October 26, 2016
Dominic Holden of Buzzfeed has published a blockbuster report outlining the split between top-funded LGBT lobbying groups over their ongoing battle to force women to give up areas segregated by sex for women’s privacy and protection from epidemic male sexual violence against women (changing rooms, showers, locker rooms, restrooms, hospital rooms, homeless shelters, lesbian services, domestic violence refuges, prison cells, etc) in order that men who desire to impose themselves on the women in those spaces would enjoy the right to do so.
Turns out the plan of convincing women and girls that male violation of female privacy is actually a Good Thing hasn’t panned out too well, and women still don’t want strange men exposing their dicks and they still don’t like strange males watching them as they wrestle out of a wet bathing suit in the locker room at the YMCA.
This, even though it’s been explained to them that biological sex doesn’t really exist and that the whole global male targeting of women thing isn’t even a thing. Even though they’ve been educated that women’s fear of creepy dudes doing god knows what fucked up thing is actually a kooky form of silly female hysteria and social panic. Even though they’ve been reassured that no man alive would ever shoulder the humiliation of throwing on a wig just to have a free ticket to get their freak on at women’s expense. Even though it’s been explained to them that some men are really scared of the other men in sex segregated spaces and/or that it really, really hurts men’s feelings that women have a boundary against male entry to spaces where they are pulling their pants down or inserting a tampon. Even though they’ve been let to know that any male who believes himself to have “female feelings” is incapable of, through commission or act of omission, taking any action which is harmful towards a female person and no such act has ever been recorded in the history of humankind. Even though they’ve been told that letting guys expose themselves and allowing them to gaze upon women undressing may be part of their prescribed psychiatric treatment plan for a ‘Gender Identity’ that all women must sacrifice their comfort and privacy in order to participate in implementing. Unless they are heartless, cruel, hysterical, prudish, bigoted, crazy, awful, nasty women. Of course. Women who want countless men to suffer gruesome violent deaths by murder and suicide all caused by their selfishness.
Anyway, the LGBT campaign against women’s right to privacy and safety, funded by millions (billions?) hasn’t worked out after a decade or so. To paraphrase Barney Frank’s cogent observation at the time of the ENDA debacle: women don’t want you to inflict your dicks on them. Crazy, huh guys?
Holden’s Buzzfeed piece exposes the breakdown of the alliance of the former Gay Rights Movement and the Transgender Penis Rights Movement and their frustration over their dual inability to coerce consent from unwilling women.
Tough break guys. Who could have seen it coming.
Well worth a read:
September 14, 2016
For the last six years London’s Science Museum has been indoctrinating children into the false pseudoscience of “Brain Sex” via an exhibit designed by transgender activists called “Boy or Girl?” The exhibit was dually funded by the UK government and drug company GlaxoSmithKlein.
According to the website of transgender lobbying youth group Gendered Intelligence the creation of the exhibit was overseen by Dr. Jay Stewart, whose doctorate was awarded in art by Goldsmiths College. Stewart is a testosterone-injecting woman who identifies as transgender.
From the Gendered Intelligence website:
“Dr. Jay Stewart
Jay is co-founder of Gendered Intelligence and chairs the Board of Directors. Jay carries out and oversees the main activities that take place across the organisation. Recently Jay has lead on the projects: ‘What makes your gender? Hacking into the Science Museum’ – a £10,000 project funded by Heritage Lottery Fund with the Science Museum, London – and ‘GI’s Anatomy: a life drawing project for trans and intersex people’ – a £30,000 project funded by the Welcome Trust carried out in collaboration with Central School of Speech & Drama, London Drawing and the Gender Identity Development Service, Tavistock Clinic, NHS Trust. Jay also delivers much of the youth group sessions and is a mentor.”
The ‘Boy or Girl?’ exhibit at the Science Museum taught visitors falsehoods about the science behind sex-stereotypes, claiming traditions of ‘gender’ which privilege males and subordinate females through social rituals of male domination and female submission are ‘hard wired’ in the brain. The museum also presented displays of pharmacology and sex-based prosthetics (breast implants, silicone penises) to children as examples of medical interventions to help them conform to stereotypes of gender.
Included in the exhibit is a ghastly ‘test’ that children can take to determine if they have ‘Pink’ female brains or ‘Blue’ male brains. You can take the test here:
Feminists have criticized the display for years but recent complaints from the feminist parent’s groups FourthWaveNow and TransgenderTrend have succeeded in raising public awareness widely on the issue.
Today the ScienceMuseum announced it would finally take steps to modify the anti-scientific and offensive exhibit.
Excerpted from the ScienceMuseum blog post “A question of sex, gender and how to keep museums up to date” By Alex Tyrrell | 14 September 2016:
“In the past week many of these questions and challenges have been playing on my mind, following a lively discussion on social media about an exhibit on the science of sex and gender in our Who Am I? gallery, which explores the wealth of scientific ideas that inform our understanding of human identity.
I worked on Who Am I? when it was last refreshed back in 2010 and the aim at the time was to present the cutting-edge scientific knowledge of the day on what makes us us, me me and you you. I headed up a team of researchers (we call them Content Developers) who spent many months scouring scientific journals and interviewing countless inspiring researchers from around the world. We also worked with a vast network of eminent geneticists, neuroscientists, psychologists and other experts to create the gallery.
Scientific accuracy is vital to the Museum – our reputation depends on it – and we put in place rigorous processes to ensure we get things right, from expert advisory boards who look at the broad messages in an exhibition, to subject specialists who are invited to scrutinise every word we write.
It is now six years since Who am I? was updated – and much of the research featured in the gallery is a decade older. The exhibit in the gallery that has recently received attention on Twitter is titled Boy or Girl? It features stories, objects and research including studies into sexual preference and behaviour, tests to see the sex of an unborn baby, and a section looking at gender identity and the evidence for biological differences between the sexes.
The thinking behind Who am I? – and the sex and gender display in particular – was to communicate the latest research clearly and accurately, but we also believe that featuring contributions from other viewpoints and disciplines is essential when examining a question as complex and profoundly personal as ‘who am I?’.
With this in mind, we chose to include work from numerous artists (including, most famously, Antony Gormley’s Iron Baby) and stories from a range of people who are personally involved in the issues covered. In the sections of Who am I? that examine gender and sex, for instance, we collaborated with a transgender person – ‘Alex’ – whose experiences feature in one of the gallery exhibits.
Some of the comments we have received question the accuracy of the science in the exhibition – and the words and images we chose to explain it. Words such as ‘hardwired’, for instance, which feature on several labels, are today especially and understandably controversial when used in combination with ideas like gender.
Other concerns have been raised about an interactive game in the gallery that explores the male and female brain. Specifically, the game presents studies scientists have carried out to investigate if there are small differences on average in the way that men and women complete certain tasks, largely based around the recognition of abstract shapes and patterns. This game – which dates back 16 years to the gallery’s inception – was designed to be tongue in cheek and provocative (think silly voices akin to a Pathé news reel) and visitors are invited to take some of the real tests that scientists used, scoring male or female ‘brain points’ on a ‘sex-o-meter’ that is coloured pink and blue.
As a Museum we always attempt to present ideas in different ways – labels and objects but also games, animations and ‘interactives’ – and in this case the artistic licence taken in the year 2000 to create a provocative exhibit appears outdated. Certainly from preliminary work looking at the latest scientific evidence, the ideas presented are now in question.
Social attitudes also change. We have received responses from visitors who are concerned about how we feature transgender issues, which are now very much more in the public consciousness than they were back in 2010, let alone the year 2000.
The idea of Who am I? was always to raise questions. We present issues in ways that provoke debate, however we would never want to compromise the accuracy of the content on display.
Of course we would like to keep all of our galleries and exhibitions up-to-date, but with many thousands of objects on show and finite resources and time this is not always possible.
However, with an issue of such scientific and cultural importance as this we have decided it is essential that we look again at the exhibit. We are now talking to leading experts in neuroscience and clinical psychology to consider whether the latest scientific evidence warrants making changes to our exhibit.
Science moves fast, and while it isn’t always possible for us to keep up, on some issues it is essential that we quicken our pace to make sure we haven’t been left behind.
Watch this space for further details.”
Read the full post here:
[Actual screencap of Science Museum test administered to youth]
Incredible, must-see footage of this event:
Women attempt a civil dialogue with Transgender Activists over conflicting rights!
Female Erasure : What You Need To Know About Gender Politics’ War on Women, the Female Sex and Human Rights
June 8, 2016
Less than 48 hours since the announcement of the upcoming Female Erasure anthology and the anti-women, anti-lesbian, anti-speech activists are already swarming with efforts to stop its publication.
The book, to be published by Tidal Time Publishing under editor Ruth Barrett, features a forward by Germaine Greer and the writings of fifty women from various perspectives and backgrounds. The volume should serve as a wonderful primer for anyone interested in the conflict between women and “gender”.
Needless to say, the individuals who are invested in forcibly imposing “gender” on women and girls -wish to censor female speech about the worldwide, violent, reproductive sex-based oppression of women and girls which transcends all cultures and eras.
Anti-feminist and anti-gay activists -mainly of the transgender variety- are already waging a campaign of harassment against the editor, the contributors, and the fundraising website being used to crowdfund the project.
Regular GenderTrender readers know that it is a rare occasion indeed that I request readers and supporters to take a particular action. I figure readers are grown-ups who can make up their own damn minds about any action they want or need to take, without me nudging them. Same with the editorial content. I present information, people can take it or leave it. I’ve never promoted my work, and I’ve never tried to censor sites with opposing views.
I am making an exception in this case. Please donate to the fundraiser for this book, and also publicize it using your blog, personal contacts or social media. If you can spare ten bucks or more, please kick it in the pot. Whether you are gay or straight, black or white, female or male, left wing or right wing, anti-gender or trans, please support the free speech of feminists critical of “gender” (and free speech in general). Thank you.
A personal note about myself. Which is even more rare than a nudge to take action on this site. I am in this book. Specifically, my book review of convicted murderer Robert Kosilek’s “memoir”, a piece I am incredibly proud of and exemplifies the best of GenderTrender in my opinion. I can’t tell you how incredibly proud I am to be published alongside Germaine Greer! Sheila Jeffreys! Elizabeth Hungerford! Lierre Keith! Julia Long! and the rest- too many fabulous names to list here. This is a really big deal to me- one of the proudest moments of my life!
Please make it happen. You can do so here:
ANTIOCH COLLEGE STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO ANTIOCH REVIEW ESSAY, “THE SACRED ANDROGEN: THE TRANSGENDER DEBATE” BY DANIEL HARRIS
May 5, 2016
Full article: http://review.antiochcollege.org/sacred-androgen-transgender-debate-daniel-harris Daniel Harris’s essay will be reposted on GenderTrender in full if it is censored.
It has come to our attention that an article published in the Winter 2016 issue of The Antioch Review is stirring debate in our campus and alumni communities and within the broader transgender community. Daniel Harris’ views are his own, and based on the response of some readers, are deeply offensive to many transgender individuals and supporters. Antioch College does not condone or always agree with the ideas and viewpoints expressed in the Review. We do, however, have confidence in the Review’s editor and editorial process, and support a key Antiochian value—the free expression of ideas and opinions, even when they run counter to our own. As a college, we encourage our students, faculty, and the broader community to engage in critical thought and dialogue around important issues, including this one. We believe commitments to the ideals of free expression and support for LGBTQ human and civil rights are not…
View original post 6 more words
March 28, 2016
“As the person who made this policy change happen before I hit peak trans I know first hand that it will be horrible for womyn”, says Sarah Fraas, the student leader of the Smith College campaign which forced the historic women-only college to admit males who “identify as” female.
Fraas created the “Trans Women Belong Here” group and ran their “Smith Q&A” website and twitter account. She organized the public protests, and hand-lettered the signs for the attendees herself. “Look at me on the far left before I woke up/shaved my head. So surreal to see my handwriting on all of these stupid signs” she says in hindsight in a recent post on her new blog.
The “Transwomen at Smith Q&A” Facebook page, modeled after Sarah Fraas’s website but apparently managed by another student who still supports men at the school, posted an advisory on December 17:
“Dear Q & A supporters
It has come to our attention within the past few hours that both our tumblr (formerly smith-q-and-a.tumblr.com) and twitter (@transwomenatsc) have been edited by an outside source to reflect trans exclusionary and transmisogynist views that this organization does not hold, and actively opposes.
We have confirmed that these pages have been accessed by someone who used to be involved in our organization. This person has changed the passwords and these outlets are no longer affiliated with Q&A.
You can access a preserved copy of our tumblr here: https://web.archive.org/…/…/http://smith-q-and-a.tumblr.com/ If anyone with web expertise knows something about transferring this data to a freestanding, new tumblr, please get in touch (though it is finals- we will do our best to respond). We do not recommend accessing these former accounts.”
Sarah Fraas’s original campaign was sparked by an autogynephile Connecticut male high school student named Calliope Wong who demanded the right to force women to play along with his sexual fantasy that he is female. Wong has since declined admission to Smith and now runs a loony blog where he repetitively posts demands for an honorary degree from the women’s college for hurting his feelings juxtaposed with pleas for his various GoFundMe campaigns:
“Now, I get that I’m 20 and that most Honorary Degrees are conferred upon people who’ve done decades of work in their respective fields. But trans women facing these compounded forms of violence, in general we don’t have a record of living very long or with very high standards of living. There are few remaining trans elders beyond the age of 40, as it is. We must account for why.
This is why I think we should make this plan happen.
Please share this plan with Smith College, Mount Holyoke College, Mills College, Wellesley College, Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, and other women’s college alum and current students.
Let’s discuss strategy.”
Not only did Sarah Fraas Spend three (very expensive!) years at Smith spearheading Wong’s womanhood project- she went that extra distance and targeted Lesbian Feminists and gender critical women who published opinions which contradicted his. She obsessively stalked women who disagreed online and tracked down their personal information, including their employers, whom she then contacted, over and over, sending them falsified claims of wrongdoing in ghastly letters, like a crazy person, and she used the upper class cache of the Smith College reputation to do so. For three years.
Now, she says “radical feminism saved my life”. Male individuals are no longer female, and that “ I may also write about going down the male-approval trans BS “transwomen deserve to be in women’s spaces” rabbithole thing at some point…”
O-kay. That totally fucked up -arguably criminal- “thing” she did for three years might someday be redressed.
No urgency there. No apparent obligation to undo what she has done. No dashing off apologetic letters to women’s employers. No consciousness of harm done by her real-life stalking of regular working women she disagreed with. No apology to lesbians. No campaign- or even a note- sent to the Smith College board that she lobbied passionately and urgently for years on Mr. Wong’s behalf. She still cites her trans social justice award nomination on her LinkedIn. But hey. She might write about that whole male-approval “rabbithole thing” that she did. At some point. Maybe.