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.
January 6, 2016
Woman: deeply felt personal identification lacking any specific definable characteristics
Lesbian: homosexual female, or, heterosexual male femulator, or, femulating male who partners with other femulating males in homosexual male relationships.
Female: Egg producing member of sexually dimorphic species, or, a feeling some men have which lacks any specific characteristics.
Heterosexual: opposite-sex relations, or, same-sex relations in which one partner has a deeply felt psychological belief that they produce gametes of the other sex.
Gender: comprised of three parts-
Gender Identity: Mental Reproductive Biology, Brain Sex, Human psychological perception of reproductive gamete production independent of actual biology. Coexists with, but overrides perception of actual reproductive biology. When incongruent to sexual organs, compels urgent need to change social recognition of reproductive capacity for unknown reasons, unrelated to social sex roles, this imperative manifests with Extreme body modifications, Violence towards others, Self-harm.
Gender Roles: A sex-based system of social order designed to maintain female (offspring bearing) subordination to male (non-gestating) control via ritualized behaviors of submission for females (femininity) versus domination behaviors for males (masculinity). Or, a menu of empowering choices accessible through body modifications, threats of violence, and threats of self harm.
Gender Expression: Personality, recast through the lens of sex stereotypes as male or female traits.
Transfeminism: Feminism that “crosses over” into its opposite; Anti-feminism.
Transfemininity: Aggressive masculinity.
December 29, 2015
The latest in the ongoing saga of the contentious new transgender student policy at the Virginia district. This is actually pretty funny. Apparently the district never defined the newly protected category of “Gender Identity” but they did warn students in the Student Handbook that they will be suspended if they discriminate against it. The suit, filed December 21 by district resident Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition hinges on that fact, and also that the state has a legal principal, “Dillion’s Rule” that prohibits municipalities from creating their own protected classes.
The LOLsuit’s plaintiffs are Lafferty, Fairfax County high school student Jack Doe, his parents John and jane Doe, and his friends, also John and Jane Doe. [PDF]
From the complaint:
“68. On May 7, 2015 “gender identity” and “gender expression” were added to the Booklet as grounds for student discipline, but Defendant did not define “gender identity” or “gender expression” anywhere in the Booklet. (Exhibit F).
- Neither “gender identity” nor “gender expression” are defined in the Virginia Constitution or Code of Virginia, including Section 22.1-279.3 which Defendant cites as the authority for drafting and revising the Booklet.
- Jack Doe is particularly distressed about the Board’s decision to add “gender identity” to the non-discrimination policy and to the student code of conduct because “gender identity” is not defined in either the policy or the code, so Jack Doe has no idea what words or conduct might be interpreted as discriminating on the basis of “gender identity,” and therefore does not know what speech or conduct might subject him to discipline, including suspension.
- Jack Doe is distressed about the Board’s decision to add “gender identity” to the non- discrimination policy and student code of conduct because he understands that the decision will mean that the restrooms, locker rooms and other intimate spaces set apart, respectively, for boys and girls, will now be open to students who might have the physical features of one sex but are permitted to use the bathroom of the opposite sex which the student “identifies” as, whatever that means.
- Because the new policy and code of conduct are not sufficiently defined, Jack Doe has no way of knowing whether he can, for example, question someone who appears to be a girl using the boys’ restroom or locker room, refer to someone by a certain pronoun or even compliment someone on his/her attire without being subject to discipline for “discrimination.”
- Jack Doe is nervous about having to think about every statement or action and its potential sexual connotations to third parties before interacting with students and teachers, and the prospect of having to interact in such an uncertain environment creates significant distress to the point that it adversely affects his ability to participate in and benefit from the educational program.
- Jack Doe is terrified of the thought of having to share intimate spaces with students who have the physical features of a girl, seeing such conduct as an invasion of his privacy, invasion of fellow students’ privacy and a violation of the though patterns and understanding about male and female relationships which are part of his cultural values.
- Because of Defendant’s actions, Jack Doe cannot regard school as a safe place where he can learn what he needs to be a productive and well-educated adult without fear of harassment, being charged with harassment, and having his speech and conduct chilled by the fear of reprisals or of discipline for unknowingly violating the ambiguous code of conduct.
- Jack Doe’s ability to fully and freely participate in and benefit from the school’s educational program has been significantly diminished by the Defendant’s actions in adding the undefined terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the non-discrimination policy and student code of conduct.”
December 22, 2015
November 26, 2015