Unlikely Allies for Privacy and Safety

January 9, 2017

76 Responses to “Unlikely Allies for Privacy and Safety”

  1. hearthrising Says:

    Some people on the Left are uncomfortable about this very-strange-bedfellows development, but coalition politics means working with people you generally don’t agree with and don’t feel comfortable with. There’s a difference between being in a coalition and being co-opted, and I’m sure the women in WoLF understand that.

    • sarineal Says:

      I find in the US in particular politics and rhetoric are highly polarised, but it can and does happen elsewhere.

      Some issues cross boundaries. Another example is climate change denial, which I see happening (still!) on both on what is right and left sides, and on the left it is just as bad and our in my country sceptic organisation won’t even talk about it because of the infighting between different factions within the organisation. I’ve even found secular anti-abortion types too, another example of the same thing.

      I find it unpalatable to shut down discussion or rule out sources in this case even if they don’t agree entirely on all issues. Surely we can see past partisan politics and discuss this as an issue that affects all women and is damaging to all women, the fact is even if there are topics where is disagreement these other women have never tried to shut down discussion, never told other women they have to toe the party line, that they can’t talk about issues that affect them and that they don’t exist like what is happening.

      The time for ideological purity is gone. All is does is put people in rigid boxes and limit them to set ideas that often don’t reflect who they are and what their stances are. I’m welcoming this move, both sides are very clear about where they stand and where they agree and don’t. Once you have that, you have a clear line where they are able to join together in agreement.

      Good on them, they put are putting women first and pushing past petty partisan politics to achieve their aims. United we stand, divided we fall.

      • Claire Says:

        There was a commercial that once said, “We have come a long way,baby!” Women with certainty have not advanced in their true femininity and defense thereof. Women and children, especially little girls are probably at more risk than any other time in the history of mankind.

  2. Mary Sunshine Says:

    That’s astonishing!! So well done. Thank you for posting that.

  3. EndTheHarms Says:

    “Come on. How wrong does something have to be for a Christian pro-family organisation and a radical feminist organisation to oppose it together?”


    I am so glad to see this. Standing up for women and girls absolutely needs to transcend the usual political and religious divides.

    • Oak and Ash Says:

      This is the same reaction I had when I found out Ron Paul, Naomi Wolf, and the pope all objected to airport scanners–if people of such disparate beliefs oppose something, there’s a problem with it. (Most liberals I knew thought invasive security measures were fine, just as they’re now on board with men in our locker rooms.)

      I’d rather form a coalition of the sane, even if we have serious political disagreements in some areas, than work with liberals whose views are completely unhinged from reality. How can we even fight for women if female isn’t considered a coherent class?

      • EndTheHarms Says:

        ‘coalition of the sane’ – What a lovely, calming notion to dream about in the present world, thank you. And people who can have adult disagreements, able nevertheless to recognise shared ground and join forces.

        Meanwhile in the ‘real’ world…. sigh.

  4. Wow! Great video, but cue the transgenderists complaining radfems are aligned with the right….

    • donesoverydone Says:

      yeah, wow. FPA is part of Focus on the Family, “It’s my pleasure to welcome you to Family Policy Alliance. You may know us by our previous name, CitizenLink. We’re still a public policy partner of Focus on the Family.” http://familypolicyalliance.com/about-us/

      Here’s Focus on the Family position on feminism “G. K Chesterton accurately defined feminism as the effort to avoid being feminine in any way. He’s exactly right in that everything radical feminists have advocated for regarding sexuality and family relationships call women to deny their womanhood in an effort to be like men. These are primarily abortion, sexual aggression and cohabitation.” http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about/focus-findings/marriage/marriage-a-feminist-institution

      Focus on the Family is notoriously homophobic and works to dismantle rights for gays and lesbians.

      Great partners WoLF has chosen, all the sarcasm. I used to be a member of WoLF but withdrew when then ran this by members. They also plan on trying to solicit funding from the religious right, seriously, I still have the email.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Can you post the text of that email here?

      • James Dobson founded FOTF and was there until 2003.

      • donesoverydone Says:

        here “Dear WoLF members,

        As you know, WoLF intends to file an amicus brief on behalf of women in the Supreme Court’s consideration of “gender identity” issues in the case of Gloucester v. G.G. We want your input!

        There is an option to file a joint brief with the Family Policy Alliance (FPA), where they would sign on to our legal reasoning, as established in our two past filings. To be absolutely clear, this is a conservative, Christian, organization whose mission is to “advance biblical citizenship, equip and elect statesmen, promote policy and serve an effective alliance, all committed to a common vision.”

        There are several benefits to filing a joint brief with FPA.

        The main benefit is that doing so increases our chances of getting our brief read. Supreme Court justices do not always read amicus briefs. They read the briefs their clerks give them to read. Even the clerks don’t always read amicus briefs. In a cases like this one, where there are likely to be A LOT of amicus briefs, they will probably disregard many of them. Seeing a brief filed jointly by a radical feminist organization and a conservative Christian organization makes it MUCH MORE likely that our brief will be read. As you know, WoLF is the ONLY organization speaking up for women on “gender identity” issues. Every single other “feminist” organization has sold us out in the name of so-called left wing interests.

        Our brief is unlikely to be read if we do not form this alliance, and no feminist arguments will then be considered in this decisive Supreme Court case.

        Another reason is media attention. We have not gotten much media attention for our lawsuit (WoLF v. U.S.) or on our amicus brief in favor of certiorari in the Supreme Court (Gloucester v. G.G.). The few liberal commentators who have even brought up our participation have refused to name WoLF directly in their writing. Filing a joint brief with FPA makes it much more likely that we will get attention in the mainstream media. This is important. Not only would this mean that women’s voices would be heard nationwide, it would also clarify that the fight over “gender identity” is not a liberal versus conservative issue. ALL women have a stake in preserving female-only spaces.

        The third reason is fundraising. As you know, paying our legal fees has been a bit of a challenge. If we file a joint brief, FPA is committed to fundraising a signifiant portion of the legal fees on behalf of women. Conservative women have access to resources that many of us do not.

        This is not a continuation of the case we filed in New Mexico, which is on hold for now. Though filing that case gave us standing to file this amicus brief with the Supreme Court, in a decision that is likely to establish the legal grounds for gender identity laws for years to come.

        WoLF seeks liberation for all women, regardless of their religious, cultural, or political beliefs. Rights apportioned on a partisan basis aren’t rights at all. Individuals and organizations aligned with the political left have decided to ally themselves with the sex industry and postmodern gender identity theories. The sex industry is an instrument of the degradation, torture, dehumanization, and murder of women. Gender identity theory suggests that our oppression is a costumed performance and seeks to erase women as a legal class. As the men of the left have praised themselves as statesmen for working across the aisle on such issues as telecommunication regulations, agriculture, and healthcare, we also reserve the right to seek out strategic alliances with those who will advance our interests. Women and feminists are not the property of any ideology or political party. We own ourselves.

        That said, we understand that many WoLF members may have concerns with a strategy of aligning ourselves with a conservative Christian organization and we want to hear from you. If you want to weigh in, please send your thoughts to contact@womensliberationfront.org by Monday November 21. We will review all of your comments as we consider whether to move forward with this. The Board is committed to processes that are transparent and inclusive.”

        – Women’s Liberation Front, Board of Directors: Natasha Chart, Jennifer Chavez, Susan Cox, Kara Dansky, Sarah Jones, Emma Spaulding

        Women’s Liberation Front
        Women’s Liberation Front · United States

      • GallusMag Says:

        It seems like funding from Man Money is the only rationale for this alliance. These right wing genderists are of the same mind as trans-genderists. Both believe that ritualized cultural sex stereotype behaviors -although violently enforced- are innate and immutable: Domination for males and submission for females. Both prescribe dolls and pink for girls and sports and blue for boys.
        It’s a short sighted alliance in response to the political construct of ‘Gender Identity’ as an indefinable category replacing sex as a protected class for women and girls. An emergency measure. I have a lot of sympathy for that aim.
        The transgender politic has been completely antithetical to the rights of women and lesbians especially. There are any number of ways this conflict could have been negotiated, but the transgender movement insisted on annihilation of women’s rights. This alliance is born of the transgender politic.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Consciousness raising on the feminist analysis of gender – what gender is and how it works and what it does- will transcend the politics of the day. That is the true kryptonite against genderism and requires no funding. Keep speaking up!

      • With respect, enjoy fighting alone, then. The things FoF fights for aren’t going away regardless of this joint issue.

  5. southwest88 Says:

    Right wing women are just as likely to be abused as left wing women if all men get unquestioned access to women’s spaces. So this alliance is fine by me!

    • Relieved Says:

      Having grown up being beaten with a leather belt as a child by my parents because of Focus on the Family and their horrid child-raising rhetoric, this is disappointing to say the least.

      Look up the anecdote from James Dobson about gleefully terrorizing and abusing his little Dachshund dog because he was going to force it to “submit to his will” or else to see what kind of person he is. Countless kids in the 1990’s suffered greatly because of his “Strong-Willed Child” book that instructed Christian parents to “break the will” of their children by any abusive means necessary.

      It may be a necessary evil since the left will not help stop the trans-juggernaut and has already committed to Team Erasure of Women, if it helps the court to see that more than just a handful people believe “women” should be a recognized political and social category. But make no mistake, Focus on the Family has caused serious damage to kids both gay and straight and they are as entrenched in gender roles as the trans.

      The only good that could come of this is that maybe the people at FOTF will finally realize how stupid their rhetoric about feminists is. Their complaint about abortion is not surprising, but “sexual aggression” is just gross rape apology and flipping the script to make it seem like feminists sexually attack men, and WTF does “acting like men” mean? —- that gender roles are innate and women who don’t feminine are doing it wrong? Hmmm.

      I wish WoLF the best and I support them in spirit, but it’s disheartening to see them have to partner with child abuse promoters who have such disturbing views about women.

      • freenampeyo Says:

        I think back to the 1950s and 1960s when a little boy who wanted to play with dolls would be bullied by his Dad, called a sissy and threatened with, or actually forced to wear a dress and might even be mocked with a girl’s name to shame him. Fast forward to 2017 where a very similar little boy is given the same treatment–dressed in a dress, called by a girl’s name, but now also chemically sterilized and has his penis amputated. But now, instead of this being child abuse, parent and child are both praised.

    • Cassandra Says:

      That is very true and a very good response to anyone who comes at this with accusations of “You allied with the wrong people.” Female is female across the political spectrum and the category of female being erased as a legal category is bad for all of us.

  6. LibertarianWench Says:

    I don’t understand why we can’t ever have the libertarian answer to these issues in this country. The owner of the bathroom decides who can go in. The owner of the pizza joint decides who he will make a pizza for, and so on. If someone wants to be a bigot and not make a gay wedding cake, they are going to be a bigot whether you force them to make the cake or not. If an owner of a store wants to invite men into the women’s room that should be their right. If radical lesbians want to have a radical lesbian only music festival they should be able to do that without interference. The problem I have with both the buybull thumpers (like the lady in the video) and the radical feminist is that they want their beliefs enforced by the force of law. No porn and hookers? Good luck with that. Vice law is an abysmal failure just like the drug war.

    This stuff would all sort itself out if individuals could freely associate with who they want to and an individual’s body is their private property. Everyone could have what they want. The trannies will do business where they are allowed in the women’s room and the thumpers and feminists will do business where the trannies aren’t allowed. Everyone is happy! We all win!

    • GallusMag Says:

      So if school boards vote to fund male sports only, we all win? So if taxi companies refuse to transport black men, we all win? So if child pornography is legalized, we all win? So if employers want to pay women less than men, we all win?

      • rheapdx1 Says:

        To dovetail here: there are (and not just during the last election cycle) quite a few trans who use the liberterian arguments, as a means to explain away their own bigotry. Very few will admit to this, but social media has exposed this in rather graphic detail. From the blatant insistence on usurping Title IX, to disrespect via context/syntax others, but demand that they be called by the long litany of preferred gender-associated adjectives, one gets the idea.

        Also, this string of illogical thought is part and parcel of the mentality, which is behind the ‘transing’ of those, who are too young to know what is REALLY going on. Once again showing, the long term spectre of Nazi based thought (which in many ways was liberterian, when pne breaks ot down) has never been extinguished.

      • LibertarianWench Says:

        Jim Crow laws were laws–created and enforced by the government. Now we have laws that dictate to people what beliefs they are allowed to practice at the business they own–just like they had in Jim Crow, once again the government creating and enforcing laws in regards to personal beliefs. Government is the creator of the problems that lesbian women and the church ladies have with this restroom and women’s events stuff with trannies. If a lesbian bookstore owner does not want to allow the dude in a dress into the nude earth mother poetry reading she should be able to discriminate like that. People are going to disagree with her, even call her a bigot and morally corrupt. Just like the church people who do not want to make gay cakes. And yes, unfortunately in a free society there are dolt heads who aren’t going to have ‘those darkkies’ into their store. That is the price of liberty. People who disagree with you and may be immoral and deplorable, like racists.

        Would you do business in a shop that would refuse black folks? I sure as hell would not. And it’s nice to have the racists very visible like that instead of hiding it and passively-aggressively doing things. If you think the government stops racism with laws I have a lot of incarcerated and dead black people to show you. Racism stops with social pressure like market forces.

      • GallusMag Says:

        We’ve got it! We understand your view. You can’t just leave comments repeating yourself. That is called spamming. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    • You’re not a Libertarian. You want you want MORE power for the rich, the owners, the powerful. What does that do to the liberty of the rest of us?

    • radicalwitch Says:

      This is NOT Libertarianism. There are lots of MRAs running around the web calling themselves Libertarians and they seem to have thoroughly infected the party with their ignorance and misogyny. Do some research on actual Libertarianism and what it is.

      Federal laws cannot be over-ridden by the states – no Libertarian who is actually a libertarian believes that what is in the Constitution, what is established as the very basics of human and civil rights, should be left to the whims of the state.

      First and foremost, the Libertarian platform is a Constitutional one. It is not anarchy – it is not whatever some dick-swinger wants to pretend it is. There is a very specific set of Libertarian ideas that rest on the foundation of the Federal Constitution. The states cannot make laws that are at odds with it. To do so would be both Unconstitutional and Unlibertarian.

      This means, for example, that not only does the 2nd Amendment apply exactly as it is written in all 50 states, but it also means that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects women in all 50 states on the basis of SEX (not gender or gender identity or some other made up B.S.) from intrusions on our privacy. This is, also, an aspect of the fundamental right to privacy – the “right to be let alone.” Women have an inalienable right not to have their privacy intruded upon by men. We have a fundamental, unalienable right to an education. We have the right to participate in our own sports leagues, etc.

      I don’t know if you’re a dude or not, but you’re certainly no Libertarian!

    • K Says:

      Ugh. People like you are why that orange gnome won. “I want what I want, so fuck what everyone else might not need. Society can reflect me before I adapt to it.”

    • thisismeandonlyme Says:

      Jeff Sessions as AG will do just that under the guise of religious liberty. He already said so.

    • You sound like another sociopathic, Narcissist dude (“wench”, UH HUH SURE D000D), mansplaining your hideous world views to women. Fuck off.

  7. Milliemeter Says:

    Of course, the “man ladies” have been trying to prove that they are somehow sexually dimorphic, in the brain. So now there trying to say there Intersex, because of this “evidence”.

    Even if we included Transgenderism as an Intersex condition, it would be considered so mild, because you know, they have working reproductive organs that CAN work and reproduce.

  8. Milliemeter Says:

    A tranny talking about feminism.

  9. worriedmom Says:

    I am very glad to see this, and also to have the chance to mention something I’ve been hoping to say for a while.

    Because of my family situation, I have been very supportive of lesbian and gay rights for quite some time. And, I am also a believing Christian. I belong to a liberal Christian denomination and experience much joy, as well as comfort, from being part of my faith community, and from my religious practice. (Just as a side note – ( do not feel called to convince others of the validity of my faith and simply hope that I will “shine forth in my life” the principles in which I believe.)

    During my time being involved with lesbian and gay rights issues, I was repeatedly told (by the folks on the civil rights side, not the church side) that it was not possible for me to be a believing Christian and a gay rights proponent. I was told, over and over, that in effect I had to choose between my faith and my support for lesbian and gay people… that it was “atheist or nothing.” I never did understand how it was that these two things relate in such a way that I would be compelled to choose between them, and also felt that there was a great deal of stereotyping and inaccurate judgment being leveled at people of faith.

    However, since becoming involved (however tangentially) with the gender critical community, I have not had a similar experience. It seems that many feminists/GC people do NOT inaccurately conflate religious belief with hatred or phobia – it seems as if there is a great deal more respect here, and less stereotyping and mockery. I really do appreciate it!

    • LC Says:

      That’s radical, fellow Christian. 🙂

    • thisismeandonlyme Says:

      I am straight and know many religious people and it was the opposite, that one cannot be saved and be homosexual.

      I applaud you for being part of such a progressive community, I hope you acknowledge that is not close to the norm and there are very real reasons for the alarm bells going off when faced with religious people.

    • EndTheHarms Says:

      Thank you for telling your experience.

      Humans can be so mindlessly tribal. = bigoted! Worsened by social media, it seems. Sadly, it seem that generalising bigotry often flourishes in groups who have themselves received bigotry. There is a tendency to generalise unfairly against the perceived ‘Other’, to lump everyone in with the extremists. Like it seems there is this myth that where LGB is concerned, ‘Christian’ = Westboro Baptist Church. That in itself is hateful myth.

      It’s a real hazard that people who identify as marginalised or the victims of oppression may in fact, partly through their real hurt and anger, end up unfairly dismissing or talking hate about too many others. Which then unfortunately fans the flames of prejudice in return.

      I am not a believer, but was raised in a LIBERAL Christian church, like you, and am grateful for (most of) the values and ethics it taught.

      It has been a rude awakening – as a GC feminist (the real kind), pro-LGB person who cares deeply about girls, young women and lesbians getting harmed by trans – to realise that the most bigoted haters in my extended family imagine themselves to be the most progressive, and are the most publicly virtue-signallingly pro-lgbt. Their pro-G stance has blinded them to the realities of what trans ideology is doing to women, girls, vulnerable young people, lesbians: they vociferously hate on anyone feminist and questioning of the T. They don’t have a CLUE of even the existence of divisions and anguish among lesbians about trans, they are handmaidens to libfem, gay (because men, and they think T is SAME kind of marginalised as G, blahblah), MRA…. (Sorry to rant… Huge harm and division has been caused to my family by the people I am thinking of, and I can’t vent and hope to be understood except in places like here.)

      Glad you are finding open-mindedness and acceptance in the GC community.

    • NYCAlison Says:

      @worriedmom: I’m also glad you’ve had good, positive experiences on Gallus’s site and with gender-critical feminists and discussions generally. To be frank, I am even more glad of it because when women come forward and say “Yes, this is female-supporting, female-loving, female-respecting,” the rest of us feel energized to carry on arguing against the pro-gender, postmodernist cluster-poop that mainstream lib-fem (I refer to it as “capitalist feminism” or “neoliberal feminism” interchangeably BTW–and those names are equally true), even in the face of so much woman-hating and accusations of malfeasance, “literal” murder, etc.

      Although I generally proceed with caution when I learn someone identifies with a religion–a rational reaction, given what most faiths, Eastern and Western alike, say about women and our place in the world–I’m not one to blithely give atheists a pass. Atheism as practiced in the U.S. is as much a religion as any of the officially recognized major faiths, and the fervor with which its devotees argue and defend their position is indistinguishable from the earnest zeal of a televangeist’s plea or an evangelical’s stump speech against women’s abortion (i.e. human) rights.

      Worst of all, the major modern-day atheist movements/communities are entirely white-male-led, as much as any other major faith, if not more–and the woman-hating that results, as it inevitably does from such groups where well-off doodz look out for their own, is vicious; in fact, it’s often indistinguishable from the misogynistic “tenets of my faith” you hear emanating from the typical Evangelical, Pentecostal, etc. Sure, not all atheist males are EXPLICITLY anti-choice, evo-psych-promoting nuts, gibbering on that “a woman’s place is in the home,” and so forth, but give the (self-identified) “good ones” your ear for more than a few minutes, and they can’t resist letting the misogyny fly. These doods are one reason I make a point to identify as an agnostic. Give me a liberal Xtian or UU type anyday.

      • LC Says:

        Thank you for saying this! I’m skeptical of many within the church when it comes to feminism, so while it’s encouraging to hear of this alliance, but I can’t pretend that it’ll be easy. There are some fundamental differences between the Christian right and radical feminism.

        But the same is true of nearly every group that isn’t a radical feminist one, and it’s frustrating to see atheists get away with misogyny(from liberals or feminists) that would never stand if a person of faith said it. One of the saddest and oddly hilarious moments I had when following a particular religious right(male-dominated) forum is when the Christians and a couple of atheists put aside their differences to bash feminists. Men are men, and the ultimate higher power most of them believe in is themselves.

      • ephemeroptera Says:

        Many white male atheists are kneejerk, know-it-all, talk-out-of-their ass contrarian types with pretensions of intellectualism and major logical gaps in their thinking, so reports of misogyny aren’t surprising.

        There’s a classic takedown of Richard Dawkins’s “God Delusion” by thoughtful atheist Terry Eagleton, and he gets the vibe of that type of guy right –


      • Cassandra Says:

        Yeah, atheist dudes tend to be real sexist shitheels.

    • Oak and Ash Says:

      And that last part, when he demands to be supplied with hormones in jail! Maybe he did it in order not to have to pay for them. I’ve read that there are a lot of things not covered under the Australian health care system.

      I also noticed that, in a quote from one of the victims, “she” appears in brackets, as if replacing the male pronoun originally used. Because misgendering is more violent than hitting someone in the head with an ax.

      • Milliemeter Says:

        When Medicare was talking about making sexual reassignment surgery covered by everyone, rather than on a per person basis, I voiced my concerns. If they make it open for all, then who knows what crazy retarded things the trannies will do to get Medicare. I’m a legally blind, Albino, and I have a REAL, actual disability which limits what I can and can not do.

        And, I pay back into the system, and make sure that I stay within the law of what I can make. These guys would drain the system for their own twisted wants, and leave it dry.

        Hey, do you feel like a lady? Then just break the law, and we got you covered!!!

        I wonder if the only reason men support men doing this, is because they are hetrosexual trannies. “Hey doesn’t effect me, Bill like the ladies anyways!”.

      • “She” is gone, and the bit about the hormone request is an afterthought at the very end of the article. The article now looks like just some crazy woman going crazy. Horrifying.

  10. * WOLF has always been pro-choice, and fights tenaciously for reproductive rights for women. Kara clearly says so in the video, and WOLF will never budge from its strong stance on this issue. “Gender identity” is so freaking Orwellian now that women’s health and reproductive issues means that it’s politically incorrect and transphobic to say “mother”. Instead, we have to say “pregnant person”, and pretty soon when reproductive rights are totally transified to the nth degree it could include really Mengele like things like gamete retrieval for all the kids who are being sterilized with GnRH agonists and/or cross gender hormones.

    * WOLF has always supported gay and lesbian rights. Many, if not most, trans identified people are heterosexual not gay or lesbian. Almost all the ones who have raped or murdered women are heterosexual. Every useless trans run LGBT organization remained silent when unrepentant lesbians were getting TERF death threats. And, when a lesbian hating transwoman slaughtered a lesbian couple and their adopted son last November and tried to burn down the house to destroy evidence, not one LGBT organization covered the story. Gendertrender told us everything we need to know about Dana Rivers, and I’m sure people who read this blog knew deep in their gut that sooner or later one of these violent male “lesbians” like Dana Rivers would eventually go off on lesbians.

    * WOLF supports marriage equality, and Kara states WOLF’s position on this issue.

    Kara is right when she says that gender identity, pornography, and prostitution harm women and girls. Much of the world’s pornography is produced in the San Fernando Valley of California. Last election there was a state initiative on the ballot in California that would require actors in porn to wear condoms. We are talking about the lives and health of women in this oppressive “industry”. The powerful porn producers spent millions to defeat this initiative. The porn industry tossed in millions to defeat this initiative which was put on the ballot by women and men who don’t want to die from AIDs. The California Democrats are on record as opposing the state initiative that would require actors in porn to wear condoms. The California Republicans opposed this initiative too because they are pro business no matter what the business entails. Usually, Democrats support workers and unions except for women in the porn industry who risk dying of AIDs. Read “Pornland” by Gail Dines. Professor Gail Dines is an expert on pornography, and her book, “Pornland” is, in my opinion, one of the most important feminist books of this half century. It’s that important, and that relevant. Women are being tortured in porn. A billion dollar industry is more important to uber liberals in California than abused and traumatized women who risk contracting AIDs, gonorrhea of the eye, or anal prolapse from violent and rough anal sex. In what other “industry” is anal prolapse, AIDs, or STDs an occupational hazard? Todays’ porn is nothing like the old Playboy of the 1960s and 1970s.

    The far left has tossed the female sex under the bus in its complete and total embrace of everything “gender identity”. It’s almost as if they basically said that half the human population must allow 1 or 2% of the population that is mostly comprised of violent and delusional men and age play freaks like Stefonkee Wolscht to screw us over, otherwise the religious right will take away Roe v. Wade. It feels as if we are being held hostage, and being screwed from both sides. I don’t like it. Liberals in California have gone so totally overboard in all things “gender identity” that it’s Orwellian beyond belief. There was AB1266 which crapped on the work of second wave feminists, and basically gave any male claiming “gender identity” unfettered access to the women’s locker room etc. in any school or college. “Gender identity” in California goes way beyond AB1266. Males who torture women with electrical wires before raping them should be sent to women’s prisons. Google Richard, “Sherri”, Masbruch. Gendertrender has some excellent articles on this sick puppy. It doesn’t matter how much he likes to torture or kill women, all he has to do is squawk about his “gender identity”, and he gets tax payer funded hormones, and he is sent to a women’s prison. Torture women with electrical wires before raping them. Send him to a women’s prison because he squawks about his gender identity. Slaughter a lesbian family, send him to a women’s prison, and give him taxpayer funded female hormones. The State of California and other states are violating the human rights of female prisoners by housing violent male rapists and murderers who rape and kill women in women’s prison.

    The more politically correct than thou liberals who must know by now that children are being sterilized with GnRH agonists and/or cross gender hormones, disabled women are being “transitioned”, and teenage girls are getting elective mastectomies will have a lot to answer for when this all collapses. It will because it’s simply not sustainable in the long run.

    These are really scary times to be a woman because we are being screwed by the far left and religious right. I don’t hate conservative women just because they are conservative. I know gender identity bullshit impacts all women. I’m terrified that the religious right will try to overthrow Roe v. Wade.

    @Oak and Ash,

    “And that last part, when he demands to be supplied with hormones in jail! Maybe he did it in order not to have to pay for them. I’ve read that there are a lot of things not covered under the Australian health care system.”


    Watching that video was terrifying. Look at how arrogant he was walking into the convenience store with an axe of all things. How can people call him a woman when he clearly has the size and physical features of a male. When I read these articles, I honestly think I’m living in George Orwell’s 1984 in the way that the mainstream media plays along with the pronoun nonsense. He is just an angry and violent male with long stringy blonde hair and an axe.

    They know that they get special attention when they screech about their “gender identity”. Every trans organization and trans run LGBT group runs to their rescue when they end up in jail. Besides his hatred of lesbians in particular, and women in general, I wonder if taxpayer funded hormones, etc. was part of the reason why Dana Rivers murdered the lesbian couple and their adopted son in Oakland. It’s just a matter of time before Dana Rivers demands taxpayer funded female hormones if he doesn’t already have them now. California really goes out of the way to accommodate these violent males who rape and murder women, giving them taxpayer funded sex reassignment surgery, hormones, and sends them to a women’s prison.

    Thank you gendertrender and WOLF for cutting through the bullshit.

    • Milliemeter Says:

      And I bet he would try to prove after that, that he should be realised because He’s a proper lady now, and it was all just a silly misunderstanding.

    • The “left” has always been sexist and arguably worse than the right. This is nothing new. It is less about supporting “gender identity” than it is about their idiotic worship of sexual liberation. This has been true since the 1960s. It has supported prostitution and pornography and only supports reproductive rights as long as the dudes get sexual access to women.

      • NYCAlison Says:

        Susan, if you’re using “left” the way it’s typically used in the United States — as a sort of umbrella term for mainline Democrats, especially the Third-Way type, but also “yellow dog,” etc. — I agree wholeheartedly. But if you mean left as it’s defined globally, I don’t. Leftists in the U.S. are so few and far between that we don’t have any political clout–this has always been true and is entirely intentional. The media, government, and corporations have been colluding for decades to make it so, in fact, and will not hesitate to have any Lefist “removed” (as in, disappeared, shot dead, or committed to the psychiatric system for life) if they think it expedient to their cause to do so.

        Self-described leftists/socialist feminists endorse a full economic safety net, a living wage for all that’s paid by the owning class, immediate signing of the Equal Rights Amendment into law, and total bodily autonomy with no exceptions for ALL girls and women. All of these positions, should they become the status quo, would instantly benefit women, and benefit us far moreso than men. This is seen as a real threat by the faux-left, aka the male-led, pandering-to-male-concerns Democratic Party. Susan Faludi is one of the better known leftist feminists today, and has been on the “TERF list” for several years at least because her body of work is a direct threat to the rich white male trans status quo. Barbara Ehrenreich is another…her work is female-focused and super threatening to the gender-trenders and the AGP-lovin’ ruling class.

      • I am talking about the American left. It has always, always been misogynist from at least the 1960s. The sexism of the “New Left” was a direct cause of the second wave of the women’s movement. I was around then, so I do know this to be true.

        And there WAS a “left” in the United States during the 1960s and early 1970s. Bernie Sanders was and is an example of the white dude “New Left” misogynists of that era.

        The dudes in the antiwar and civil rights movements treated women like garbage. If they didn’t put out sexually and wait on them hand and foot, they were of no use to them. That is why I say these men worship sexual liberation, always have. That is why feminists have always been at odds with the “left.”

        I recommend people read Andrea Dworkin’s “Right-Wing Women,” which is available for free download, and read the chapter on abortion. She lived through that era, so she knew how horrible the men were on the left.

      • NYCAlison Says:

        But I wasn’t referring to the Left of 50 years ago, nor to Democrat Bernie Sanders. I was discussing the 2010s coalition of Leftist-feminists, whose combination pro-woman/anti-capitalist platform is considered too “controversial” to print anywhere even remotely mainstream. The powers that be had a vested interest in shutting us up after 9/11, and attacked from multiple directions. You won’t see or hear much from us circa 2017, and that is just how it was intended to be.

        However, I’ll second your recommendation for Right-Wing Women; in fact, I’ll add that if a person is looking for just one Dworkin book, that one’s an ideal place to look. It combines some of the ground covered in Intercourse with some new theory that is worthwhile reading.

    • freenampeyo Says:

      If this ax wielder is willing to maim or murder two people in order to get these drugs, maybe these drugs should be considered dangerous, addictive substances.

  11. Prozac Says:

    People should be free to believe what they like, as long as they are not imposing their will upon others. Gender identity, in my opinion, is a religion that forces everyone in society to believe in it. None of us, i like to think, are bothered by men masquerading as women or even calling or thinking of themselves as women until they demand that we do too, or attempt to speak on our behalf. Men in the women’s changing room are telling us we have to partake in and validate their belief. Men abusing title IX legislation to do so make a mockery of the original intent of the legislation. Many people are forced to play along on the way, from the person falsifying legal information on birth certificates and identification to the other women filing fruitless complaints to a facility’s management. Males invading women’s spaces for personal validation are not committing a victimless crime. They are forcing the religion of gender identity on the entire population, and changing the law to do so. They are demanding children be indoctrinated and raised in their religion, based solely upon faith that a person, not biology, dictates sex. It is no different than demanding creationism be taught in school, except they intend to punish and ostracize non-believers with eternal bigotry rather than hell. Christians are free to believe what they like; they aren’t demanding anything of me. Gender identity does not follow the same structure.

    • LibertarianWench Says:

      Yep, just as I stated previously and got piled on for: government is behind all of the problems on this gender identity stuff. If someone wants to be transgender that’s great–as long as they do not force their beliefs on others. Free association of people, just like it says in the constitution solves all of these problems if we would just put it into practice without theocracy minded folks and progressive nannies interfering with government force.

    • One side wants to force me to have no control over my uterus, and the other side wants to violently rip it out of me. Thanks, 3rd wavers. You’re officially the Halloween 3 of the series.

      • GallusMag Says:

        I love Halloween 3. I watch it every year. Best in the series IMHO. (Granted it bears no relation to the other films in the franchise. 😉 )

  12. Margie Says:

    For those interested, here is a very interesting interview of a feminist on the radio program of the Family Policy Institute of Washington. FPIW is one of the “family policy councils” that are part of the Family Policy Alliance. It is a conservative Christian group. LGB people battled and defeated them twice in recent years, once on domestic partners and then on marriage equality. (Trans activists, as usual, didn’t lift a finger to help on either fight and attempted to sabotage our efforts.) Now FPIW is sponsoring a ballot initiative to repeal WA’s “trans bathroom” regulations. They have reached out to feminists and LGBs, holding a press conference with lesbian hero Miriam Ben-Shalom. And in this interview (with a feminist who is forced to be anonymous due to trans activist harassment), they discuss issues relating to the unlikely alliance between feminists and social conservatives. This is something very new. I don’t think I have heard a conversation like this on any Christian broadcast.

  13. lovetruthcourage Says:

    I support this alliance.

  14. GallusMag Says:

    OT: Some really fantastic comments/analysis coming in today on this and the Autostraddle post. It really makes it worth my time to continue running this blog. Thanks all! x

  15. kesher Says:

    I feel it necessary to warn anyone thinking of contributing to this effort that a weekly newspaper in Seattle has made a point of finding out the names of donors to initiatives like this which they then publish. They did it when same-sex marriage was on the ballot, and, while the LGB didn’t seem to do anything in particular with that information (although one reporter from that paper called a number of donors, asking them why they hated him), I don’t think we should count on a mature, responsible reaction from the T.

    • Margie Says:

      The paper you are referring to did a story on the top donors to Just Want Privacy. It did not mention any of the large number of small donors. There is plenty that people can do to support JWP, including: 1) signing the petition to put it on the ballot, 2) volunteering to gather signatures, 3) volunteering in other capacities, 4) voting for the initiative in November, and 5) donating. Of these things, only items 1) and 5) are public and tbh are low risk. If you sign the petition, you would be one of about 300,000 people and if you donate $25 or $50 or $75, you would be one of several thousand people.

  16. Mar Iguana Says:

    I support this alliance.

  17. Mar Iguana Says:

    Unlikely allies indeed. I love it if for no other reason than that this alliance has got to be making the boys very nervous. After successfully dividing and conquering women for thousands of years, women from opposite ends of the spectrum uniting in a common cause is their worst nightmare.

    From Todd Gitlin’s book “The Sixties” (it could be said this incident was the birth of second wave feminism and it’s vital to remember our history so we don’t continue to be erased):

    “On January 1969, the antiwar National Mobilization Committee marked the inauguration of Richard Nixon—or “inhoguration,” as it was called—with a march and rally in Washington. In the chaos that followed Chicago, only a few thousand demonstrators turned out; a scatter of objects was hurled helplessly at Nixon’s official caravan. That night, under the Mobe’s circus tent, two speakers from the growing women’s movement were on the platform: SDS veteran Marilyn Salzman Webb and New York radical feminist theoretician Shulamith Firestone. It was the usual movement practice to incorporate constituencies by giving them slots on the program—a pluralist move that made for long rallies. There were two women (along with others bearing mock voter registrations cards) because there were already two women’s positions bitterly antagonistic to each other. The radical feminists had wanted to skip the occasion, having concluded that all men kept all women down; Webb, an organizer of one of Washington’s first women’s consciousness-raising groups, had insisted that women keep taking their case to the larger movement. The radical feminists wanted to tear up voter registration cards on the platform, symbolizing that suffrage had failed women; Webb and her comrades decided to destroy theirs as well—to repudiate electoral politics across the board.

    “Marilyn Webb was twenty-six, slender, attractive. Although she had years of movement experience—she had organized a Head Start project in Chicago while a graduate student in psychology, and had spoken before black congregations—this was the first time she had addressed a multitude on a ceremonial occasion. “We as women are oppressed,” she said. “We, as supposedly the most privileged in this society, are mutilated as human beings so that we will learn to function within a capitalist system.” As she warmed to the subject, pandemonium broke out in the crowd below her. She plunged on, denouncing a system that views people as “objects and property”—and a cheer went up. She heard shouts: “Take her off the stage and fuck her!” “Take her down a dark alley!” “Take if off!” This was not a burlesque joint, this was the movement she knew and loved. She finished, shaken, and Shulamith Firestone went to the microphone and attacked—not just capitalism, but men, and not just capitalist men, but the men in front of her, “revolutionary” men. “Let’s start talking about where you live, baby, “ she roared, to boos, “and wonder whether…capitalism and all those other isms don’t just begin at home…Because we women often have to wonder if you mean what you say about revolution or whether you just want more power for yourselves.”

    Firestone soon followed with a letter to the Guardian:

    “We say to the left: in this past decade you have failed to live up to your rhetoric of revolution. You have not reached the people. And we won’t hitch ourselves to your poor donkey. There are millions of women out there desperate enough to rise. Women’s liberation is dynamite. And we have more important things to do than to try to get you to come around. You will come around when you have to, because you need us more than we need you… Fuck off, left. You can examine your navel by yourself from now on. We’re starting our own movement.”

    The failure of the uprisings of the sixties and seventies was blamed on women because they started demanding a voice and participation in decision-making. As soon as they withdrew their support services/scut work (the usual: Feeding the boys, making the coffee, fucking them on demand, cranking out the paperwork, breaking out the pom poms, etc.) the boys’ fee fees got hurt, they started shoving porn down our throats (you mean Linda Lovelace’s clitoris wasn’t really in her throat?) and gazing at their navels.

    They didn’t want to compete with women they realized were smarter than them, that were the authentic radicals, so went off and married “girls” just like the “girls” that married dear ol’ dad that they wouldn’t have to compete with (see The Heidi Chronicles); “girls” who pragmatically understood that if they didn’t want to live their lives in poverty they had to bag a man by hiding their light under a bushel (read Dworkin’s book “Right Wing Women”).

  18. Mar Iguana Says:

    Sorry, I don’t mean to be hogging the comments here, but I just found this out:

    “Juliet came out as transgender in 2015. She and her family have filed a lawsuit against their suburban Pittsburgh school district over her right to use women’s bathrooms. Jackie and Juliet attend Pine-Richland High School in Gibsonia, PA.”

    Juliet is the “sister” of Jackie Evanchos, just about the only talent willing to perform at Little Donny’s inauguration. And, he is just lovely.


  19. Gallus, I’ve been thinking about this for awhile, and the more I think about it, the more I oppose what WOLF has done. The video is posted on the Family Policy Alliance’s website. They are anti-abortion and are against same sex marriage. Principles and credibility matter, and I don’t want this to tarnish WOLF’s credibility. I’m not a member of WOLF, but I’ve been following what they have done. There was never an “alliance” between WOLF and the Family Policy Alliance. Title IX is worth saving, and everyone knows that “sex” is not the same as gender identity.

    @NYCAlison, I agree that what passes as “left” now is not the traditional left. When we dig beneath the surface, most of the “left” are post modern neoliberal corporate whores.

    “But if you mean left as it’s defined globally, I don’t. Leftists in the U.S. are so few and far between that we don’t have any political clout–this has always been true and is entirely intentional. The media, government, and corporations have been colluding for decades to make it so, in fact, and will not hesitate to have any Lefist “removed” (as in, disappeared, shot dead, or committed to the psychiatric system for life) if they think it expedient to their cause to do so.

    @NYCAlison, I agree.

    “Self-described leftists/socialist feminists endorse a full economic safety net, a living wage for all that’s paid by the owning class, immediate signing of the Equal Rights Amendment into law, and total bodily autonomy with no exceptions for ALL girls and women. All of these positions, should they become the status quo, would instantly benefit women, and benefit us far moreso than men.”

  20. Gallus, I don’t know where to put this link, but several sources say that Jenner will be at Trump’s inauguration. Jenner has always been a rich, white Republican who supported Reagan when Republicans were making cuts to AIDs funding.



    Jenner, father of 6 kids by 3 different wives, said on Ellen, that he was a traditionalist and couldn’t understand same sex marriage, and then he sort of, kind of, did a half ass back peddle on that one in an attempt to make him not look like a homophobic ‘traditionalist” straight dude. He made it clear in his Dianne Sawyer interview that he wasn’t gay.

    According to Jenner, Trump “would be very good for women’s issues”.

    What do you think of Donald Trump?” Chandi Moore asks Caitlyn in the exclusive clip above.

    “Um, I’m not a big fan because I think of his macho attitude,” Caitlyn explains. “I think he would have a hard time with women when he doesn’t even realize it, and it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be good for women’s issues, I think he would be very good for women’s issues.”


  21. Elisabeth Brook Says:

    Mr Jenner was always lacking in smarts. So. now he wears lots of make-up and is delusional. So what. Why should we listen to this guy?

  22. MaryMacha Says:

    I predict this will be a short-lived honeymoon. We should dread the day the Right realizes it has more in common with trans ideology than it does with any type of feminism or than it has differences. Two groups that love gender and sex stereotypes as much as these do will sooner or later find commonality. Just like the Iranian state that is happy to provide medical intervention rather than suffer people who will not conform to their box-assigned-at-birth and who would probably grow up to be gay or lesbian. Eventually the Xtians will reach the sameogicalEventually the Xtians will reach the same conclusion.

    Really, who cares what a man calls himself or how he dresses as long as he’s doing his part oppressing women for the patriarchy. Men have always infiltrated and undermined women’s unity. MTTs are like the radical, outlier fringe-wing that does recognizance and sabotage for the greater glory of the Y chromosome team. Never has an “oppressed” group had so much support from both those they seek to subsume and those they purport to repudiate.

    • Cassandra Says:

      Very eloquent.

      I’m trying to be positive about it but I do despair about how much is at stake and how poorly things seem to be going for women and girls; attacked from all sides.

    • Mar Iguana Says:

      Politics make strange bedfellows. Men have long formed alliances to achieve common goals despite their differences. And, it is radfems opposing the m2t scam, not just any type of feminism.

      Iran does not just happily provide medical intervention. Homosexuals and trans alike undergo the surgery or they are executed. In the US, m2ts can say they are really female just because of their sacred fee fees, no surgery required.

      When it comes to women, the only disagreement the Right and the Left has is whether we are public or private property. M2ts may have a conservative bent, but the Right does not want their private property exposed to m2t’s viewing pleasure, quest for validation and wagging of their lady peens in their women’s private spaces.

      I don’t foresee the Right aligning with the Left when it comes to m2ts. That would threaten their male protection racket (MPR). The Left’s support of m2ts stems from their obsession to have sexual access to female bodies by any means necessary, including erasure, and it doesn’t threaten their version of the MPR which, unlike the Right’s, provides no social safety net for women.

    • sellmaeth Says:

      I hope that WOLF allying with the conservatives will help the conservative women realize who is really on their side, and make it clear to conservative men that they will lose women’s support if they ally with the trans.

      The Christian fundamentalist approach to oppressing women is only supported by women because women think they get something out of it. Like, protection from sexual violence. They are under the illusion that if they are good girls, they will not be raped.

      If the men chose to support MtT in women’s spaces, that illusion would go out of the window.

      Also, I don’t think conservative men want to “share” “their” women with the MtT who wave their penises around in the women’s changing room. If all MtT underwent surgery, that might be different, but as that’s not the case …

  23. Meg Says:

    I understand why, but I’m still disappointed.

    I’m disappointed that the Left keeps pushing feminists into these alliances. This isn’t the first time it’s happened. Remember Andrea Dworkin had to work with Republicans to get anti-pornography laws passed. If the Left ever cared about women, they wouldn’t have let these things happen in the first place.

  24. Medi Says:

    The left has never been a friend to radical lesbian feminists, to feminists who oppose porn and prostitution, and now the transing of youth. The left which is about men, by for and about men needs to just get out of the way. Women everywhere have more in common with each other than with any man right or left wing.

    Focus on making connections with women who oppose the trans invasion of women’s privacy!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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: