist will sign off on you getting genital surgery. ”

    “Look Your Gender Best!”


    • gaydude50 Says:

      Not only are they the most opressedest ever! But even their transition is harder than anyone’s. All the transracial have to do is slap on some bronzer and get a perm.

    • morag99 Says:

      “Look Your Gender Best!”

      Oh, I laughed at that too, Cassandra. Is sounds straight out of an advertisement, doesn’t it?

      I see an 80s-style career girl, highly polished in a fitted suit with padded shoulders, and three-inch pumps. Lots of leg showing below the hem. She’s almost ready. Before she leaves, she checks the mirror, and — with a knowing smile — throws a bottle of synthetic estrogen and a syringe in her fashionable, over-the-shoulder bag. Then she enters the board room, where all the high-powered, handsome business men are stunned by her bold, yet still feminine, entrance. Wow! Now that’s a woman! And you, too, can look your gender best …

    • Bea Says:

      Sounds like these dudes are just jealous that Dolezal can pass as her chosen trans identity without surgery or drugs.

      How many times have you heard the trannies say “if I could push a button and become the opposite sex…”

      So now they’re saying all the drugs and surgery are integral to being trans and what separates their legitimacy from trans racial?

      Michael Jackson must’ve had a dozen nose surgeries to look more European.

      And what about all those mythical trannies from history? Were they not trans? Then trans would have to be a recent invention.

      Oh the trans script just goes in contradictory circles and every which way to suit their needs at that particular moment.

      • GallusMag Says:

        B,b,but … I thought that any man’s mere declaration of his woman-ness was sufficient! Now Fishy says they have to take pills? Alice Dreger says any man’s mere declaration is sufficient (also says that us danged lesbians discriminate against her hetero men-friends with our dang lesbian-only spaces):

  40. Violet Irene Says:

    Everyone, tell your moderate, liberal, conservative–basically not radical feminist–friends and family about autogynephilia. Have them read that Patheos link up there. Now is the time. People have NO CLUE and once they find out…it explains so much and changes everything for them. Right now with this glaring example in the media, it will all start to make sense and they will see the emperor is butt naked.

  41. Robin Says:

    Also, the above is not true in WA state. You do not have to do anything now other than see a Trans therapist one time, then ask your GP for hormone treatment because your feel Transgender and state you’re seeing a specialist for therapy. Its is super easy to get a hold of the rx and to get a surgery referral you do NOT have to ever go out in public dressed-the old “real world” experience required. Now, thanks to new laws, you can have a life altering surgery without ever trying the experience of being a dude in a dress. If its sucks then oh well, too bad for you, the insurance company, doctors and therapists have all made a nice profit off your confusion.

    • RadicalGrandma Says:

      WA State is also actually considering having the Medicaid program pay for trans surgery as well. We know this is elective surgery, not something lifesaving, like it would be for invasive uterine or breast cancer, which some women would not even qualify for. I know where I live Medicaid is mostly a children’s and pregnant women’s program, nothing more. If you’re an able bodied, working adult who can buy ins, you’re not eligible, even if it’s a minimum wage job.

      • Violet Irene Says:

        In OR they already pay for gender “treatments” for kids on Medicaid. Even though they also have been denying IVIG treatments to women with autoimmune disorders and steering certain stage IV cancer patients away from treatment and towards assisted suicide, all because of costs. And can’t even find the funds to give kids and pregnant women proper dental care.

  42. Newbie Says:

    “The new phone book is here! The new phone book is here! … I’m somebody now!”

    Completely new to radical feminism but I peak tranzed at the Caitlyn debacle. First, hearing him babble on about feeling like a woman and trotting out sex stereotypes to support it. Then, the magazine cover with him finally, bravely showing his authentic self (I actually know the meaning of authentic and that ain’t it.) Finally, discovering the rabid, fascist tranz mafia word police and distorters of reality and being horrified by their casual acceptance in, no, tyranny over, mainstream dialogues.

    Every media outlet immediately uses female pronouns unquestioningly, Wikipedia changes the entire article to reflect the fact that”she” won the men’s decathalon (and you can’t say fathered children, you must say SHE had children!!) The most galling was comment sections where simple statements about real women and stereotyping were met with the nonsensical, “She IS a REAL woman! Rude! Transphobe!”

    But I must say, my greatest satisfaction was that it gave my 17 year old son his peak tranz moment. I talked to him about what it really”feels” like to be a woman, to be catcalled as a 10 year old girl in a bathing suit, to carry your key sticking out between your fingers when you walk to your car at night, to pour a group of men some beers at work and hear them comment about my ass and wonder how much is too much to ignore.

    He had read some MRA screeds last year and was complaining that girls could slap him in school yet he couldn’t hit back, that men always have to pay child support and get fewer custody rights, etc. It was wonderful that I was able to talk about the patriarchy in a way that he could see how his own mother is objectified and in danger of violence because of it, rather than just imagining it as some made up fantasy of man-hating feminazis.

    Thanks for fighting the good fight, many of the points I’ve made to him over the past few days I hadn’t considered cohesively until reading your blog and others like it.

  43. gothamette Says:

    Gallus –

    Check out the conservative National Review, and the liberal Slate.

    Which one has the most sensible pieces on this bullshit?

    Liberals are fakes, frauds and phonies. I might disagree w/conservatives on a variety of subjects (creationism, invading countries) but on social issues I am now in complete agreement with them.

    • kesher Says:

      It’s really interesting since trans ideology and much of American conservatism have so much in common. And conservatives aren’t in lockstep regarding this issue either.

      Some see transgenderism as reparative therapy for gay men (I assume they don’t realize the vast majority of MTTs are heterosexual). Many recognize it for what it is: an attack on women’s rights and feminism’s gains. The likes of Rush Limbaugh and “leaders” of the MRM are loving MTTs. The trans movement is a men’s rights movement, and many conservatives realize it and support it on that basis.

    • coelacanth Says:

      The other day in our dog park, a liberal neighbour and I were talking about Art in the past versus now and he said “it is the difference between Lies and Bullshit; at least with lies there is a truth acknowledged even if rejected, but with bullshit there is nothing but relativist nonsense”. This liberal lefty is always trying to get the educated and urban neighbour group to vote for the local left political parties and when we criticize these parties’ policies, he sees this criticism as a vote for the right wing party. We keep saying that we respond issue by issue and not like trained sheep. I have been trying to break through his stupidity on this topic and I saw a teachable moment.

      So I said, to me the idea of lies versus bullshit encapsulates the difference today between the right (Bush, Cheney, etc) and the left (liberals like him, SJWs, etc.). The reason I do not fear the right is because they have never changed since Hitler — they are about consolidating and keeping by any means, total power and all the money in a few small hands at the expense of everyone else — they are the “lies” because the truth is that the rest of us know they are doing it and that it could be different. And, like a broken clock that tells the correct time twice a day, the right is also often correct in their take on various social issues (like trans and their devotees).

      If the right is Lies, then the left is Bullshit. With the left, there is no logic even if nasty — there is only Orwellian madness — an out of control crazy train of people who are, as someone here perfectly said it, so open-minded that their brains fell out. And that is something I am afraid of. Even worse than the right, the left all seem to think that acting as Chinese cultural revolutionaries and Puritan witch hunters is advancing some deranged notion of a cause. And worse, since their bullshit entails dividing the entire world into us and them camps (right wing hater bad, SJW oppressed good), there can be no deviation on any issue from their party line even when the positions they demand be taken are absurd, insane, contradictory, dangerous and toxic (like trans and their devotees, who Julie Burchill called “cry-bullies”).

      The right with its lies eviscerates the body politic. The left with its bullshit exterminates human hope. Can you see a difference? I can’t see a difference. And I think the dog park liberal finally got this message: There is no difference! As Fania Fenelon said, “we have learned a lesson here about humanity and it is not good news”.

      • MaryMacha Says:

        You pretty much nail it Coelacanth. Over a few years now I’ve been trying to come to terms with this very thing. I find other leftists to be somewhat close-minded and dogmatic about some things and too all-accepting and nonjudgmental (as in not exercising any judgement) about others. I’ve seen my share of very undemocratic situations among so-called progressives, enough to make me wonder if the entire category is not just obsolescing. Leftist culture is really nothing to get too excited about. I don’t understand why we glorify criminality and coddle criminals. I also don’t understand why dissent is met with ridicule and contempt. That’s really no way to “Celebrate Diversity”.

        On the bright side, I think, there are people on the right who are also splitting off of their long-held affinities and dogmatism to find more commonality with people they may not agree with 100% on everything. It’s a brave new world but something’s got to give.

      • coelacanth Says:

        MaryMacha, precisely. We need to move beyond left and right. We need something NEW.

        Em, my comment was not meant to “no platform” the right; rather to warn that alignment on an issue needs context. Porn harms women… “because the lords Jesus and Mohammed demand women be submissive to their husband(s)” is not an alignment on issues nor evidence to support the issue!

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        Yes, exactly.

        The word “conservative” applies to both individual psychology and a particular set of rightwing views. People with conservative minds exposed to liberal beliefs at an early age may hold those beliefs in a way that’s very rigid and no more coherent than you’d find in a stereotypical Fox news watcher. I’ve come to realize over the years that many of the people in my circle who call themselves liberal are only superfically so and have never thought very hard about what’s true, which means they tend to repeat talking points even when they don’t fit the facts. This becomes most glaringly apparent in discussions of gender.

        Lately I find I can have productive arguments only with people capable of accepting reality as it is and adjusting their views when faced with new evidence, whether or not we have the same values or agree on solutions to the problems we see.

        Maybe we need a new slogan? “My politics will be reality-based or they will be bullshit.”

      • endthewoo Says:

        We need to move beyond left and right. We need something NEW.

        Left and right has always been about male pissing contests, part of the origins of the second wave was a recognition of this. That men were saying to women we don’t care about male supremacy and we don’t care about you … support our politics (our fight with those other men over there)… or else.

        So even though both liberal and conservative male supremacists will sometimes hold some views in common with those of us who want liberation, it never makes them our allies.

    • Charlotte Says:

      As Noam Chomsky pointed out: there is no inconsistency between being socially conservative and economically liberal, it is how Europe has conducted itself for decades, it is in America that we see such division on wedge issues, so that the people ignore the real issue: classism is a creation of wealth inequity.

      If one is “socially conservative” they support the extended family unit as the optimum nest for a child, they think being more selective with sex partners is emotionally and physically safer, that education and career development should procede breeding, blah etc.

      All those things seem perfectly sane to me.

      It’s because of America’s limited political bubble that we knee jerk associate draconianism with the word “conservative”. When in reality, the root term is to “conserve the status quos”. Where liberal is to liberate.

      Most American lefties don’t even realize they actually fit this: they want to liberate classes from poverty and social inequity, but also not visit crazy town with such ridiculous ideas as being a hooker is “female empowerment”, or that child molestation is “emancipation of children”, or allowing any drug to be freely sold cause “muh freedumz” (bath salts for everyone!)

      • MaryMacha Says:

        Back in the 80s and early 90s when “hatred is not a family value” became a slogan, I used to voice the opposite opinion, affirming that it was. One day someone asked me (hoping to embarrass me no doubt) if that was where I had learned it. “Yes!” I replied, because it was the truth. I wish the whole family experience could have been a little different for me. But it wasn’t, not for me and countless others. So, while yes, I can envision the concept of family being something very safe, nurturing and supportive for everyone, under patriarchy it remains part of the economic structure to facilitate the rule of men over women. I really don’t see how family can be a place of freedom and equality so long as it revolves around an adult male as king of the castle exercising paternity rights (wrongs) and naming privileges. Engels nailed this one early on, women are the natural nucleus of the family. If the family as it exists in these times, were not such an oppressive structure, we probably wouldn’t have so much liberatory insanity to counteract its stifling wholesomeness.

    • Em Says:

      Even a stopped clock. Politics makes strange, etc.

      Seriously, although it can be cognitively dissonant to agree with someone at a 180-degree political angle from you, it is important to be able to acknowledge when a jerk is correct. Otherwise, you risk wandering into ad hominem territory. “She’s an idiot, so nothing she says can possibly be correct” is NOT the way to go.

  44. RadicalGrandma Says:

    Well, I got figuratively beaten up by males, of course, on a mixed site for actually criticizing MTTs like Jenner, and by saying that “feelings” don’t make you something you really aren’t. Men trying to man’splain what a female is to me? These guys were literally foaming at the mouth with rage and one wound up saying, “Fuck you!”.

    I’m a 74 yr old Second Waver who fought the good fight (and still doing it) and I don’t know what the hell they are thinking when they can easily trash women and allow privileged men to get away with stealing our identity. You can’t “transgender” to another sex no matter how good the drugs or plastic surgery are just because you “think” you are the opposite of what you are. Men who do this have no idea of what kinds of lives women live and they carry their male privilege with them, to boot. Look at Jenner: tons of makeup, hair extensions and cleavage, thinking he looks like Everywoman (it’s a role, you asshole) and being praised for being “brave”.

    When the narcissistic attention whores get through with their little experiments, we still will have those poor kids whose stupid parents thought it was so hip to allow their 8 yr olds to start “transitioning” even before they were old enough to go through puberty or change their minds about what these totally ignorant parents are encouraging them to do, with the help of other stupid “professionals” waiting with their hands out.

    John Money was evil, a sexual libertarian and adventurer who played with people’s lives, BTW. Most “transgender” theory is based on his writings and experiments, for the most part, which knew no sexual bounds, either by law or ethics and just expounded upon by transgenderists. He also approved of “affectionate pedophilia” between young children and adults.

    • Charlotte Says:

      With all the marginalizing males, media and employers do of older women, females in the crone phase should be listened to most by her younger sisters. The elders among us have the most insight into how insidious and normalized patriarchy can be, for they lived before many laws and cultural ethos were critiqued.

      My mother is your age, she lived before wide spread access to birth control, before abortion rights, when women still were expected to be perpetually mourning black laden widows, when loans or large purchases without my father’s permission was illegal, when domestic rape and beating was even more common than now, when divorcees were whores, and barren women were regarded as broken spinsters, where “domestic arts” education was a “privilege” and the few girls who went to other schools only were sent to meet a husband. When most women were teenaged brides and my mother was forced to bear six children despite nearly dying in labor repeatedly, the doctor had to trick my father into signing permission so she could get her tubes tied.

      I’m glad you are here, and I look forward to reading your posts.

      • RadicalGrandma Says:

        Thanks. I’ve been looking for a real feminist site for years, not the kind of liberal bullshit where women agree to their own oppression. The internet really can be a cesspool for women of all ages and many barely recognize the clues. For one thing, there are many “libertarians” who are in positions of influence, including the entire trans movement. For them, it really is a “do your own thang” philosophy, but with no consequences to bear.

        We never knew back in the day that women would be defending the rights of men to “become women”, and no self-respecting lesbian would ever want to assume the body of a man. This is a paraphilia and another assumption by some women of the thought processes of males, just as women who take clues from males about dressing, makeup, hair, etc for the sexual enjoyment of men, not the quality of life for women.

        Yes, we women wanted equality in every area of our lives but we didn’t want to endorse the sickness of patriarchy and its minions. Don’t expect any favors from the trans community ever when it comes to women’s liberation because it’s all about them, never us.

      • endlessleeper Says:

        i have literally no idea how women can believe that “cis” and “cisgender” are appropriate terms when things like this were the goddamn norm for women not particularly long ago. i have “radical” female friends who think cis isn’t a slur and it’s insanely disheartening. dying in childbirth, literally being male property, getting raped constantly, being forced into servitude and that being a “privilege”…trannies will never experience anything this bad, and they never have. they just showed up and yelled at women until we did their work for them. they get everything women never will, and then they cry and whine at the first sign of a hurt fee-fee and of course their female supporters will soothe and pamper them while the male supporters do shit fuck-all. it really is like playing mommy to a bunch of colicky adult babies. forcing women into the wife/hooker/mommy/slave/still-a-disgusting-privileged-terf box is radical how? seriously, i WANT TO HEAR THE TRANNIES EXPLAIN THIS IN FULL, AIRTIGHT DETAIL. but they can’t, for all their moaning and sobbing about oppression. if their oppression was really so bad, there would be NO positive trans role models in the media (not that there are anyway) because they would be terrified to even be seen in public and go against popular opinion. those trannies have a lot of balls in more ways than one, ha ha ha!
        thanks a lot for your wonderful comments, charlotte and radicalgrandma. crones and spinsters are the best : )

      • Dogtowner Says:

        I appreciate both of you, Radical Grandma and Charlotte. I was so disgusted by a Canadian “feminist” website where a commenter — older second wave feminist — wanted to know what the blogger was actually doing for women, and all she got for her trouble was to be called a man. I was outraged and commented, and my comment was swiftly deleted.

        I don’t think us older folks need to be respected for just being older, but some respect for our experience and knowledge would be awfully nice.

  45. RadicalGrandma Says:

    I think your genes say otherwise…

    “I definitely am not white,” – Rachel Dolezal in our exclusive intv for @NBCNightlyNews tonight

  46. I'm No Cissie Says:

    Here’s the NY Times today, making the case that 18 is probably not young enough for transgender surgeries.

    This story is currently featured on the front page of the website. The title here is “Transgender Surgery at 18” but in my alerts it was titled “Some experts say teens are too young for sex-change surgery. For Kat Boone, it was a rebirth”

    • born free & female Says:

      Notice how it’s now called “gender reassignment surgery”? I thought your gender was immutably fixed at birth, and determined whether you liked Barbies or Legos?

    • gaydude50 Says:

      Notices also that comments aren’t allowed.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Now that I’ve had time to look at this, I have to say that it is one of the most truly “balanced” articles I’ve ever seen in the mainstream press on the topic. It is incredibly well-researched and reported. Of course I could nit-pick at a few things but really, on the whole a phenomenal job by reporter Anemona Hartocollis. So rare to see actual, professional reporting these days. No wonder it made front page. Really amazed at the quality of this work. Never heard of the author but I’ll be keeping an eye out for that name in future. Classy job. True professional.

      Agree: the re-birth headline was shite, and contradicts the facts as reported. That was likely the work of an editor far less talented than the author. Damn nepotism.
      The video didn’t do much for me either.

      • RadicalGrandma Says:

        I am furious at this piece. This Christine McGinn, a MtT, has the audacity to say that post-tran surgery is like postpartum depression? How the fuck would s/he know?

        “Her father felt helpless as she [Boone] refused food and lost about 20 pounds. Dr. McGinn said it was not unusual for patients to become depressed after surgery and compared this to postpartum depression.”

        I think there were always issues with this boy, no doubt starting with his parents’ divorce when he was about 10. These are untreated psychological issues being blown up out of proportion to the raging agenda of the trans “movement”. If these parents had real concern for their kid, they would have started therapy a long time ago and before he began experiencing the urge to cut himself, among other behaviors. Instead, the parents allowed this boy to set his own agenda instead of offering guidance and help for his well-being. I don’t see a bright future ahead for any of them.

        I’m also truly pissed off at OR for allowing children as young as 15 to use Medicaid for elective surgical procedures without a parent’s permission.

      • Loup-loup agrou Says:

        Interesting how the surgeon’s yet another late-transitioning ex-military guy.

      • “Dr. McGinn said it was not unusual for patients to become depressed after surgery”

        Isn’t the surgery the “holy grail” that makes one finally an “actual woman”?

        Also depression is a serious issue. Transitioning while having depression and thinking that after the goal is reached it goes away is an illusion. If you are mentally ill before hormones and surgery you will be mentally ill after hormones and surgery.

        Transitioning is NOT a cure for mental illness although it’s treated like that magical thing that makes all pain and suffering go away.

        This poor boy needed actual help and not a surgeons kinfe but now it’s too late and he has to live with what’s left of his genitals.

      • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says: – Anemona Hartocollis Speaks at the Politics of Evidence Panel

      • puzzled Says:

        Peak trans strikes again!

        God love Mark/Maritza for being in there swinging, and look at the comment sections. So far commonsense appears to be prevailing among the genpub being exposed to what is really going on with our kids. (And bless Hartocollis for reporting that creepy ‘salivating’ comment by Spack.)

        This recent profile of Rob Garofalo, who heads the main gender clinic for kids in Chicago, gives a similar sense of “we have to get on this bandwagon for competitive professional reasons.”

        OMG, our poor sex-role-nonconforming children.

      • Zemskull Says:

        Regarding depression: weight loss surgery clinics are now extremely careful to screen out depressed surgery candidates. They saw far too many patients lose the weight, be surprised that life wasn’t perfect, and then turn to addictions. Candidates now must have undergo psychological screening before proceeding. It appears that these safeguards are not employed in the gender change arena.

  47. I'm No Cissie Says:

    oh the other alert lede is: “It was not an easy transition for Katherine Boone, but the question is no longer whether gender reassignment is an option, but instead how soon it should start.”

    • RadicalGrandma Says:

      Giving in to a self-centered teenager, or your underaged child with a paraphilia they don’t recognize? These kids are being groomed, no doubt about it, and the parents’ wishes are meaningless to the professionals making money from this immature leaning.

      I present this statement from the NYT piece on Katherine Boone:

      “Given that there are no proven biological markers for what is known as gender dysphoria, however, there is no consensus in the medical community on the central question: whether teenagers, habitually trying on new identities and not known for foresight, should be granted an irreversible physical fix for what is still considered a psychological condition.”

      Much less children who haven’t even reached puberty and are being assisted by unethical pediatricians who aid and abet in juggling a child’s endocrine system.

      Children should not be experiments.

      • kesher Says:

        It’s interesting to me that Boone took to cutting as a way to arm twist his parents into approving transition, because, when I was in high school, I had never so much as heard of cutting, and I hung around with the emo/goth kids. Most self-harming in that group was along the lines of traditional drug abuse and other bad decision making. I first caught wind of cutting when I was in college. It very much seems like an Internet phenomenon. Something that’s been spread through online suggestion.

        And if Boone doesn’t woefully regret transition within the next decade, I’ll eat my hat.

      • Mortadella Says:

        RadicalGrandma, you seem like a wonderful and wise woman. I’m so glad you decided to share your thoughts here. Please keep posting. Men don’t like it when women of various generations share intell — they prefer us divided and conquered and like to edit history (and fucking reality) so we don’t turn on collective anger on men.

  48. GallusMag Says:

    Dear Lord. This takes transgenderism as religion to a new level:

    “I know, firsthand, the harm that comes to a person when they are denied their true identity. I know the amazing beauty of finding a way to live authentically. I am blessed to have many more people in my life who enhance the light that shines into my soul, than people who try to block it. But there are many people who put great effort into blocking the light for me personally, and for all people who are transgender.

    To me, that light is God. That light is the presence of God. And with the presence of God comes the love of God. All things are possible with God. Many of them are beyond my understanding. God doesn’t ask my opinion or my permission. God just promises to be there.

    In truth, it doesn’t matter if that light comes from God, or if it comes from somewhere else. It is the light that shines into the darkness. Word.

    I have learned to let the light shine into my soul. Believe as you choose, but please do not block the light. It is very important to my ability to exist in this world. If I don’t receive the light, I can not share the light with the world. You never know to whom I might bring light, given the chance. It might be you.”


    Don’t cock-block the light of God with your gender agnosticism! If you don’t believe, he can’t believe either!

    What in the maird.

    • Em Says:

      The woo. It burns.

    • LC Says:

      That last paragraph… does he believe that gender is his God, or that he is God? He’s the one bringing the light by the end…

      And wow, that’s creepy. The vast majority of actual religious people I know don’t take their beliefs in the actual God to that level of fanaticism.

      • kesher Says:

        I half expected him to suggest sacrificing light deniers to R’hllor.

      • morag99 Says:

        “That last paragraph… does he believe that gender is his God, or that he is God? He’s the one bringing the light by the end…”

        LC, yes! That seems to be what he’s getting at. That Trans are God’s chosen people, that He shines his Shaft of Heavenly Light on them, and that they, in their prophetic turn, will share that Shaft of Light with us — if only we are willing to open our hearts and believe in Gender.

        Like, OMG. Holy crap.

    • Unperson Says:

      There’s only one thing you can say to people like that: ‘Demon, what is your name?’

    • cerulean blue Says:

      Someone should photoshop that photo of “Carmen” Carrera as venus on the half shell into the blessed virgin mary. Just add a veil and a halo around the penis, and let the worship commence! Our Lady of Authenticity, pray for us sinners! Hail trans, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art though among “women” and blessed is the fruit of thy womanly testicles…

    • Unperson. Says:


      “13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
      14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
      15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”

    • born free & female Says:

      You know, I’ve seen this kind of thing before (“It’s not a medical disorder! It’s a spiritual journey!” and I am actually perfectly fine with trans people their belief about being the wrong gender is a religious belief – because (in the US, at least) there are very few ways in which society demands that everyone pretend to believe or go along with someone’s spiritual beliefs. You won’t lose your job for saying the Eucharist isn’t actually the body of Christ, and you shouldn’t lose your job for saying that Bruce Jenner’s fake boobs aren’t actually the body of a woman.

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        Brilliant logic!

      • kesher Says:

        I’ve recently concluded that “trans women are women” is a statement of religious faith. And it’s fine to believe it, but it’s not fine to force everyone else to believe. If the members of the trans cult just kept their beliefs mostly to themselves and looked to gain basic civil rights protections for their beliefs (it’s illegal to fire someone for their religious beliefs, for example), I’d have few problems with them.

    • Oak and Ash Says:

      Oh, so THAT’s what Bruce Jenner was doing on the cover of Vanity Fair? Bringing light to the world?

      Oddly enough, during my religious upbringing the priests and nuns never mentioned anything about push-up bras and nail polish being instruments of holiness. Must have been an oversight.

      I can’t wait for the trans collective to claim Mary was really a transwoman and the birth of Jesus truly miraculous.

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        And another thing–Mott also writes:

        “Imagine waking up knowing who you are on the outside doesn’t match who you are on the inside. Imagine believing you can never be who you are; that you will spend your life pretending to be someone not truly you.

        “Imagine living in a world that constantly reminds you that there is something bad about being who you are. A world that demands it knows more about who you are than you do. Imagine continuously wondering if your life is really worth living”

        Because those of us lucky enough to be raised as girls never experience these things?

        “A world that demands it knows more about who you are than you do.”

        Transwomen can claim to be just like us only as long as they know nothing about our lives. That’s why they’re so eager to keep us from being heard.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Fuckin’ A. These guys have zero interest in actual female lives both before and after “transition”.

      • Interesting how Kansas is fast becoming the reddest state in the union. It’s like a mini Iran in the heart of the USA…a conservative utopia.

        Transgenderism is mostly an atheist movement. Most religious people don’t think God can make mistakes. Transpeople, however, think they can correct God. How arrogant is that?

    • endthewoo Says:

      The bloke who wrote this drivel is Executive Director at the Kansas Statewide Transgender Education Project. How do these useless men get into such postions and get given a public platform to pour forth their superstitious ramblings ?

      Yeah, rhetorical question, we all know why.

    • “God’s will” = Giving him what he wants when he wants it

      “Beauty” = What gets him off

      You don’t have to be religious to find Mott’s rationale laughable. In Christian terms, though, his paraphilia is simply a manifestation of the idolatry of the self. Trans think they’re so different and cutting edge, but their self-worship is the oldest story in the world. They have no idea how boring they are.

    • Dogtowner Says:

      The dark looks very inviting.

    • Charlotte Says:

      If he knew first hand what harm comes to women when they are denied their true identity as human beings, he wouldnt be so fucking quick to pretend merely taking on a visage made him a woman.

      He, like many, believe women are objects to be appropriated, he denies us our true identity so that he can take it for himself.

      Dudes like this would suck out our souls and wear our lifeless skins to jerk off with if they could… I’ve seen too many M2Ts articulate fantasies on that atrocious level.

    • Dorothy Mantooth Says:

      Yes. I remember very well the part of the Bible that said, “If people around you deny God, that is a good reason for you to deny god, too, because faith comes solely from other people.” Those martyrs killed for their beliefs were just being stubborn; didn’t they realize that it’s impossible to believe in something if everyone else doesn’t agree?

      “God promises to be there…” unless you meanies say I’m a dude. When that happens, the all-powerful god in whom I believe takes his light and goes home.

  49. Patrick Says:

    It is disappointingly telling that most responses I’ve seen to any suggestions that the one case might be comparable to the other are dismissive ad hominem arguments.

  50. Atranswidow Says:

    Gallus, thanks for the link to Alice Dreger

    The article is good until she gets to the end and states that she is not a TERF. Why did she feel the need to add that? Plus the ”feel free to join me in the bathroom” throwaway phrase?

    She has spoken to Bailey, Blanchard and Lawrence and could really be pivotal in bringing a better understanding of autogynephilia to the mainstream. However, what she has not done is spoken to women who have experienced the trauma of the end of a long term relationship with these men and has a limited understanding of the personality changes that late transitioning men exhibit as they ”come out”. What I would like to see is some investigative journalist approaching the trans issue from the point of view of the people most affected, ie women; whether they be lesbians, ex wives/partners, women who have been abused by men and need their own safe space. Where are the interviews with Sheila Jeffries? It’s still so one sided, but I do think/hope that at long last people are beginning to question the trans cult’s stance.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Dreger has never been feminist. She believes sex roles are biological and evolutionary. Super conservative. Also has always had a weird anti-lesbian thang going on.

      • Atranswidow Says:

        She doesn’t need to be a feminist… but I’d go one step further and say that she is a misogynist, and that is just not acceptable.
        I am very disappointed. Back to square one.

  51. Ashland Avenue Says:

    O.K., this entire thread is just fucking golden. From the funny to the historical to the editorial, y’all have outdone yourselves. Thank you.

  52. Annoyed Bi Chick Says:

    I feel like identity politics is the worst ratfuck the economic right ever perpetrated on the social left. While we’re all squabbling about what terminology to use for whom, inventing fifty new pronouns because G-d forbid any spayshul snowflake should be left out, fighting bitter wars because some people have become absolutely convinced that the only reality that matters is the one inside their heads and they have to enforce that reality on everyone else (never mind whether this conflicts with, say, anybody else’s inner reality, consensus reality as we know it, facts, history, or anything else)…

    …the economic right is busily siphoning up all the money, land, natural and other resources, and demolishing democracy, civil society, and our physical and civil infrastructure. So we’re going to all wind up living in the North American equivalent of favellas, fighting over the table scraps of the 0.01% (you know, the same class of people to whom belonged Jay Gould, who famously said he could hire one half of the working class to kill the other half), under the watchful eye and cocked weapons of the Gilded Age 2.0’s robber barons’ private armies, with no civil rights, no functioning society anymore…

    …but by G-d, nobody will be misgendering/misidentifying anyone else, and we’ll all get to tell the world that what you might seem to be on the outside is irrelevant and everyone has to see and treat you as you appear to yourself inside your solipsistic universe, or else! Because that’s what’s really important. Let’s just have identity, identity, identity, 24/7/365-6. Think only about yourself! Create your own internal reality! Pay no attention to the plutocrat behind the curtain!

    It’s masterful, really. If I weren’t living in the fucking middle of it (and two steps away from a cardboard shack myself), I’d think it was not only applause-worthy, but kind of hilarious.

    • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

      This is exactly it. Clinton said: It’s the economy, stupid – and I think that totally applies here. It’s disaster capitalism applied to “isms” – classism, sexism, and now racism. There’s profit to be made from destroying protected classes (which woman is legally). I think this also goes back to, even way way back, to the emergence of “shock jocks” and Howard Stern, which I guess goes back to deregulating the FCC? And so – ta-da! Transgender is actually an outcome of decades-ago deregulation. There is a ripple effect – think of what transgender is really – you are DEREGULATING biological sex – you’re saying biological sex can be ANYTHING you want it to be – there are no limits – call it gender if you feel like it – THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS. That’s what Butler advocates – with her idea of “performance” – anything goes! There are no limits by “big government” or “big science” – you know, the intellectual legacy of centuries. Forget all that confining, inhibiting-of-innovation, dusty cobweb crap when it comes to bio sex.

      Right, so with deregulation of biological sex comes big profits – bingo! for endocrinologists, psychologists, pharmaceutical companies, etc. If we deregulate “race” – then I’m going to assume there is profit there for somebody. This is just like the furthest ripples out from deregulation that went through under Reagan, or whenever exactly that all started. I’ll blame Margaret Thatcher, because she was deregulating in UK. So there you have it. I think I just hit on something important – the key word, the key concept “deregulation.” Bastards! And bitches! I don’t discriminate! Bastiches! Bitchtards!

      • hokay Says:

        That is a total misreading of Butler, but I think your “this is disaster capitalism appiled to ‘isms’ comment” is dead on.

      • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

        I disagree that this is a “total misreading” of Butler. I question whether it is even possible to “misread” dense-prose-postmodern Butler. I also think fame has gone to her head, and she’s gotten a bit sloppy? Pandering? to her audience. A bit like bell hooks and her response to Laverne Cox, definitely set aside the critical-tinted-glasses on that one. I liked this critique of Butler done by law professor Martha Nussbaum:

      • Annoyed Bi Chick Says:

        Deregulation! Spot on! What we`ve got now is the Enron of gender!

        And this goes right back to the trans* whining about “gatekeepers.” Oh, how they hate gatekeepers. They hate gatekeepers the way the Koch brothers hate environmental laws.

        But you know, any change of self-state worth doing perforce has gatekeepers; you can’t just call yourself a doctor or a lawyer and practice law or medicine. You have to actually put in the time, pass the exams and all of that. Ditto getting a legitimate degree. A driver’s license. A pilot’s license. Joining the military (transitioning from civilian to soldier — lots of people flunk out of basic training; whoops, gatekeeping!). Heck, the process for converting to traditional Judaism, admittedly much more ephemeral than even changing the gender one presents to the world, requires a huge long process, as well as the supervision of several authorities of the type.

        Has anybody ever written anything about would-be transitioners who essentially wash out? People who decide that it’s maybe not what they want to do after all? Now that would be some bombshell reading.

    • silverside Says:

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • susannunes Says:

      That in a nutshell is why this “movement” coincided with the rise of neoliberalism. Of course the end result of this is to destroy women as a protected class. I have long been opposed to this.

    • I completely agree with all of this. Transgenderism is funded by neoliberal plutocrats and driven by affluent white males who erase economic issues, except when they’re using transwomen of color as weapons against class:female. For example, Julia Serano, who grew up in the Philly Main Line with a stockbroker father, now has the nerve to lecture women about intersectionality. Gay Male/Trans Inc. is crawling with nest-feathering rich kids like Serano and Parker Molloy. It’s a racket.

      We’ve been discussing the neoliberal hijacking of intersectionality here at Gendertrender for a long time:

    • Dogtowner Says:

      The economic analysis of transgenderism is necessary and cogent. The first time I read someone referring to it as neoliberal my mind said yes! AreUSaying’s reference to deregulation — deregulation of biological sex: brilliant — is another clarifying moment. I thank all of you, in particular Annoyed, AreUSaying, and Jane Dark for your analyses.

  53. SlySnootles Says:

    Lol NYTIMES That’s a good way to show contempt for your readers, keep bombarding them with articles on a topic that their sick of hearing about. The trans issue has obviously overstayed its welcome in the media, I think people have a difficult time maintaining interest in something they know is a bunch of bullshit. I’d be pretty insulted too if I still read the NYtimes, isn’t there more compelling pseudoscience out there? Like Phrenology or soul weighing?. I want 10 articles dedicated to the Loch Ness monster.

  54. RadicalGrandma Says:

    Before “transgender” was even a word, before surgery was perfected to remove body parts and add other, before the current agenda of certain people to push this phenom to call men “women” after they’ve glammed up and bolted on tits and shaved their adam’s apple and shaved their bodies–before all this, we women have been fighting forever to simply stay alive, to be considered worthy of life. Men trying to appropriate women’s lives and experiences is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    We can’t even have our own spaces any longer because natal men want to grab them, along with everything else we’ve fought for. I will never agree to any of it.

    Men will never bleed, men will never give birth, men will never go through menopause or experience anything near what a woman is made of. And men are not lesbians–never were, never will be.

    So, get lost, you poseurs. And stop trying to name women who don’t invite you into our spaces, you creeps.

    Really, the more crap I read about this, the angrier and more enraged I get.

  55. Gallus…did you see this? The gay man who founded an LGBT group in Mississippi has resigned because he didn’t want to be called “cisgender.”

    The gays are being chased out of gay groups by straight men in dresses!

  56. Sargasso Sea Says:

    Thanks everyone for this great sanity-reality thread.

    Was feeling like I had landed on some crazy planet where up is down… the fricking knots the the libs are tying themselves into is just grotesque.

  57. GallusMag Says:


    Community document: the real facts about transracial vs transgender + refuting anti-transgender talking points. (self.asktransgender)
    submitted 1 day ago * by tempuser_mmmm hormonesx2 – stickied post
    Most everyone knows about Rachel Dolezal and her delusional claims of identifying as a different race. The purpose of this post is to clarify the facts when faced with aggressors that claim transracial and transgender are similar concepts. This also includes a list of medical facts that refute anti-transgender talking points.
    Please add to this list if you know of any additional resources we can include. I’ve listed all reference sources at the bottom of the post. [edit: added TLDR]
    Transracial = interracial adoption, not racial self-identification as being claimed by Dolezal.
    What Dolezal is doing is best termed ‘cultural misappropriation for personal gain’.
    Racial Identity is not similar to Gender Identity & Transracial is not similar to Transgender.
    Dolezal has made many false claims about her identity that are best defined as delusions.
    Gender, Gender Identity, and Gender Roles are separate but related concepts. Gender is not a binary system limited to male/female.
    Being transgender is independent of sexual orientation. It is a medical condition treated with gender transition, as agreed on by world-wide medical expert consensus.
    Transracial defined
    Definition: “involving or between two or more racial groups: transracial adoptions.” (source 1.4)
    “The term originates from adoptive and academic circles to describe the very lived experience of children raised in homes that are phenotypically and culturally different from their birth.” (source 1.3)
    “Transracial is used in regards to interracial adoption — also known as transracial adoption — and has nothing to do with people from one race “identifying” as another race.” (source 1.8)
    Race is not a choice
    Attempting to choose one’s race can only be seen as an action made in a desire for personal gain, not for the betterment of another race. “To deny the complexities of racial identity is to plead ignorance. To demand that your racial identity be seen as fluid because you are inconvenienced by whiteness and your ambitions are thwarted by other people’s blackness is just a new reason for a very old kind of erasure.“ (source 1.2)
    Racial/Cultural Misappropriation
    “When this is done, the imitator, “who does not experience that oppression is able to ‘play,’ temporarily, an ‘exotic’ other, without experience any of the daily discriminations faced by other cultures.” (sources 1.5, 1.6)
    Just because Dolezal worked for the NAACP and studied associated topics does not mean she was doing black culture a positive service, quite the opposite: “[Cultural misappropriation] has little to do with one’s exposure to and familiarity with different cultures. Instead, cultural appropriation typically involves members of a dominant group exploiting the culture of less privileged groups — often with little understanding of the latter’s history, experience and traditions.” (source 1.7)
    Racial identity claims for personal gain
    “Doleful claims to identify as black but has historically identified as white when useful for personal gain. ““I identify as black”, she said during the interview, though she admits to having identified as white at other points – including when she sued Howard University for racial discrimination because she was white. (She lost.)” (source 1.2)
    Racial identity is not the same as gender identity
    “Being transracial is hardly similar to ‘feeling black’ … It’s not like gender dysphoria either – the politics of race and gender are not interchangeable in this context. Unlike many black Americans, Rachel’s family background does not carry the trauma of slavery and institutionalized racism. Unlike people who really are transracial, Rachel has not been physically torn between two cultures and denied intimate knowledge of her birth culture. Unlike people who are black and transracial adoptees, Rachel has not had to deal with both of these life-affecting experiences at the same time.” (source 1.2)
    “Gender identity is a person’s private sense and subjective experience of their own gender. This is generally described as one’s private sense of being a man or a woman, consisting primarily of the acceptance of membership into a category of people… In all societies, however, some individuals do not identify with some (or all) of the aspects of gender that are assigned to their biological sex.” (source 2.4)
    Gender identity as a self-descriptor, not a genetic attribute: “Some societies have third gender categories that can be used as a basis for a gender identity by people who are uncomfortable with the gender that is usually associated with their sex; in other societies, membership of any of the gender categories is open to people regardless of their [genetically defined] sex.” (source 2.4)
    Amazing Lies by Rachel Dolezal
    She claimed a black man was her father, false.
    She claims that she was born in a tepee in Montana in 1977.
    She claims that “Jesus Christ” is written as the witness on her birth certificate because her parents lived in the middle of nowhere and lived off the land.
    She claims she grew up hunting with a bow and arrow.
    She claims that she has no contact with her mother and stepfather (she doesn’t have a stepfather).
    She claims her mother beat her and her siblings with a baboon whip, a whip that was used to beat slaves in the past. I can’t find any evidence that there’s even such a thing as a baboon whip at all. She claims the whippings left scars.
    She claims to have been slipped a mickey by a former mentor of hers while they were celebrating the sale of one of her paintings. She claims he then raped her. She says that she didn’t report it because he was so wealthy. I mean, who knows on this one but “he’s too rich to sue” sounds like a lie.
    She claims that her ex-husband used to beat her and then throw their son across the room when he tried to stop him. However, the guy she’s been claiming to be her son is actually her adopted brother.
    She claims to have gotten 20 pages of racist hate mail and pictures of lynchings. The envelope the “hate mail” came in wasn’t post marked which means it had never actually been mailed yet somehow it found its way into Dolezal’s P.O. Box.
    Her bio makes the following outrageous claim: “Her efforts were met with opposition by North Idaho white supremacy groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Neo Nazis and the Aryan Nations, and at least eight documented hate crimes targeted Doležal and her children during her residency in North Idaho.”
    Source listed in section 1.1
    Separate but related: Gender, Gender Identity, and Gender Roles
    Usually the people arguing against transgender identity and associated topics do not understand the difference between “gender”, “gender identity”, and “gender roles”; they are separate but related terms with different definitions (sources 2.3, 2.4, 2.5)
    It’s important to note in arguments against people that seek to dismiss or refute the transgender experience, that gender is not binary and is not a choice. No one chooses to be transgender.
    It’s common, observable fact that the long held western notion of a binary gender system is incorrect (otherwise how could so many non-binary people exist? Many non-western societies operate on a multi-gender system). The proponents of the limited gender binary system expect ““sex”, “gender” and “sexuality” are expected to align, for example a biological male would be assumed masculine in appearance, character traits and behaviour, including a heterosexual attraction to the “opposite” sex.”” (source 2.6)
    Proponents of the gender binary typically hold transphobic beliefs. It is nothing more than antagonism based on the expression of an individual’s internal gender identity. Transphobia is commonly expressed as emotional disgust, fear, anger or discomfort felt or expressed towards people who do not conform to old-world definitions of gender expectations. Transphobia is commonly seen along with sexism, homophobia, and religious fundamentalism. (source 2.7)
    Transgender defined
    Transgender is the state of one’s gender identity or gender expression not matching one’s assigned sex. Transgender is independent of sexual orientation; transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, etc; some may consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable to them. The definition of transgender includes:
    ”Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender roles, but combines or moves between these.”
    ”People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves.”
    ”Non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the sex (and assumed gender) one was assigned at birth.”
    (source 2.8)
    Transgender treatment, as defined by medical experts around the world
    Gender dysphoria must be defined in order to understand the meaning of transgender/transsexual and to understand the methods used in medical treatment. The DSM-V has the following entry (source 2.1):
    A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or, in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
    A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or, in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
    A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
    A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
    A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
    A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
    Transgender people have their gender dysphoria treated via standards of care defined by consensus of world wide experts in the associated medical fields:
    “The World Professional Association for Transgender Health promotes the highest standards of health care for individuals through the articulation of Standards of Care (SOC) for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. The SOC are based on the best available science and expert professional consensus.” (source 2.2)
    Refuting common transphobic argument points
    These are covered in source 2.9, and some of the following content has been abbreviated to keep the length of content manageable. Highly recommend reading the source document if you want additional data.
    “Transgender people are by definition mentally disordered.”
    The organization responsible for defining what is and is not a psychiatric disorder, the American Psychiatric Association, has this to say about the matter (via the DSM-5): “It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.” In short, the people who wrote the definition of “psychiatric disorder” categorically reject the statement that a transgender identity is intrinsically disordered.
    “Chromosomes always define sex and gender.”
    Unless you have complete androgen-insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), or 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, or Swyer syndrome, or genetic mosaicism, or 17-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase III deficiency, or progestin-induced virilisation, or prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol, or any of a wide range of endocrine-based disorders that cause a person person to have chromosomes that don’t match their primary sexual characteristics or gender identity. A woman with XY chromosomes developed as a normal woman, underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.
    “Transgender identities are a delusion.”
    A transgender identity does not fit the psychiatric definition of “delusion,” nor has it ever been encoded as such in the DSM.
    “There is no evidence that you can have a female brain in a male body or vice versa.”
    Transgender identities appear to be a genuine mismatch between primary sexual characteristic and neurological phenotypes during prenatal development. There is very strong evidence of the biological origins of transgender identities, actually. From Chung and Auger, European Journal of Physiology, 2013: “Gender-dependent differentiation of the brain has been detected at every level of organization — morphological, neurochemical, and functional — and has been shown to be primarily controlled by sex differences in gonadal steroid hormone levels during perinatal development.” From Swaab and Bao, Neuroscience in the 21st Century, 2013: “Gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender), sexual orientation (hetero-, homo-, or bisexuality) … are programmed into our brain during early development. There is no proof that postnatal social environment has any crucial effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.” From Jürgensen, et al., Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2010: “There is strong evidence that high concentrations of androgens lead to more male-typical behavior and that this also influences gender identity.”
    “Dr. Paul McHugh, retired from psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital…”
    Dr. McHugh is a self-described orthodox Catholic whose radical views are well documented. In his role as part of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ review board, he pushed the idea that the Catholic sex-abuse scandal was not about pedophilia but about “homosexual predation on American Catholic youth.” He filed an amicus brief arguing in favor of Proposition 8 on the basis that homosexuality is a “choice.” Additionally, McHugh was in favor of forcing a pregnant 10-year-old girl who had been raped by an adult relative to carry to term. If you want a detailed analysis of how Dr. McHugh has misrepresented data, rigged studies, left out significant details in his research, and is nothing more than a poorly regarded fringe element in his own field, you can read about it here, here, here, here, here, and here. No secular medical or mental-health organization agrees with him. Even his own (former) department denounced his stance in testimony before the Maryland Senate. Court cases looking at transgender medical issues have found his work unpersuasive. In short, Paul McHugh is the Mark Regnerus of transgender issues.
    “The statistics on transgender suicide rates prove they’re mentally unstable.”
    It is accepted within medicine, mental-health, and sociology communities that these adverse statistics reflect a combination of minority stress and lack of access to affirming health care. When given access to supportive environments and medical care, quality of life for transgender women (including mental health) is not significantly different from the general population.
    “Those people need mental-health counseling to fix their identity, not medical intervention.”
    Every major medical and mental-health organization in the U.S. officially supports access to affirming care. This is because decades of peer-reviewed research have shown it to be the most effective way of dealing with gender dysphoria. It has overwhelmingly demonstrated that affirming medical care is effective and of material clinical benefit to individuals with gender dysphoria. Follow-up studies have shown an undeniable beneficial effect of sex-reassignment surgery on postoperative outcomes such as subjective well-being, cosmesis, and sexual function (DeCuypere et al., 2005; Gijs & Brewaeys, 2007; Klein & Gorzalka, 2009; Pfafflin & Junge, 1998). GRS has also been found to lead to a quantitative decrease in suicide attempts and drug use in post-operative populations (C. Mate-Kole et al., 1990). In studies where affirming care was denied, patients showed significantly worse outcomes (Ainsworth and Spiegel, 2010; C. Mate-Kole et al., 1990). (more in source 2.9)
    “It’s madness that we could be losing!”
    Beyond the fact that punching down in our society is generally seen as bad form, it is because medicine and mental-health organizations follow peer-reviewed research when developing policy. Thankfully, courts in turn defer to actual experts on the matter, not to ideologues, people who falsify their research, or pundits. It all stems from the fact that the vast preponderance of the actual scientific evidence contradicts right-wing talking points on transgender issues.
    Dolezal Related Sources
    1.1 Dolezal lies:
    1.2 Rachel Dolezal’s definition of ‘transracial’ isn’t just wrong, it’s destructive:
    1.3 Interracial Adoption:
    1.4 Transracial definition:
    1.5 Racial Misappropriation:
    1.6 Don’t Mess Up When You Dress Up: Cultural Appropriation and Costumes:
    1.7 What Is Cultural Appropriation and Why Is It Wrong?:
    1.8 People have hijacked an adoption hashtag after a NAACP leader was ‘outed’ as white:
    Gender/Transgender Sources
    2.1 DSM-V Gender Dysphoria Criteria:
    2.2 WPATH standards of care:,%20V7%20Full%20Book.pdf
    2.3 Gender Terminology:
    2.4 Gender Identity:
    2.5 Gender Roles:
    2.6 Gender Binary:
    2.7 Transphobia:
    2.8 Transgender defined:
    2.9 Fighting Back Against Anti-Transgender Talking Points:
    87 commentsshare
    all 87 comments
    sorted by: best
    [–]static_anonymity_ 26 points 1 day ago*
    There’s one thing here that absolutely needs to be mentioned but that was not. Speaking as an anthropologist, it’s absence is incredible to me, and it’s this:
    Biologically speaking, there is no such thing as race. It’s a purely cultural concept that is less than 500 years old, dating to the time of European expansion. The race concept posits that there are biologically distinct human populations that are reflected in such things as skin color, but the truth is that “black” and “white,” for example, grade into one another across geographic space. Biologists and physical anthropologists call this kind of gradation a “cline.”
    This is not to say that “race” isn’t a powerful cultural concept. It obviously is or we wouldn’t be talking about it. But the comparison of “transracial” (in the sense that a person “feels black on the inside”) to transgender fails completely because transgenderism actually has a biological cause.
    permalinksavereportgive goldreply
    [–]kayleeelizabeth 10 points 18 hours ago
    But it must be biological, it’s not like italians or poles or other eastern europeans were not considered as white until recently. Oh wait, that is exactly the case. I am somewhat amused that people who are now ‘white’ weren’t a hundred years ago. If that isn’t good evidence that race is a social construct, I don’t know what is.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]ShipsexualB2G missile | pre-everything 4 points 20 hours ago
    Also there’s as much genetic diversity within the traditional races as there are between them so the concept of race completely falls flat because of that.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]jimjameko 2 points 16 hours ago
    Amen! My response to bullshit has been to start by looking shit up in the dictionary.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]incruente 12 points 1 day ago
    This is a huge elephant. Suppose I approach it one bite at a time. For “race is not a choice” we see:
    Attempting to choose one’s race can only be seen as an action made in a desire for personal gain, not for the betterment of another race. “To deny the complexities of racial identity is to plead ignorance. To demand that your racial identity be seen as fluid because you are inconvenienced by whiteness and your ambitions are thwarted by other people’s blackness is just a new reason for a very old kind of erasure.“
    I don’t think that a transracial person necessarily denies the complexities of racial identity, nor is necessarily white. Sure, Rachel Dolezal is white, but to say that only a white person could identify as another race seems like a rash assumption. Or take the first sentence; can transracialism truly be seen ONLY as an action made through a desire for personal gain? Could someone honestly not identify as another race, the same as someone identifies with a different sexuality or gender? The sentence also seems to state that a desire for personal gain or a desire to better another race are the only conceivable explanations or excuses. Is a transsexual woman a woman because she desires to improve womankind? Because she wants personal gain? Or is it because she honestly considers herself a woman? Why can someone born one race not honestly consider themselves another?
    permalinksavereportgive goldreply
    [–]bionictransgirl 7 points 1 day ago
    Or take the first sentence; can transracialism truly be seen ONLY as an action made through a desire for personal gain?
    You’ve missed the first section of the post it seems. Transracial = interracial adoption . Dolezal has a history of using her race (real or self identified) for personal gain.
    Is a transsexual woman a woman because she desires to improve womankind? Because she wants personal gain? Or is it because she honestly considers herself a woman?
    Transgender is not similar to the incorrectly defined term transracial in any way at all, so you cannot compare the two concepts that way. Transgender people medically suffer from Gender Dysphoria and they transition in order to have stable happy lives, not to defraud and mislead the public like Dolezal is (and has been) doing.
    Why can someone born one race not honestly consider themselves another?
    I suggest you read the whole post and click click the referenced links to read more about this issue. All of your questions have been covered by OP already.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]incruente 2 points 20 hours ago
    You’ve missed the first section of the post it seems. Transracial = interracial adoption . Dolezal has a history of using her race (real or self identified) for personal gain.
    Like I said, I’m approaching this one bit at a time. What word would you like me to use instead of “transracial” to convey the concept of someone who was born a member of one race but who genuinely identifies with another race and wishes to transition to it? I’m not just talking about Dolezal here.
    Transgender is not similar to the incorrectly defined term transracial in any way at all, so you cannot compare the two concepts that way. Transgender people medically suffer from Gender Dysphoria and they transition in order to have stable happy lives, not to defraud and mislead the public like Dolezal is (and has been) doing.
    Again, I’m not just talking about Dolezal. Can you honestly not conceive of someone who feels about their race the way a transgender person feels about their gender?
    I suggest you read the whole post and click click the referenced links to read more about this issue. All of your questions have been covered by OP already.
    I have read the post and the links. My questions have been referenced, but I don’t feel they have been answered. For instance, why can’t someone feel about their race the way a transgender person feels about their gender? A lot of people point to a body of medical evidence for transgender people. So was being transgender totally illegitimate before that body of work existed? If not, then the lack of such work for people who feel that way about race (again, what word do you want me to use?) should not be grounds to consider them illegitimate.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]Jackibelle 2 points 17 hours ago
    Yeah, I hit the whole “transracial refers to adoption” thing and it felt very much like redefining terms to prove someone wrong. I don’t know of a better word, when making the comparison between “race identity” and gender identity, than transracial, and had never heard of it before in adoption, so to try and deflect any discussion from people who are newly entering the space by saying they got the vocabulary wrong is… silly.
    And yeah, gender transition is almost entirely “for personal gain”. Hell, the only ones doing it for the good of their genders are probably the “tucutes” from Tumblr that everyone here hates.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]Amberhawke6242 1 point 10 hours ago
    Could someone honestly not identify as another race, the same as someone identifies with a different sexuality or gender?
    No, not really. From a biological standpoint what we call race is just genetic diversity across a species. The emerging science puts credence into there being a biological cause of transgenderism. Comparing transgenderism to this transracial would be like comparing transgenderism to body dysmorphic disorder. There are some similarities between these I will admit, but how they are treated are very different. The reason that they are treated different is that the underlying reason for these are different.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]incruente 1 point 7 hours ago
    Just because they’re treated different ways doesn’t mean someone can’t identify with a different racial identity. I’m not saying the reasons are the same; I’m saying that it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that someone could honestly identify with another race.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]Amberhawke6242 1 point 5 hours ago
    I’m saying that it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that someone could honestly identify with another race.
    In the way that someone has a close connection and ties with another race, sure. There are many people that feel alienated by their own race and community, and seek out others that feel the same. That is not the same as what this woman was claiming. She was claiming that she was another race. So while I say that someone can feel close to another race, and maybe identify with one, it’s not the same as identifying as another race. It’s also not the same as some that identifies as another gender.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]incruente 1 point 4 hours ago
    First, I’m not limiting myself to Rachael Dolezal; to say she and her actions represent everyone who may identify with another race (transracials? apparently that’s the wrong word) is just as unfair as claiming that any specific person who claims to be a woman but who is structurally and genetically male represents all transgender people. Second, why is it not the same as someone who identifies as another gender? Because the causes may not be identical? Sure. But why should that matter? The real question is, is transgenderism legitimate and transracialism(?) not, and if so, why?
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]Amberhawke6242 [score hidden] 3 hours ago
    First, I only addressed her claim that she was another race than what she is. Not any of her other actions. That claim is central to this debate. As for the second, the reason they are not the same is because the causes are not the same. Just like I mentioned before with body dysmorphic disorder. It matters because the cause is used to diagnose the underlying issue. There is no question on whether or not transgenderism is legitimate. The issue is settled with major medical groups. There is no president for the claim that is being made.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]TheLivingExperimentHRT 1/29/15 12 points 1 day ago
    I got into a pretty rough argument with a guy I know last night. He posted essentially saying if a “man can choose to live as a woman, the same must be true for race.” Likewise that both gender and race are social constructs, and therefore changeable.
    Ugh. Still pissed about it. It sucks because he’s one of the guys in my core oldest group of friends, and I don’t know how it’ll be handled. Makes me want to be able to go stealth and move the fuck away cutting off my past to a large extent. The guy they knew can be dead as far as they are concerned. People really piss me off.
    permalinksavereportgive goldreply
    [–]tempuser_mmmm hormones[S] 6 points 1 day ago
    I know the feeling. I’ve cut all of the people out of my life that were like that. If a friend can’t be supportive and learn the medical facts about the topic then they have no place as a friend. Their mindset is similar to saying they don’t agree with vaccines – it’s not up for opinion, it’s medical fact.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]toldfish\_(ツ)_/¯ 6 points 1 day ago
    One of my best friends posted a similar Facebook status the other day. That myopic little shit has absolutely no idea how much his dumb joke hurt me. I’m hoping our friendship will survive what I’m going through and maybe even help elevate him to a better level of understanding. But I’m not optimistic.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]TheLivingExperimentHRT 1/29/15 7 points 1 day ago
    I can completely relate. I’ve known this guy, and the core people in that group, for over 15 years. And seeing who liked his post as well in that group really concerns me. I’ve told 3 of the people in that group who are really close friends and they are all cool with it when I told them. But… we do stuff like rent a vacation house and do group trips. I’m concerned that they will make that hell/awkward. Especially since there are families involved and I worry they will go all bitchy about “family values” and shit.
    I hate people…
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]mrstalinHannah – banana free since 6/10/15 8 points 1 day ago
    Thank you so much. It’s been pretty difficult trying to argue with this since it’s a new one, I really appreciate your work.
    permalinksavereportgive goldreply
    [–]tempuser_mmmm hormones[S] 3 points 1 day ago
    Of course. I got tired of rewriting my points and trying to find URLs to paste in each thread I wanted to comment on… seemed better to sit and put it all in one ordered place.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]gegennyhuman being, female 5 points 1 day ago*
    Source 3.1 and the premise it’s being used to support are questionable, but don’t really have much bearing on the overall argument.
    Ed: Also source 3.2 does not support the premise attributed to it. All it says is that they have identified the specific mutations they believe led to some humans being born with lighter skin.
    As more details come out about this, I’m hopeful it can start useful conversation about social identity and mutability.
    permalinksavereportgive goldreply
    [–]tempuser_mmmm hormones[S] 4 points 1 day ago
    Good points. I’ll edit the content. Thanks for the advice.
    permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
    [–]avitrayou just didn’t know me 6 points 1 day ago
    Looks like we’re gonna need this now that Rachel Whatever has announced that she identifies as black.

    • Susan Nunes Says:

      They know they are losing their hold on the narrative. Of course they know the Dolezal controversy raises identical issues. “I think, therefore I am” is a load of bullshit in these instances and they know it. We may be seeing a meltdown of the trans movement. Its obliteration can’t come soon enough.

      • TheDailyMale Says:

        From your lips to god’s ear.

      • RadicalGrandma Says:

        The trans movement has only gotten this far because of the aggressive arrogance of the males who run it. If “gender” is nothing but a “social construct”, then why are natal women the ones who feel the oppression, not trans-“women”? They glory in their presentations of what they think a woman should be, and they play the roles of what their paraphilia tells them to do. It’s a matter of perfecting the image of the “woman” they have been in love with–themselves. This autogynephilia is a mental disorder of narcissistic self-love gone amuck. This autoeroticism means no person out there will ever be good enough to receive that love, and they wind up simply using people rather than getting psychiatric help for this horrible mental disorder, and wrecking lives in the process.

        The fact that there is such a large suicide rate has nothing to do with the way society sees them, but a result of their own disordered minds and lack of long term therapy. But that takes work, and none of these attention seekers appear to be willing to do it, nor do they care about the feelings of others.

      • anon male Says:

        So long as brain sex stands as science, I fear any publicity is ultimately good publicity for trans.

        As much as I’ve enjoyed the past month as an opportunity to educate some of my more conservative relations, I actually do believe that the learning the average Good Person of the Internet receives through episodes like this one will ultimately further trans goals.

        The issue can be split infinitely (Rachel deceived people! She didn’t pass 100% of the time! Sometimes her not passing was advantageous! Never mind that the same can be said for some/most/all trans) and as long as that confusion is built upon a foundation that lay people cannot challenge, brain sex, the public gets more comfortable via exposure.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Lay people ARE challenging “brain sex”. That was the whole point of Elinor Burkett’s explosive NYTimes op-ed.

      • born free & female Says:

        “They know they are losing their hold on the narrative. Of course they know the Dolezal controversy raises identical issues.”

        For years now, trans apologists have been dismissing the idea of white people identifying as black, cross-dressing pervs using “gender identity” laws to get into the ladies room, and the like with “But that never happens, and no one would ever do that.” And people with little or no exposure to creepy autogynephiles have been taking that non-argument as gospel.

        But it only takes one Dolezal or one Carlota Sklodowska for people to say “Hey, this really does happen. Why are we allowing this?”

      • river Says:

        Burkett has backpedalled somewhat in that interview I posted below. Fawns over Dana and alludes to working together.

      • Zemskull Says:

        Hi Gallus: I’d like to see the debate touch upon whether purported ownership of one these alleged “female brains” logically entitle its male-bodied owner to a dozen facial cosmetic surgeries, hand and body cosmetic surgeries, hair removal on the face and body, carving and inversion of the penis, hormonal medications and other expensive procedures on the insurance carrier’s or taxpayer’s dime? I believe the question is particularly compelling when considering that most born-women have at least a few traits that are considered masculine by societal standards, e.g. facial hair, and there is no rush to provide coverage for them.

      • Dorothy Mantooth Says:


        “It’s a matter of perfecting the image of the “woman” they have been in love with–themselves. This autogynephilia is a mental disorder of narcissistic self-love gone amuck. This autoeroticism means no person out there will ever be good enough to receive that love…”

        The other night one of the TV channels here re-aired its “Secrets of the Living Dolls,” documentary ( )–it’s well worth a look, or even just looking at various reviews, most of which correctly point out that this is basically a sexual fetish and not just innocent fun (the doc tries to gloss over the sexual fetish parts, but they can’t avoid some of it).

        Anyway. To me, this is the Autogynephilia doc that no one has been brave enough to produce, and one of the most telling moments comes early on, when one of the creepy pervs is in his “womansuit” taking pictures of himself in a bikini in his backyard. He mentions that he’s been on dates with women–he’s in his 70s, I think–of varying ages, even in their forties, but they’re not as physically perfect as his fake rubber suit, so “it’s hard to be interested when [I] have this to come home to.” He’s basically admitting that he is the woman he wants to fuck, and that no real woman can live up to the artificial, always-willing, always-does-what-he-wants, ghoulishly blank-faced and compliant fake woman he sees in the mirror or in the numerous photos he takes. (The fact that his doll persona does indeed look ghoulish doesn’t register with him, just as the fact that they tend to look like crazed and brutish perverts doesn’t ever register with the autogynephiles.)

        So yes, you said it exactly.

    • “It’s a matter of perfecting the image of the “woman” they have been in love with–themselves.”

      The strange thing is that many autogynephiles don’t even try to look like the women in their fantasies.

      Tumblr and reddit are good examples. These dudes write about their fantasies and about how they want to look and yet they change not much. They also complain about the evil lesbians or sometimes other people who refuse to date them.

      They want others to adore/love them for being the woman they fantasize about and hate it when they don’t get what they want.

      • kesher Says:

        It seems like they have the opposite of BDD. Someone with BDD could be objectively beautiful but, when they look in the mirror, they perceive themselves as hideous. These MTTs are hideous men, but, when they look in the mirror, they see gorgeous women.

        So much like men not to see reality staring them in the face.

  58. RadicalGrandma Says:

    BTW, I also found this site and it’s clear that those men both dislike and dismiss women generally, while obviously having other issues that should be sorted out by intense therapy.

    • Biscuit Says:

      The paragraph on women being ‘autogynophiles’ really raised my hackles. Where is he getting the idea that so many women are at peace with themselves?

      Furthermore, I sure don’t spend hours ‘dressing up’ or ‘looking at myself in the mirror.’

      • LC Says:

        I find the idea of women having “autogynephiliac fantasies” to be pretty suspect in itself. There is a huge difference between thinking oneself attractive and being obsessed with or fetishisizing an image of oneself- especially when that image is an imaginary one, as in the case with transwomen.

        But yes, Biscuit, I would guess that the majority of women are not ‘at peace’ with themselves, given that models often express a lack of self-confidence and even self-loathing- same with the so-called regular women. I don’t hate my own appearance, but I also don’t consider myself beautiful or attractive, and I think people are most at peace when they DON’T CARE about their appearance in favor of more important and less subjective attributes. Hard to even conceive of a born woman actually being sexually attracted to her own image… unless of course, she has a narcissistic personality disorder.

      • kesher Says:

        Even if women do have those fantasies, we are, in fact, women, and, as women, we’re, statistically, not likely to impose any sexual fantasies we have on other people, let alone other women. MTTs are just as likely (at least, they may be more likely) as men to commit sexual violence against women. They have no business claiming our “identities” or invading our spaces.

      • sellmaeth Says:

        On the topic of autogynephilia … I actually think that the opposite is true. Young girls and women increasingly want to read romantic and erotic stories about gay men. Apparently, that is much more appealing than imagining themselves as women.
        The female body has been so fetishized by men that women don’t feel comfortable inside it anymore.

        (Make no mistake, this is not women fetishizing stereotypical male features – that genre in particular is often accused of depicting gay men as “too feminine”)

      • Zemskull Says:

        Hi Biscuit: The MTTs I have witnessed online are constantly posting photos of themselves, even in professional or hobby groups in which such photos are completely irrelevant.

        Come to think of it, MTTs seem to get away with a lot of odd conduct in social groups. An MTT in a hobby group I visit is 44-going-on-4th-grade. He’s vulgar, shrill, cruel and abrupt. If he had actually been born female, his angry outbursts would have been considered by passe by high school. I cannot envision a “cisgender” of either gender not being taken to task for the same behavior.

      • Em Says:

        The claim that women can be autogynephiles, like the claim that babies and little children can be trans, is just another attempt to normalize the condition by claiming that everyone has it.

        No, doodz. They don’t.

      • liberalsareinsane Says:

        “women are autogynophiles TOOOOOO” is menz usual tactic. They can’t deny that that condition exists and describes them to a T so they lie and drag women into it. Like when they say: “well women rape toooooo”.

      • Dorothy Mantooth Says:

        UGH! That is utter, total, complete bullshit. A “sexual element” to women shopping, putting on make-up, and getting dressed up? Argh, these men have no fucking idea what it is or feels like to be a woman.

        Apologies for the length of this…there’s a tl;dr at the bottom.

        I have been known to spend time putting on make-up and/or getting dressed up. I have been known to shop for clothes. I am–and I don’t say this for any reason but to explain and illustrate my larger point–pretty/attractive, in general. I’m in my early forties now and can still get attention from men, even much younger men, especially if I make the effort re make-up and hair. I sometimes enjoy putting on make-up etc. I enjoy knowing I look good.

        That is NOT a sexual thrill in any way. I do not get turned on looking at myself. I am pleased that I look as nice as I can; that’s not remotely the same. I don’t stare at myself in the mirror, getting all hot and bothered by my own appearance. It’s quite the contrary, actually, because even as I’m pleased overall that I look as good as I can, and even as I walk out the door knowing that men will watch me walk past… Even as I know I am pretty, and look pretty, I am still aware–acutely aware–of my flaws, and the “problems” I have that make-up and careful dressing are supposed to cover or hide. I am acutely aware that being short-waisted means my waist isn’t small enough (and don’t even get me started on my stomach after two babies); that my nose is too wide for my liking; my eyes, without careful make-up, are smaller than I’d like them to be; my hair, without various products and rollers and arrangement, is thinner than the ideal; my breasts are too small (where is my free cosmetic surgery to “fix” my small breasts so I can feel like a REAL woman?); my upper lip especially is too thin.

        Even on the occasions when I wear things specifically designed to appeal to my husband’s (shall we say) baser instincts–i.e. “sexy” lingerie, that kind of thing–I don’t see myself wearing these things in the mirror and get aroused by my appearance. I know *he* will find my appearance arousing, and that’s nice, but it doesn’t mean I could sit by myself looking at my reflection and be all turned on. Certainly I couldn’t and wouldn’t even come close to orgasm, as many of these men admit to doing the minute they put on women’s underwear or see their reflection in the mirror when they’re dressed up.

        I feel good knowing I look good. I do NOT feel aroused knowing I look good. When we spend hours putting on make-up or shopping for clothing, we’re not getting more and more turned on with every trip to the dressing room; we’re hunting for things that will hide the flaws we know we have, or for things that will play up the few strengths we know we have. We’re learning what new styles look best on us and which don’t flatter us.

        And honestly, I don’t know very many women older than their early twenties who spend hours shopping for new clothes or putting on make-up. Even when I do the whole thing–foundation primer, then foundation, then cover-up, then powder, then eyeliner even on the upper eyelid rims, then eyeshadow, then browliner, then fake eyelashes and mascara, then lipstick foundation, then lipliner, then lipstick, then a lipstick fixative, then a faint dab of color on both cheeks, then a facial fixative spray…even when I do ALL of that, it takes about forty minutes tops. (My hair takes way less time than that.) When I go shopping (which I do quite rarely) I generally know what’s going to work and what isn’t, and what will fit and what won’t, so I spend even less time doing that.

        This “Women spend hours putting on make-up and staring into the mirror and putting on sexy clothes and admiring themselves” is just another bullshit male fantasy of what women do with our time. I of course can’t speak for all of us, but I imagine even those of us who, like me, enjoy feeling and being seen as attractive, don’t spend our time smiling and licking our lips at mirrors. We have better things to do. The last time I spent any length of time smiling at myself in a mirror I was about twelve and trying to see what expressions looked best.

        tl;dr: Spending time looking in a mirror while putting on make-up or clothing is not about being aroused by our own images for women; it’s about assessing and hiding flaws. Even those of us who enjoy getting dressed up/made up, and want to feel/enjoy feeling pretty and attractive to the opposite sex, or enjoy feeling sexy to the opposite sex, aren’t aroused by our own images, we’re thinking of how we look to the opposite sex and feeling pleased by the idea that they will find us appealing. We can feel sexy–as in, feel that we look sexy–without feeling “sexy,” as in turned on by our own appearance. The men who think we’re getting turned on think that because they are completely unable to imagine that women see things differently than they do–because they’re not remotely like us in any way.

      • Charlotte Says:

        I am conventionally attractive, I’m shaped like a kardashian with a rack from hell. But I need to put on a corsette to hide my belly, put on thigh highs to smoothe out my upper thighs, put on huge heels to lengthen my legs and spend generally two hours drinking while applying make up just to fuck.

        Only a bottle of crown royal helps me forget the near constant internal criticism I have going on my head, as a result of being raised a girl in this media shallow culture.

        I have NEVER fucked fully naked, ever, I’m 40 years old. Society has taught me to hate this body so much that I can’t even look at my nude self without disgust.

        Studies show that 4 out 5 women are EXACTLY like me: refusing to be fully naked with their mates because men are so fucking horrible at making women feel comfortable with themselves, I suspect even if they could, there isn’t an amount of compliments on earth that could get rid of the DAILY barage of photo shop perfection, emaciated models and social commentary that uses female as insult, to get rid of the self loathing nearly EVERY woman I have ever known has.

        Anyone whom could be dumb enough to say a woman gets off looking at herself is clearly NOT a woman…

      • No name Says:

        There is a problem with the claim of female autogyno in that it means sexualizing one’s self with the thoughts of becoming the opposite sex and becoming aroused at the thought,

        so, for an equivalent, the situation would be women would be stealing men’s under ware, and doing selfies in wearing their husbands underware, and becoming more interested in herself as male to the point of ignoring her husband sexually and lying to him, keeping a secrete men’s underware stash behind his back,

        A woman may keep a chocolate stash from her husband, but the sexual arousal behaviour is just happening with men.

        In the 1980& 1990s, it was standard enforced corporate dress for women to wear pantyhose in the office, even in record heat waves- they must wear hose to work. Gotta run? Better have a spare pair. It was so common, leggs had a tree for 7-11 stores. No woman I knew was liking it.

    • Loup-loup garou Says:

      Once again, a dood’s perspective on “femininity.” Women who spend a lot of time looking in the mirror do so because they know the stakes are high. Looking too dowdy or too sexy can have serious economic and social consequences.

      I took a look at the article on the same site called “The Evolutionary Advantages of Feminine Men and Masculine Women.” It’s a useful reminder that Bailey and Blanchard also believe social sex roles are innate and determined by evolution.

      Bailey in particular thinks that if you’re either sex-role non-compliant or homosexual, you’re abnormal, and only exist because the same genes that create a “risk” for homosexuality also create sensitive straight men who appeal to women, and sexually assertive straight women who screw around more than “feminine” women. Eventually, he believes, the need for such people will be eliminated, those genes will be selected out, and the human race will consist only of macho men and Stepford wives.

    • Atranswidow Says:

      Bisciut, autogynephiles/crossdreamers, call them what you will, have used a ludicrously flawed ”study” by Charles Moser that purports to show that autogynephilia is common in women. There is a good article about it here

      • Biscuit Says:

        Thanks. That’s sounds like a poorly-done study. It angers me that people are using it to claim that most woman are ‘autogynophiles.’

      • Dogtowner Says:

        I would doubt this fellow even did his “study.” My husband is a hospital RN and the rules regarding sexual harassment are very strict. You are certainly not allowed to ask other employees about their sex lives, turn-ons, etc, and it’s difficult to believe that hospital management would have passed on this.

        Every time one thinks these weirdos cannot come up with anything more ridiculous, they manage to do so — autogynephilia in women, indeed!

      • mayimoktoo Says:

        Most of the original study seems to be conflicting autogyno with exhibitionism. Yes, some women are exhibitionists – it makes sense in a world that caters to the male gaze.

        However – “They are looking at me sexually and I like that!” is very, very different from “I/they are looking at me sexually because I am presenting as a different sex and I like that!”

  59. hearthrising Says:

    “There is no president for the claim that is being made.” If trans activists had true leadership the narrative would be more consistent. They complain about how any biological women-only space is identical to Racial Segregation in the South, and yet in this instance they say race and sex are entirely different things. Okay, they are different things. I’m not comfortable using race/sex analogies as rhetorical talking points because these analogies inevitably break down. Also, I don’t agree with co-opting Black struggle for other causes. Still, the hypocrisy in the response of trans activists to Dolezal is indicative of untenable political positions.

  60. river Says:

    Julie Bindel’s choice.

  61. ImNoCissie Says:

    Talusan and Kat Blaque transplain to us live – why Rachel Dolezal is a dirty appropriator and they’re not. They ARE women, not pretending to be, like she. Get it straight!

    • nonny Says:

      Does anyone else have the sort of trainwreck, can’t- look-away reaction to Talusan? Like “holy s— why are people standing around pretending this person isn’t a complete creep and giving him any platform ever” laugh-cry, kind of gawking at his overall narcissistic trip? Lawdhammercy.

    • Ashland Avenue Says:

      Listening to Talusan whine about appropriation is obnoxious. Besides the obvious reason, he has also claimed to be a woman of color, because his family is from the Philippines. I shit you not. A train wreck, indeed.

      • kesher Says:

        I wonder how many people perceive Talusan to be Filipino or just an odd-looking white person due to his albinism. But of course how people perceive him, if they perceive him as white or when they perceive him as male, that has no bearing on how he’s treated (and his subsequent entitled view on life) and, when others fail to perceive him correctly (as an uber-oppressed “woman” of color), that’s oppression!

      • background spinner Says:

        I thought I didn’t hear him correctly, and I backed it up to listen several times. It’s around the 20 min. mark. The host calls him on it, but still refers to him as a blonde white WOMAN.

        Irony tran*wreck, even though they’re denying that both trains are on the same set of tracks.

  62. river Says:

    Interview includes Dana Beyer, Sophie whathisface and Elinor. Very sad. This once highly respected iCanadian nvestigative journalist has degraded herself so badly. I don’t know who I was crying for as I listened. She has done a series of interviews fawning over trans, from Beyer here, to a 9 yr old in the latter case especially no concept of her role enabling child abuse.

    Here, she accept without quibble front hole and internal genitalia, because not all women have vaginas. Women’s health clinics are under seige here for serving ‘women’.

    • branjor Says:

      “Not all women have vaginas”, therefore those who do should accept degrading terms like “front hole” for them? The walls of the vagina are collapsed together and experienced as a solid organ, not as a “hole”. The only “holes” are the ones in their heads and their surgically created fuckholes.

    • RadicalGrandma Says:

      It was hard listening to that twisted logic by “Sophie Banks” about women’s spaces, such as women’s clinics.

      Perhaps the trans should think about going back to those Frankensteins who cosmetically changed them?

      This is just another example of wanting to be catered to in their delusion–by demanding that ob-gyns treat them as biological women who have all the real parts that need attention.

      It’s going to be interesting to see how these people fare as they age and their bodies don’t know how to handle the aging process properly.

      A natal woman’s body knows exactly what to do. Mine did, and I’m aging gracefully without HRT and plastic surgery as well, which is what these pseudo-women will continue to indulge in, as their self-created “lover woman”, this delusional self-love, becomes what they can’t bear–old.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Banks never had any frankensurgery. He’s not even on hormones any more. He quit them after six months. This is Daryl “Sophia” Banks:

      • Biscuit Says:

        Banks loves to claim that his business failed due to his being ‘trans.’ However, if you check out his better business bureau profile, he actually took a few thousand dollars from a couple, “took photos” at their wedding and then failed to give them any photos and then refused to refund their money.

        I don’t fucking care if Banks feels excluded by women’s health centres. He has none of the components of a female reproductive system and he never has and he never will. He had no need whatsoever to go to a women’s health centre.

        Elinor Burkett rocks, though. She’s right – the notion of ‘ladybrain’ has been (and is) used to deny women all sorts of rights, including the right to vote or the right to an education.

        Changing the term vagina to ‘front hole’ is messed up. A hole is a blind-ended pit. However, one of the main functions of a vagina is to allow infants to be born – it’s not just a ‘hole.’ It has important functions.

        “Front-hole” only works for what males who have gone through sex change surgery have. It’s truly a functionless, blind-ended hole.

      • I dunno, but when I was planning my wedding the last thing I wanted was some Frankendude as a photographer who admits to sleeping with his employees and spends all his time talking about his penis on Twitter.

      • Biscuit Says:

        Indeed. Putting aside the whole transgender issue, I have to say there’s no way in hell that I would hire someone who blathers on and on about his dick on twitter.

    • ImNoCissie Says:

      Sophia Banks: “liking my penis is feminism!” “hush you cis-normative meanies” “now back to my penis”

      Isn’t he just some guy on Twitter? How does he get included in something that purports to be serious reporting in old media? A wedding photographer, isn’t that him?

      • river Says:

        His photography was such crap. He actually posted a wedding shot that had been Picasa photoshopped: you know, the type of photoshop where you click a number and the Google app does it? I laffed.

        I guess wedding parties figured out how to click the Picasa options themselves.

  63. MaryMacha Says:

    A few days old is ancient by internet standards but here’s an on-topic article that raises a lot of the same questions and ups the ante to interspecies and beyond. It’s definitely NOT from a radfem perspective and the comments are all over the place.

  64. river Says:

    Was this a first? Intros for the show promised an interview with woman gamer on being a woman in a man’s game. Woman was Brianna Wu, who spoke at length about the trials and sexism he’s had to endure from male gamers. CBC As it Happens:

    • hokay Says:

      also, he’s commenting—as if he’s some expert—on the reality of the physics of the jiggling of organs he has never had (breasts). bizarre. But they will do ANYTHING to squeeze their way into the only roles that were left for women… so OF COURSE he’s now the media expert on breasts. Of course.

      Also, he wasn’t at the center of Gamergate. A real woman (Anita Sarkeesian) was. Duh.

    • amazondream Says:

      Perhaps they don’t know that Wu is male?

  65. sellmaeth Says:

    I didn’t read all the comments, so someone might have already written this …

    I find it noteworthy that a white women who invades black spaces (though I don’t know how much she actually did this – is the group she was in open to white people, except for the leading positions?) is not the same as a man who invades female spaces.

    White women, for all I know, are not on average more violent than black women, and, importantly, are not physically stronger than black women. Let alone black men.

    One more reason why the hate she gets is ridiculous if you compare it to the praise that Jenner character gets. She didn’t get into spaces she wouldn’t have been allowed into normally because people would feel unsafe with her there. Uncomfortable, maybe, but I doubt someone would fear for their lives with a white woman in the room.

    There is another layer to that … which may also have been mentioned already: The discrimination you get if you are perceived as black is a very big part of the discrimination black people in general get.

    On the other hand, Trans”women”, regardless how much they may be perceived as women, never have any problems with bans on abortions, or death in childbirth because of being denied a midwife … and so on. Which makes them more likely to derail feminist debates about just those topics.

    As a fraud, who was not universally known to be not actually black, Dolezal could not derail debates of racism by complaining that she feels excluded because her own problems as “transblack” weren’t discussed. (Considering the effort she seems to have put into her hair, “not all black people have curly hair” is not something she’d be likely to have said.)

    Not saying that what she did wasn’t bad … I just can’t get over the double standard, as, according to my thoughts above, it should be the other way round – she could defend her actions, and claim that they’re less harmful than those of (male bodied) transsexuals, not the other way round.

    • imnocissie Says:

      Yes, the activism and teaching she did would have been open to her even if she identified herself as fully white. On her application to the police ombudsman position she checked 3 boxes for race – white, black and native American.

    • ED Says:

      Black american women have the patience of saints to repeatedly ignore the bullshit defence of Rachel Dolezal in this thred. When jos truitt gets it and you don’t . You have to wonder.

      • GallusMag Says:

        If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times. When you want the true perspective of a black american woman you need to listen to a comment from a white british autogynephile man. Thanks so much for dropping by. Thank your boy Jos too!

      • I'm No Cissie Says:

        Yes, Jos Truitt, the man who would be Queen of Feministing. He “gets” the mote in his neighbor’s eye but not in his own.

      • kesher Says:

        You do realize that the original post was inspired by the commentary of a black woman?

      • Actually, it’s because I DON’T have the patience of saints that I said what I did about both TransRachel and TransJenner. Either they’re both full of shit, or neither is. There’s no such thing as transgender or transracial, just a bunch of batshit crazy folks, opportunists and pathetic limpdick beta male misogynists. To say otherwise one has to twist oneself into a logic pretzel and I’m too old to go back and pretend.

    • KgSch Says:

      I agree with Rosyln. Either both Rachael’s and Bruce’s trans-identities are valid or they are both full of crap. I’m a member of the “full of crap” camp. Rachael doesn’t come across as a raging pervert but she’s still full of crap. I only “like” her in the sense that it’s fun for me to watch team trans and their liberal puppets twist themselves into pretzel logic over this.

      I can only imagine how you must feel if you feel like you’re too old to play pretend. I feel too old for that shit and I’m in my mid-20s!

  66. Look what popped up in my email box this morning…a petition to ban “sexual orientation and gender identity” conversion therapy in Illinois.

    Love how they conflate homosex with paraphilia! The Ts are the Trojan Horse of LGBT.

    What is “gender identity conversion therapy”…? No definition provided. But I imagine it’s anyone telling a kid that they don’t need a sex change to be happy, healthy, free, safe, loved and prosperous.

    I wouldn’t want that dude around kids, that’s for sure. I swear, MTTs are all outcasted beta males.

  67. I don’t know what to say that hasn’t already been covered. My heart was broken over the recent shooting in South Carolina. This definitely was racially based. It’s an outright hate crime no matter how we look at it. I feel such pain right now. When I first heard of this tragedy, I thought of the four little black girls who were killed in the 1960s when a black church was bombed. How can any white person ever truly understand what black people have had to endure under slavery or oppressive Jim Crow laws? Racism is still a part of our collective culture despite decades of trying to erase this ugly stain on our society. It still lingers under the surface, and black people know it. Although I’m not black, I can understand why black people feel as if their racial identity and history has been co-opted and appropriated by Dolezal.

    How can a wealthy 65 year old white male truly understand what it means to be a woman in a misogynistic society? Jenner was socialized as male for 60 plus years of his life. Do people really think that Jenner would have received as much corporate sponsorship if he really were a woman? He used his white male privilege to his advantage. When Jenner says he “has a soul of a woman”, he doesn’t mean a poor woman of color living in the inner city or a slum in India, a woman fleeing from domestic violence, a rape victim, or a woman whose body is trafficked and sold to the highest bidder. This is the reality for much of the human female population. Jenner is nothing more than a pornified, plastic, surgically created version of what society views as “femininity”. He is nothing more than a caricature, and deep down women know it.

    Rachel Dolezal is a fake and so is Jenner.

    Say a prayer for the victims of the shooting in South Carolina. More violence from males with guns. It never stops. How many of these mass shootings were committed by women? It’s not a gun issue as much as a male violence issue.

    • kesher Says:

      His claim that he has a “soul of a woman” is beyond insulting since all he really means is that he likes wearing slinky cocktail dresses. Anything more meaningful than that that could be characterized as a woman’s “soul” (such as many women’s drive to care for children and elders) is nowhere to be seen in that man’s incredibly selfish life.

      That caretaking falls to women is mostly a social phenomenon, although I think oxytocin also accounts for women bonding with their children, something men don’t experience, but that so few MTTs feel any obligation to be caretakers proves that either “ladybrain” doesn’t exist or, if it does exist, they most definitely do not have it.

      • RadicalGrandma Says:

        Well said. It’s just narcissism brought to some kind of end to justify the paraphilia.

        And what about Jenner’s 3 wives and 6 kids? Did he simply consider himself a sperm donor? Come on, I’m not buying it. He had 65 yrs of white male privilege, made a lot of dough at it, and suppressed his “real” self? What an actor! No, I’m sure not buying it. And I’m not buying any of those tales these trans want to foist on a gullible public.

      • howdy Says:

        you’re wrong about oxytocin. Men do have it in their bodies, and their bodies do release it when they bond with their children (or pets, or anyone else). The myth that oxytocin is somehow the “mother-bonding-with-baby hormone” is just that: A BIG FAT MYTH. It is a hormone that ALL humans have and that facilitates any kind of bonding.

        “A father’s behavioral interactions with his children increases oxytocin levels similar to that seen in women. […]
        However, these hormonal changes only occur in men who spend time around their children, with much less pronounced effects in men separated from their progeny.”


  68. GallusMag Says:

    Looks like Bruce Jender has some reality show competition:

    NAACP race faker Rachel Dolezal stepped down from her job Monday, but has learned she already has a new gig in the works: Dolezal is fielding multiple offers to film a reality show, and is seeking professional representation after her bombshell interview on the Today show.

    Dolezal, currently in New York City after appearing on TODAY Tuesday morning, has been “offered two reality shows from different production companies,” an insider told Radar. “The offers were made last week along with several others that were just outrageous. Rachel recognizes that she is going to need an agent and a publicist, and is going to be hiring a professional team in the next few days.”

    PHOTOS: Race Lie? NAACP Leader Pretended To Be Black – See Rachel Dolezal’s Real Look In Shocking Photos

    “Rachel wants to use all of the publicity to raise awareness about race relations,” the source said.

    The former NAACP Spokane chapter president was outed by her parents last week as being a white woman after years of fudging her racial identity, and allegedly lying on applications for city positions.

    In an interview on Tuesday’s Today show, Dolezal addressed the confusion with Matt Lauer.

    “This is not some freak, Birth of a Nation blackface performance,” she explained. “This is on a real connected level how I’ve had to go there with the experience.”

    Dolezal’s “phone has been ringing constantly since the scandal broke, and she truly seems to be enjoying all of the attention,” the insider said. “Going back to her former life just isn’t an option.”

  69. Margie Says:

    As a commenter above reported several days ago, an interview with Michael Bailey has been posted on the blog of Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist and Patheos blogger. This post has turned into a major trans mob sh!tstorm and it is still going on. They are attacking Bailey personally, are demanding that Throckmorton ban commenters, are denying that autogynephlia exists and of course are claiming that various arguments with which they disagree are responsible for the murder of trans people. A number of the usual trans thugs have joined. Even the detestable, virulently anti-gay “Katrina” Rose showed up. I don’t know what I think about all of the various issues and sub-issues regarding paraphilias and brain anatomy and the like, but I know that I detest trans activists and their bullying tactics. They want to close off all debate about transgenderism just as they have tried to close off all debate into how the LGB movement became saddled with Ts and their many issues.

    If you are so inclined, you can weigh in here:

    • This will just make people more suspicious of them. Their narcisstic rage will be their downfall.

    • Loup-loup garou Says:

      I don’t condone the abusive tactics some trans activists have used against Bailey. The fact that some of them threatened his children is particularly disgusting.

      However, I’d like to point out that Bailey gone on record as saying he sees nothing morally wrong with parents using whatever means necessary (genetic manipulation, selective abortion, etc.) to prevent having homosexual children. His view boils down to this: there’s nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, but parents have a right to engineer their kids to be as much like themselves as possible if that will maximize their enjoyment of the parenting experience. Also, there is nothing wrong or misguided in wanting to avoid having homosexual children if you think their lives will be harder due to discrimination. Don’t want to deal with your gay child being gay-bashed at some point in the future? Make sure that child is never conceived — or, once conceived, either straightened out in the womb or aborted!

      He considers homosexuality morally neutral, but also thinks anyone who has a problem with the idea of eliminating it through artificial selection (in other words, eugenics) is a silly, over-emotional liberal. Bailey also seems to consider autogynephilia morally neutral, something AG men should just accept early on so that they can get on with their lives. The question of whether or not societal attitudes towards women women and sex roles play any part in it does not appear to interest him. He thinks that sex roles are innate.

      In a nutshell, he believes anyone who is not heterosexual AND sex-role conforming to be an oddity produced by evolutionary forces gone slightly wrong. He’s a nice, tolerant, modern guy, so he doesn’t want you eliminated now that you’ve been born. He does consider you defective in certain ways — harmless, morally neutral ways, of course. But still defective, and okay to remove from the gene pool.

      I suspect that in the fullness of time, it will turn out that yep, there really are two types of MTTs: 1) fetishists and 2) gay men who seek out transition as a survival strategy. However, I am also fairly certain that the reasons for this will be shown to have far more to do with our society’s views on the nature of women and “femininity” than with anything biological.

      To anyone who is critical of the trans movement on feminist or pro-LGB grounds and inclined to view Bailey as a potential ally — please take a good, hard look at what this man has written over the years. Same goes for Alice Dreger and Kenneth Zucker. These people are not your friends.

      • Dogtowner Says:

        This is exactly how I felt after I read an interview with him. One can appreciate the info about AGP but his attitudes are reactionary and simply not very intelligent.

      • are two types of MTTs: 1) fetishists and 2) gay men who seek out transition as a survival strategy.

        I don’t think so. The recent article about the boy who had genital surgery shows that there are also gnc straight boys with mental illnesses or disorders who transition.

        I’ve seen this a lot on reddit and tumblr. But this article is the proof that something sinister is going on. Transitioning is seen as the root of depression and other mental illnesses when it’s in fact just a sympton. And just like the boy still has depression after genitals surgery – other people will end up just as mentally ill as before after transitioning.

        This is a very dangerous development.

      • Loup-loup garou Says:

        I see your point. However, this phenomenon of people transitioning in their teens is very recent. I think it’s probably the result of a very particular set of toxic cultural developments, which includes adult transitioners and opportunistic doctors pushing the idea of trans kids because it serves their own agenda.

        I agree that something’s going on with that, and I too would call it sinister. But I don’t think the emergence of an inappropriate diagnosis for depressed gender non-conforming straight boys, and the aggressive promotion of transition as the answer to their problems, necessarily invalidates the “two types of MTT” theory. Let me make a disclaimer — I also think that if that theory’s valid, it’s as a case of “mostly most of the time,” not as a hard and fast rule.

      • kesher Says:

        There’s also another group I’ve noted here before: Straight men who use trans identity for the purpose of identifying out of being a shitty man, shutting up women because a “woman” is speaking (not only that, but the most woman of women: a trans woman), and/or identifying out of some of the gender expectations for men.

        Can’t muster being a tough guy? Identify out of it by claiming trans identity. The great thing about this is that, since trans ideology now says that you don’t even have to try to transition to claim this identity, these guys can be 100 percent male gender conforming and not take any hormones and still claim to be the most oppressed.

        I just saw this today where a self-described “trans girl” on Tumblr was harassing a radfem for talking about sex-based oppression (and calling her a “bitch” and a “retard”). All I needed to do was hover over his url to see his face resplendent with almost a full beard.

        If MTTs don’t want their movement going down in flames, they need to shut down this group of pretend “trans women” who are actually incels/Nice Guys/MRAs (this would root out at least some of the most obvious predators). But I won’t hold my breath since most of the heterosexual transitioners, who are at least taking estrogen, are also incels/Nice Guys/MRAs.

    • GallusMag Says:

      That Patheos thread is sooooo hilarious I would very much enjoy seeing the entire thing performed as a puppet show.

      • Atranswidow Says:

        Yes, it kept me amused for a wasted hour this afternoon too. Now I keep imagining Miss Piggy in a blonde wig and a blue bikini! Thanks Gallus.

      • morag99 Says:

        Ha! I’d like to see it performed as an opera. Better yet, as an opera puppet show. Like in The Sound of Music. With some yodelling. And a few goats.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Female puppet: I’m simply referring to the fact that transwomen were born male.

        PIW puppet: You’re a murderer!


  70. Margie Says:

    Oh, and here’s part 2 of the interview with Bailey. More trans attacks in the comments but less of a storm than is happening in part 1:

    • Atranswidow Says:

      Margie, yes I commented there a few days ago, thinking it might be a place for useful discussion. I had a polite exchange with Kay brown (didn’t respond to the invite to a personal off-line exchange). Since then it’s gone ape-shit as you describe. The mere mention of autogynephilia hits a raw nerve every time. I see lots of references to Moser. They are really clinging to anything they can to discredit Bailey and Blanchard.

    • akuba Says:

      The part that I didn’t get in these interviews was why autogynephilia should be considered an ‘orientation’ that is compared to homo/hetero/bisexuality. As I always understood it, ‘orientation’ has to do with attraction to a particular sex and as humans are dimorphic sexually, orientation should be pretty simple to parse out. When did they change the definition to include anything that anyone is sexually attracted to? Sheesh.

      From Bailey’s description, it is obvious the ‘orientation’ of autogynephiles is heterosexual not ‘similar’ to heterosexual. The other stuff (attraction to oneself as fantasy ideal or whatever) would in the good old days be called a fetish.

      • mayimoktoo Says:

        akuba Says: The part that I didn’t get in these interviews was why autogynephilia should be considered an ‘orientation’ that is compared to homo/hetero/bisexuality.

        Exactly! It should be recognized as a fetish. For example – men with a foot fetish often recall that it started in grade school when they noticed that girl’s shoes were different. As teenagers they were interested in feet/shoes but the newness of the sexual experience overrode the fetish. As time passed and they became more jaded about sex, the fascination for all things relating to women’s feet became their primary sexual focus. For some it becomes impossible to orgasm without thinking about or relating to women’s feet.

        Obviously this is a paraphilia that starts in childhood with recognition of traditional gender roles (girls are different) and moves from interest to full blown obsession.

        Some MtTs seem to follow the same path, especially the ones who come out as “lesbian.” .

  71. […] twanz borg got all in a tizzy when the Rachel Dolezal thing came out, twanzsplaining how it was ‘completely different’ for a white person to […]

  72. gaydude50 Says:

    Will the trans community decry this horrible twanzphobia?

  73. Meg Says:

    Have we hit peak identity politics?

    Now vampires are an oppressed class.

    Guess how you know who is a vampire and who isn’t? Right – one “self-identifies” as a vampire!

  74. Tonie Says:

    Hello GallusMag
    I have always been a viewer I just came out of delurk mode to post an very interesting essay regarding black women for the most part it will not apply to most on here but when the author Breukelen Bleu’s gets towards the end of the essay she makes a very revealing point about black women and trangenders politics

    Zendaya’s Revenge
    Its “Revenge” week on Breukelen Bleus page and it seems that some ‘black’ women are more successful than others in achieving it. Lets talk about this latest subject, where it seems ‘revenge’ is sweetest for some of us, but not others.
    Recently, there was a very interesting discussion in a group that I am a member of, where a black woman asked why are mixed race people allowed to culturally appropriate black shit. This discussion got heated, real quick, devolving into an all out personal assault between commentors. Some of the women – who were mixed themselves or have close family members that are, defended the right of mixed raced people (women in this case, cuz its only the mixed race WOMEN that all this applies to) to identify and call themselves ‘black’ if they want to. The opponents to this opinion, stated that by allowing mixed race women to claim FULL ‘blackness’, the image and archetype of the authentic black woman was being usurped and watered down. The thread went of for hours, resulting in hundreds of comments of angry and passionate fodder being thrown back and forth. The whole thing devolved quickly, ending with a slew of personal insults hurled across the room like a football game. When black women come for each other, its always a WWE death match. It was hard to watch, but I had seen it all before. I didnt participate in the discussion, but I noted many of the typical things that are present ANY time black women try to deal with our in-house shit. Its cool to talk about whitey and what ‘he’ does to ‘us”, or even black men, and what they do. But the moment its time black WOMEN to have a ‘family forum’ about the injustices and inequities that we experience WITHIN our collective, shit gets reeeaaaal tricky.
    Years ago, when the natural hair movement first got on the scene, I learned how hard it is for black women to both address the historical inequities that intersect to form our collective position…and to not ‘offend’ or single out any specific demographic within our group. I learned back then on those natural hair sites I frequented, what most black folk are learning now from white folk since the Hands-Up-Dont-Shoot / ‪#‎BLM‬ era began. ANY attempts to discuss the privilege or pain of one group at the hands of or to the benefit of another, are met with so much anger and angst, that the TRUE issues never really get addressed. Since the onslaught of discourse that followed the death of Trayvon Martin several years ago, black folk have experienced an immense COGNITIVE DISSONANCE on the part of whites, who are so afraid to be labeled the ‘bad guy’, that ANY discussion about the historical and present realities of racial politics, are met with accusations of ‘division’ and ‘reverse racism’ or ‘race baiting’. It wasnt until black folk REALLY tried to get whites to accept THEIR role in our oppression, that we got to see just how far whites will go to avoid having the discussion. Black women experience this same phenomena when trying to get black males to acknowledge any privilege the receive, and its present when certain black women (dark skinned, nappy haired, etc) try to get other black women (light skinned, mixed race, ‘good haired’, “keen’ features) to admit the same. Its human nature I suppose. NOBODY wants to admit they are privileged. Especially when they are oppressed in other ways.
    This is EXACTLY what goes on in the within black female circles, any time the issues of colorism or texturism are brought up. Even in the natural hair movement, it was all love peace and hair grease until the topics of intraracial privilege, prejudice and pain were touched. The mere MENTION of the FACT, that we do not all experience ‘blackness’ the same, and that WITHIN our ranks, there are built-in hierarchies that are created to keep those who represent the original meaning of “Black” at the kids table, while those “Less-Black” folk get more of the chance to stomp with the big dogs, is seen as inappropriate and divisive. I have found that trying to broach certain topics with black women, particularly when it begins to point to the privilege that some of us experience (whether we want it or not) at the EXPENSE of the rest of us, is a damned near impossible feat to accomplish. There is simply too much need to deny or ignore whats really going on; too much shame, to much hurt and too many perks and too many scars for some of us. But I try, by pointing out the many examples of how OUR collusion with the white supremacist system we all complain about, has allowed OUR images to be usurped, supplanted, watered down or destroyed.
    In May of last year, one of my first posts on my fan page was one addressing a image of Taryn Guy, as she sat, perched and centered, blonde and Fabulous! in all her Mixed Chic Glory, surrounded by a group of at least 15 dark skinned, nappy haired black women, who were attending a natural hair event. Poised as The Representative of what it means to be “black’ and “woman and “natural’, the setting of Ms. Guy seated on her throne, as her lesser and darker black peasants worshipped her existence was not lost on me. I commented then, on how mixed race girls had taken OVER the natural haircare movement and how that image could only happen, if black WOMEN allowed it to happen. I pointed out how the Natural Hair movement had become The Mixed Girl Hair Movement, and how there was nobody to blame, but US.
    The next month, in June, I did a post addressing the rage against Zendaya Coleman, a mixed race girl being cast to play Aaliyah in a made for tv movie. In said post, I pointed out the cognitive dissonance of black people, who were seething at the the thought that a mixed girl would be playing a light skinned black woman with long hair, sharp features and chestnut eyes. I explained then, that the same COLORISM that had Zendaya chosen to play her role…was the COLORISM that allowed Aaliyahs rise to stardom. Many argued with my point, stressing that while Aaliyah is the product of two ‘black’ parents, and her skin was not really ‘light’, but more light-brownish-caramel-tannish-brown-paperbaggish, Zendaya was the product of a direct mix between a black male and a non-black female. Many black women who claim Aaliyah as one of their own, felt that my comparison was off the mark. An exchange of pictures showing different famous women over the years, depicting what ‘black’ meant ensued. My overall point – the SPIRIT of my message – was lost in a sea of contrived details and deflections. Discussions about what is ‘light’ and what isnt, what is ‘black’ and what isnt, WHO is ‘one of us’ and who isnt took precedent. My overall point – that black people, and black WOMEN in particular – need to take a moment and get HONEST about how our own INTERNALIZED colorism and texturism has allowed us to support the rise of women who dont HONESTLY and EQUALLY represent the average black womans aesthetic…got lost in the denial.
    I said in that post that ‘black’ is relative, as is ‘light skinned’ and ‘mixed’. What was ‘light’ in 1990 is Kim Kardashian, today. I was trying to show that this ‘relativity’ is what allows women (cuz SOMEHOW, this shit never manages to happen to black males) who are ‘barely black’ to become The Face of Black Womanhood. Black women have THEMSELVES agreed that the least black of them should be allowed to represent what it means to BE them by supporting and celebrating the CULTURE that encourages the notion. And then them same black women cry FOUL when the blatant nature of the switch becomes too much to bare. My point was lost on many, but I stood by it nevertheless. It continues to be proven, every day, as you will see by the end of this post.
    A few months later, when Zendaya was insulted by a white talk show host after showing up to an awards show with faux locs, I commented on the obvious mixed message that I saw taking place. On another friends page, I pointed out the BI-POLAR nature of black folks relationship to ‘blackness’ as it applied to Zendaya and black women in general. Just a few months prior, Zendaya, a mixed race woman who was seen as UNFIT to represent ‘blackness’ was RAN OFF STAGE, literally, by legions of black women who were angry at her be cast to play a black woman. Yet, just a few months later, this same mixed girl was now being heralded as Queen Mother Nzinga, for defending the ‘ethnic’ hair of ‘her people’. The SAME community that drove her OFF the Aaliyah project with their protests and declarations of her NON-blackness….was the same community who was now calling her African Queen, when she threw some fake shiny dread locs in her head. I pointed out, AGAIN, how this type of inconsistent value system is what allows the mixed race woman to to WIN!, while we, as ‘fully black’ black women stay BEGGING for representation.
    A few weeks later, in July, I did a post on the latest debacle that had sistas frothing at the mouth. Curly Nikki, a ‘black’ beauty and natural hair blogger, had hosted an article on her site where a white woman chimed in on HER ‘natural hair’ experience. In that post, I ONCE AGAIN tried to point out the connection; how black women dont want to DEAL with our shit, but the MOMENT a mixed or white woman shows up, suddenly its all we can talk about. While on any other day, its “just hair’, the moment a white woman is showcased on a ‘black’ natural hair blog, all hell breaks lose. I tried to explain that black women are going to have to DEAL with our hair issues, and stop deflecting or denying them. Once again, I used something in the media as an EXAMPLE of the DEEPER thing I was pointing to.
    Then in August, I posted on the mixed (or whatever the hell she is) chic, Karruche Tran, who had made some nasty comments about Blue Ivy’s hair. I pointed out the FALSE outrage by black women of coming for this Tran girl, when black women THEMSELVES had said some of the NASTIEST SHIT EVER about little Blue Ivy, her looks and her hair. I was trying to connect the dots, to how OUR participation as black women in our OWN degradation, was fueling much of the hatred we were seeing and experiencing. I tried to explain, that we give these folk PERMISSION to disrespect us, when we refuse to create a STANDARD for what it means to be ‘black’, and what it means to be ‘beautiful’ that centers on the notion of dark skin, kinky hair and broad features. Some got my point, but others?
    Over the following months, I spoke often of Archetypes, and the need for REPRESENTATION. I spoke to the fact that in order for ALL black women to be respected, TRUE Black Womanhood was going to have to be THE STANDARD…the IDEAL. I spoke to the fact, that as long as some of us refused to step aside and let the AUTHENTIC BW take back her crown, then we will ALL, to varying degrees, be replaceable – just as the ‘black’ woman Aaliyah, was replaced with the ‘mixed’ woman, Zendaya. Just as the Jasmine Guys, Lisa Bonets, Alicia Keys, Halle Berries, Ameries, Ashantis and Lameille Lareuxs of the 80’s and 90’s had been replaced with the Kim and Kylie Kardashians of today. I was trying to point to the SPIRIT of what internalized white supremacy looks like, and all the little ways in which black women – sometimes unknowingly and sometimes, fully aware – ASSIST in the erasure of their OWN image and interests. I spoke about and honored SHONDA RHIMES, for creating NEW Archetypes for authentic black women, and thanked her for opening the door for what we now, a year later know, would become the Season of The Black Woman on American television. The Emmy WINS! we all gushed over last week, are a DIRECT result of what I spoke to on those threads; that IMAGE and REPRESENTATION matter, and if you want yours to WIN! somebody elses must LOSE. Viola Davis, in her Emmy award speech, spoke to what I have been saying. She stated that in order for BLACK women to win EMMYS or any other award, they would need the opportunity to COMPETE for them. She was pointing out that as long as black women that look like HER – the Authentic Black Woman – are kept out of the spotlight, they would never earn their stripes (back). As long as white women were The Standard, and mixed/ light/ exotic women were the ‘Black Standard” black LOOKING black women will NEVER get their just due. She said what *I* been saying, all this time.
    In September of last year, after the Fan Page was no longer active, I did a post on the video of a little brown skinned, kinky haired black girl asking her Mother why she was trying to look like a white woman while her mother was styling her blonde weave in the mirror. I pointed out that there is a HUGE dissonance between what we SAY we feel about ourselves as black women, and what we DO – and our children, particularly, our baby girls, are calling us out on it. The “Is You Caucasian?” post was one of my most angry and passionate threads. I was trying to show us EXACTLY how this dysfunction gets passed along. I reminded black women, ONCE AGAIN, of the importance of FACING our issues with our hair, color and looks. Once again, I tried to connect the dots.
    Fast forward to May of this year, where I did a post on the white woman who has BRANDED her FULLY BLACK black adopted daughters hair. On that “Chocolate Hair for Vanilla Care” post, I got push back from those who felt I was hyping this white woman for what black women do every day. The point that was missed, AGAIN, was that OTHERS are using OUR hair (the same hair that we dye, fry and lay to the side cuz ‘its just hair’) to WIN! I was accused of making the white womans ice seem colder, when all I was REALLY doing was pointing out how other folk are using OUR shit, creating brands and EMPIRES…all while we PRETEND our hair doesnt matter and flock to watch 3A mixed chic youtube videos hocking products that we will later stand in line for an hour to get cuz it promises…
    “Curl Definition”.
    The point was lost in the sea of hyper-emotionality and triggering that happens any time a Becky or Zendaya hits the scene.
    The very next month, in June 2015, The Rachel Dolezal scandal broke. I did a post on this chic and how she used black HAIR to STEAL the rights of black women – for over a decade. I spoke to the fact, that it was her simulation of black womens HAIR that allowed her to successfully pull off her ruse, teaching courses and giving lectures on how being ‘black’ and ‘female’ was experienced in this society. I talked about how by using styles that signified ‘Natural Black Womanhood’, this CHARLATAN was able to earn money, speak and represent US for YEARS. A few days later in my post, “The Help”, I talked about the importance of black women accepting, celebrating and PROMOTING our OWN natural image, or we should just accept that other women will use it for themselves.
    A few months later, after all the shit had hit the fan, I learned that Rachel (who had lost her job in black academia) was now doing hair….BLACK HAIR…to support herself. In a piece I never published, I discussed how the point I was making in my first two pieces on her was being PROVEN true. How, when all else fails, that white IMPOSTOR… who had used our HAIR to usurp our Crown once before… was using it – ONCE AGAIN – to stand in our place while making money. This woman, who had been outed as a LIAR and a FRAUD, was now doing the hair of black WOMEN to stay afloat. Some crazy ass, self hating-ass black women, are sitting in chairs and letting this bitch TOUCH THEIR HAIR. Once again, giving an outsider permission to use what we barely tolerate about ourselves to WIN! All along I had been trying to paint a picture showing black women the landscape as it truly is.
    Welp, Ladies. The Circle is now complete. This right here is the culmination of EVERYTHING I have been talking about for the past year and a half, and explains why it is sooo important for black women – light, dark…mixed or authentic, to get HONEST about whats really doing on here. Because while this newest event may seem trite, for those of us who understand some of the spiritual stuff behind all of this, it is not trite AT ALL.
    It seems that Zendaya Coleman, the girl once cast to play Aaliyah, rebuffed for not being ‘black’ enough, then embraced when simulating ‘black hair’…has now had a BARBIE doll created in her image;
    A Barbie Doll that has her hair styled… in LOCS.
    Blank. Stare.
    This little girl, who most of over the age of 13 had never even HEARD off before last year… who is the product of a NON-black woman and a black male… who has done NO major acting, activism or performing on a global scale…who people have to ASK what her ethnic background is because its so ambiguous….
    Was given her own DOLL by the NUMBER ONE DOLL MAKER AND BEAUTY STANDARD FOR LITTLE GIRLS ON THIS PLANET, wearing YOUR hair and representing YOUR beauty… on redux.
    Did Aaliyah get a Barbie Doll to immortalize her image and honor her contribution to society?
    Does anybody esle understand what Im saying here? This girl, who is known for little more than responding to a critique of her FAKE attempt to look like a ‘real’ black girl for ONE NIGHT, has been HONORED with an IMMORTAL IMAGE of her, wearing YOUR FUCKIN HAIR.
    My gosh! Can it be any more plain?!!
    When looking for someone to honor, did they go and create a Barbie of a woman who is IDENTIFIABLY black? Did they find women who actually wear REAL locs? Did they create one for Lauren Hill or India Irie or even Eryka Badu? I mean, Eryka wore fake locs for years, but al teast she looks black and has had a longstanding history of black consciousness. Did they find Teyonna Paris or Viola Davis or Jil Scott?
    They went and found some unheard of ‘casually’ black girl with FAKE naps to honor and celebrate. And the ONLY reason something like that could happen is because black women allow it.
    We over there, in the comments section of mycolores as WE SPEAK, celebrating and defending this girl like she is our own child. NOBODY is asking why THIS hair style was the one chosen for her doll to wear. They just so happy to see a ‘black’ girl who represents ‘us’ get some ‘shine’.
    Homegirl done been Transformed.
    She is now ‘black’ enough to be a great role model for black girls. Even Nikki Minaj shouted her out for repping hair that little girls can ‘identify’ with and feel….’empowered’.
    Zendaya’s Revenge.
    Home girl done used black womens wishy-washy love-hate with themselves and mixed chics, to WIN! They may have pushed her out of that roled as Aaliyah, but she now has been IMMORTALIZED with a doll created in HER honor.
    With black womens “hair’ on her head.
    Zendaya done got her revenge the average bw is too clueless to see it. They do not understand what it means to have your image made into a standard of beauty for little girls to aspire to. It wont be white mothers running out to buy this doll for their daughters.
    I will be BLACK Mothers.
    And now the circle is complete. A step by step, connect the dots map of how it all happens. And when women like us, sit and talk about the ‘intersectionality’ of this and that, and pontificate on the racial disparities and injustices that our image suffers, as we watch it be replaced and watered down…and down…and down, maybe it will become more clear how we, as black women, help it all happen. We are NOT purely victims in this.
    It couldnt happen WITHOUT us.
    And THAT has been my point, all this time.
    Its exhausting trying to convince black women that THEY MATTER and to try to get them so see that if they want it be in it to WIN! it, they gone have to stop caping for everyone else, and start defending themselves. Its hard for black women to hear thats its gone mean that not everyone gets to come along; that your mixed race grandmother and your light skin aunty gone have to STEP ASIDE, so that the AUTHENTIC BLACK ARCHETYPE can reclaim her place. Its hard for black women to accept, that its gone mean that we gone have to HONEST with each other about how we all fare in this system, and stop pretending that those of us who are lighter or have a better ‘grade’ of hair, dont KNOW that we are privileged over our darker skin sistren….even if we dont want to be and even if its only in increments based on slight variations in color, hair texture and phenotype. We gone have to tell the damned truth about WHY we keep saying ‘its just hair’ until Becky show up on the scene, after which we all become Angela Davis. We gone have to ask ourselves ARE we trying to be ‘cawkajsun’ when we sit and primp our blonde weave in front of our babies. We gone have to admit that COLORISM and TEXTURISM has had a PROFOUND affect, not only on us but on the black community as a whole. We gone have to STOP denying that since ‘we all black’, and ‘the white man treat us all the same’, (which is a damned lie and we need to knock it off), addressing the COLOR/TEXTURE hiearchary within our race is useless and divisive. We gone have to TELL THE TRUTH, and then maybe, just maybe, we can start reaping the benefits of the 2.9 BILLION dollar black hair industry and brand our OWN baby girls hair get and our OWN Barbies with women who actually look BLACK to represent black hair in all its glory. We gone have to do more than just gush over the symbolism of Violas Emmy speech, but embrace…and live it.
    Until then, we need to accept that girls like Zendaya Coleman are going to be given those chances to WIN! when were arent cuz were werent even in the room when the ballots were counted. We gone have to accept that Harriet Tubman can be depicted as a mixed race woman, all the black women in the true Red Tails story didnt exist, lighter skinned hispanic black women can play dark skinned, nappy headed black singers, and “Black’ Womanhood can be depicted ANY OL WAY and can be embodied by ANYONE who DECIDES they are black cuz the ‘feel’ black. We gone have to get in line behind the Transracials, Kim Ks, Russian Twerk Teams, Mixed Chics, Gay Males, Tyler Perry dressed as a woman, Transsexuals, Hobbits, Goats, Pigs and Hogs and WAIT for somebody to give US the ok to actually BE what Black Womanhood IS;
    Identifiably Black and biologically Female.
    THATS how Zendayas Revenge works.
    Does it all make sense now?
    Breukelen Bleu © 2015.

  75. andrea twerkin Says:

    yo gendertrender, whats good. u wanna get ahead of tha sociopolitical curve youd better start realizing that virtually ALL identity politics as they xist in modern western society are bullshit. Like i typically try to avoid absolutist qualifiers like “always” or “entirely” or “all” but in this case when I say all i mean fuckin ALL.

    u gotta step ya game up, realize that tha dominance of identity politics as an xistential perspective/form of sociopolitical discourse over tha last several decades is no accident; it may have begun as a reaction against tha previous dominance of modernist thought/philosophies via tha initial development of postmodernist, post-marxist ideology but that ain been tha case in reality fo a minute now.

    In reality, identity politics has fo a long ass time been nothin but a form a social control the economic & intellectual cultural elites who own tha banks, media, government, & access to capital utilize regularly to divide & distract their subjects with insidiously coercive/inciting concepts of false/propagandized history, eternal victimhood/collective guilt/readymade hate & resentment narratives, neotribalism/racial-ethnic-sexual-gendered essentialism, & simplemindedass/fundamentalist black vs white/binary/concrete thinking/perceptions of tha arrangement of society. It’s jus a new form of class warfare, one that happens to be particularly effective because it’s “skin deep” so to speak & easily preys upon a. tha west’s (particularly america’s) toxic, hypercapitalist views of race, gender, & identity, b. most peoples’ natural in-group bias, c. the monoparty electoral system in tha united states, d. tha west’s obsession with legalism & the use of it to attempt to solve social problems & categorize types of identities & states of experience & e. tha country’s completely flawed, asinine, propagandized/commodified/misinformed collective sense of pop history & tha grand metanarratives americans currently & historically have used to perceive & understand tha world. fuck property fuck rights fuck tha state fuck tha corporations & fuck america & all americans

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: