“You are NOT alone. Aside from some of the wonderful women here, this happened to my MIL. Luckily none of the children in that case were young, but it still caused serious problems for them–it was so devastating to his son that he moved to another country. My ex-stepFIL–who now is “a woman,” although he looks, talks, and behaves exactly like a man–barely has a relationship with his children anymore. He’s rarely permitted to see his biological grandchildren, and then only with supervision. (We allow him to see our daughters, but with the caveat that he is NOT to “present” as anything but male around them. We do not call him by his ridiculous tranny name and our girls are not even aware that he goes by a different name around other people.)
His health has been seriously damaged, but as others have said, he made/is making his own choice.
Anyway. Like you, my MIL found that there was zero support for her, and everyone, from therapists to online “support” groups, told her she was the one with the problem because she wasn’t thrilled at the idea of sleeping with/being married to a tranny, and didn’t believe that he could actually “become” anything more than a castrato with fake breasts, which is exactly what he is. More than once she ended up in tears because of how she was spoken to and treated by those people, and because they made her feel like SHE was the one at fault, SHE was the one whose behavior was cruel and unforgivable. It’s likely you will run into people who will say the same to you or treat you the same way. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. YOU ARE NOT WRONG TO THINK THIS IS HORRIFYING AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT WRONG TO PROTECT YOUR DAUGHTER IN ANY WAY YOU CAN.
(Sorry for the all-caps, but I feel the above needs an emphasis as strong as I can possibly give it.)
I cannot imagine how difficult this must be for you, having a young child. I am absolutely furious on your and her behalf at the monstrous selfishness and disregard for both of you that this man is displaying.
I really wish I could offer you some real advice or help. All I can tell you is that my MIL wishes very much that she had done several of the following things (this was about fifteen years ago now, and not in the US, and of course every situation is different, but you may want to consider or look into these things, which are of course not legal advice and I am not a lawyer):
February 21, 2015
Germaine Greer to women at Cambridge Union: “kick ass and take names and talk loud and make a crowd”
January 28, 2015
Iconic feminist Germaine Greer kicked off her UK tour in support of “Disappearing Women” at the Cambridge Union Society this Monday evening past, in what was reported to be a rousing, triumphant success. Attempts by anti-feminist transgender activists to have her speech censored failed, potential threats by males who believe they are female were ameliorated by frisking attendees at the doors, and she spoke to a packed house.
From the Cambridge Varsity:
“Despite the queue created by the heightened security measures, the atmosphere of the crowd was eager but not angry – there were few signs of protest except for a few LGBT+ representatives handing out leaflets at the door. They declined to comment on their decision to boycott the event, and there was little of the sense of outrage that had characterised the statements of the LGBT+ community.
Greer was uncompromising in her rhetoric, condemning from the beginning of her speech the “pressure on women to be clean, sweet, perfumed and submissive” and later suggested that trans women do not know what it is to “have a big, hairy, smelly vagina”. Greer was robust in her championing of the woman as an autonomous person and was anxious not to be diverted into what she described as “side issues”.
Witty and acerbic, Greer had the audience laughing throughout; describing the Sun website as a “fantasmagoria of nipples” whilst simultaneously speaking passionately and intensely about her notion of “the disappearing woman”.
She cited examples of cases in which women are judged but go unheard, condemning the fact that “nobody bothers to investigate” the perspective of women such as Amanda Hutton, who was widely reviled in the media. Her championing of sexual liberation and power for women was clear as she invited her audience to “kick ass and take names and talk loud and make a crowd”.
In the wake of the LGBT+ Cambridge campaign and its recent domination of student media, audience members were relentless in their questioning of Greer on her exclusion of transgender women from her feminist ideas. Greer remained steadfast in her stipulation that her feminism was about women and appeared visibly angered by the fact that discussion lingered upon what she clearly felt to be a side issue: “I’ve got 51 per cent of the world to think about and I’ve got to talk about transphobia”.
When a student quoted her own words back to her she did not compromise her previous position and repeated the word “delusion” to describe the wish of men to become women, causing a stir amongst the audience with her antipathy towards any presentation of men in drag: “I hate Mrs Brown”.
However, such discussion was secondary to Greer’s address of the body image problems of the 21st century. She explicitly stated that it remained the obligation of feminists to rage against the pressure on women to “have a baby and then go back to looking like a 12 year old boy ten days later”.
Strident and controversial as ever – describing Harriet Harman as “not smart enough” and referring to The Guardian Newspaper as “the fucking Guardian” – Greer seemed piqued but unfazed by the opposition of students to her speech because of her transgender views.
Her message to students was clear and impassioned. “We need to recognise women as human beings,” she said, and demanded of her female audience that they “toughen up; be more difficult. Be braver.”
A small “boycott” event was held in response in a classroom elsewhere by anti-feminist transgenderists. Organized by Em Travis, a feminine young woman who identifies as “internally non-binary transgender” the protest event featured two male transsexuals who campaign against feminism and lesbian rights. The first, Andrew “Roz” Kaveney, is best known as the founder of “Feminists Against Censorship”, a deceptively named organization whose purpose is to protect and promote the “rights” of transwomen and other males to consume what is defined in the UK as “extreme violent pornography”: that which depicts what appear to be “life-threatening or seriously injurious” acts. In Kaveney’s topsy-turvy world, “being female” is a lifestyle choice for men, and “Feminism” is the active promotion of the most violent sexualized acts against women imaginable.
The other middle-aged male selected by transtrender Em Travis to chair her event was Christopher “Aunty Sarah” Brown, an anti-gay activist who was formally protested by women at London’s Dyke March this year.
According to the Varsity, Greer’s brash and humorous tone was not duplicated at the protest event, where: “The [transgender] talk took place in a mindful and open atmosphere created by the strict and very comprehensive guidelines – including the use of verbal trigger warnings when addressing potentially offensive or harmful content – to which all audience members closely adhered.”
Males (both transgender and not) continue to pearl-clutch in the wake of Germaine Greer’s presentation: over her frank speech, but mainly over her lack of capitulation to transgenderism, a view they seemed to desperately want to hear, over and over again. Expect this formula to rinse and repeat as the legendary Woman’s Liberationist continues her appearances on her “Disappearing Women” tour across the UK. Do catch her at an upcoming scheduled event near you!
January 19, 2015
This past November, signs placed in restrooms at the University of Bristol by a group of Trans Activists “came under fire from the feminist community”.
You can read one response to the signs (pictured above) by Glosswitch HERE, where she says:
“Hey, check out this poster from #transawarebristol! Isn’t it inclusive? Isn’t it liberating? Doesn’t it say everything you’d want it to say? No more shall bigoted females take it upon themselves to have opinions about who should share enclosed spaces with them; after all, it’s not up to them! Fuck them and their irrational, hysterical little phobias! Only some people are allowed to feel threatened, or to have an idea about what womanhood means, and it sure as hell isn’t them. Other people know best.
I’ll be honest: I am struggling to see how this type of “don’t worry your pretty little head about this, proto-bigot” approach to gender liberation is of use to anyone. Women don’t worry about personal safety for the fun of it, nor do they seek to set their own boundaries just because they’re stupid and mean. They have fears relating to male bodies that are real and valid, and a sense of self that is as authentic as anyone else’s. Telling them “well, you shouldn’t – other people’s feelings come first” is just misogyny 101.”
University of Bristol women have since taken to replacing the signs with these, in protest:
Men who fancy themselves “transwomen” claim to be mystified as to why females would be concerned about their personal safety sharing areas of public nudity with males.
“Why? I have no idea”, writes John “Jane Fae” Ozimek, a transgender bloke well over six foot two, in an Independent op-ed today.
“I get that there are still debates to be had about gender and sex and biology and genes”, he says with a handwave. But the only answer he, as a male, can imagine is that women must be worried about his “farty sounds”. Whatever women’s concerns are for safety and comfort are of no concern to a male like him. He instructs real women to know their place: “..the user of a loo knows their own gender better than you, and it is not for you to challenge it.”
GenderTrender applauds and encourages this direct action and protest by the women of the University of Bristol against Female Erasing Trans Activism and sexist, patronizing anti-women “transwomen” like “Fae”.
EXCELLENT WORK, women!
December 2, 2014
GLBT and liberal media pundits scrambled today to refute an ad sponsored by the right-wing Child Protection League group, but found themselves unable to produce a single point of contention. The paid ads were published in multiple Minnesota newspapers (Star Tribune, St. Cloud Times, Duluth News Tribune, among others) yesterday and claimed that the proposed transgender policy for student athletes will:
- Allow boys and young men to compete against girls and young women for limited slots on female sports team rosters.
- Allow boys and young men to compete “as females” on girls and young women’s sports teams based on nothing but declared “gender feelings”.
- Allow boys and young men to access girls and young women’s school showers and locker rooms previously sex-segregated to protect the privacy of girls and young women from vulnerability in areas of public nudity.
Unfortunately for transgender advocates, all of the claims in the ads are true. These are exactly the desired effects of the proposed policy. In fact, these are the outcomes the proposed policy is designed to achieve. Multiple liberal news outlets and writers are calling the right-wing ads “misleading” but not a single one has produced a statement outlining why. Because they can’t.
Media Matters calls the ads “misleading” (six times), and “false”, but fails to explain why, instead calling the ads “hurtful” (to the feelings of males), “based in ignorance” (although they don’t explain why), and “fear-based” (of what, they do not say). The total lack of rebuttal is remarkable… unless you read the policy, which actually does allow male students to do all the things the ad states.
OutFront Minnesota, the GLBT lobbying group accuses the ads of “spreading misinformation and fear” but offers no correction or rebuttal (because there isn’t one). Instead they frame the ads as “attacking transgender youth”. Presumably they mean transgender MALE youth, because forcing transgender FEMALES to compete against male-bodied persons -or to choose between their transgender identification and their participation in female sports- is the result of this policy. The policy under debate broadens rights for males only, and decreases the rights of all females, including those who identify as “transgender”.
Pink News, no rebuttal. Because there isn’t one.
The so-called “LGBT Sports Coalition”, a nebulous Nike, Inc. funded organization “composed of thirty organizations and individuals” helmed by transgender “male lesbian” and ESPN reporter Christina (Chris) Kahrl was quoted in the New York Daily News calling the ads “controversial” “hateful” “fear-mongering” and “pushing out false facts” but again failed to present a rebuttal to the accurate claims made in the ad.
You can read some of the disgustingly anti-lesbian and hideously sexist output of the Nike-funded ESPN journalist and “male lesbian” Kahrl’s group here: http://www.outsports.com/2014/11/12/7197635/tina-hillman-shot-put-iowa-state
(Quote: “athletes like Venus and Serena Williams, Brittney Greiner and Layshia Clarendon have blazed their own trails, finding success and stardom by simply expressing themselves and their creativity with every thread of clothing they wear.
Stereotype dictates that shot putters be massive, masculine athletes – something out of a Hans and Frans sketch. The women in the sport are overweight, wear short, “butch” haircuts and have sweatpants permanently attached to their hips.”)
Ugh! Homophobic and sexist! What are you thinking ESPN and Nike?!
NBC Sports writer Aaron Gleeman wrote that the ads were “misleading, bigoted” on Twitter but was unable to articulate why. I asked him myself. Several transgender activists responded that biological sex should be determined by hormone usage, but medication is not a factor, or even mentioned in the proposed juvenile athlete policy. Which I guess means that even transgenders reject this policy. And why would trans activists think it would be a good idea for kids to be pressured to take unnecessary medication as a qualification to play school sports? One transgender activist even tried to convince me that sexually dimorphic reproduction in mammals, including humans, is a myth. Oh my!
Lesbians and Feminists obviously don’t support the anti-gay and anti-woman agenda of the right wing, but we can certainly spot a sexist, lesbophobic policy designed to infringe on the rights of girls and young women when we see one. One designed to erode the rights of female student athletes, including females who “identify as transgender” (Title IX already allows female athletes to compete in male sports if they qualify, regardless of “gender feels”). This policy does nothing but restrict their right to compete.
Lesbians and Feminists and those who support us can also spot the Nike-funded ESPN-style sexism of a policy that limits participation in women’s sports by adherence to what is now apparently about to be state-sanctioned sex stereotypes.
It seems the simple solution – and one that is fair for females as well as males- is to prohibit discrimination against transgender student athletes who wish to compete in sports. That is to say, for example, that males who “identify as” transgender should not be kicked off of the football team because they have long hair or paint their nails or believe that folks have a “mental gender”. Female athletes should not be forced off female teams because they reject the female “sex role”. Not only is that a progressive, feminist view, but it allows all students to compete equally and fairly. Including the female ones.
October 26, 2014
Look at this prick. When you hear about the “transwomen” demanding entry into women’s colleges, this is what they are talking about: