https://fairplayforwomen.com

Hai! When you see me wearing a bow on my head- like so many top female business executives do- it means I’m a woman!

The Financial Times released its list of the Top 100 Female Business Executives of 2018 and awarded spot number 32 to the decidedly male alter-ego and crossdressing persona of transvestite Philip Bunce. 

So proud! Diversity! Humbled! Equality for sexually-harassing male kinksters oppressed in the workplace by the presence of women!

Philip Bunce is (what else?) a wealthy and powerful white heterosexual man, who abuses his position by showing up to his job as Director of Credit Suisse Financial Services dressed a few days a week in a ghastly stereotype of “womanhood” and sexually harassing his employees by forcing them to address him as “Pippa” or “Pips” on the days when he is “in role”.

He’s such a pip as a laydee! Intersectionality!

Philip’s Twitter profile lists him as a “Proud Father, Lucky Husband, Gender Fluid, Credit Suisse Director, Proud LGBT Ally”. He doesn’t even identify as a “transwoman”. Yet the Financial Times equates Philip’s activities on those days when he dresses as an awful caricature in woman-face with the genuine experiences of actual women striving against all odds to succeed in business dominated by such men. It takes a real man only two days a week for his lipstick wearing alter-ego to become the 32nd top female business executive in the world apparently.

Straight male. #32 Female Business Executive Worldwide according to Financial Times list.

The Financial Times not only approves of Philip Bunce sexually harassing his employees by forcing them to participate under duress with his sexual kink in the workplace, they saw fit to eliminate an unnamed actual female executive from their list in preference of his sexist pantomime, which the Financial Times regards as on par with actual female executives.

No single woman on the Financial Times list of the Top Female Business Executives – or any other woman in any global work situation of any type (excepting prostitution or stripping) would be taken seriously while wearing the hideous mini-skirts, grotesquely drawn on eyebrows, and literal bow-on-the-head (seriously? a fucking bow on the head?) atop trashy wig that Philip Bunce dons to express his perspective on what he believes women are.

He’s a business laydee!

According to the Financial Times (and editor Lionel Barber) female business executives should be taken as seriously, and accorded the same respect, as a sexually-harassing male executive kinkster’s skanky disgusting sexist part-time transvestite alter-ego.

Philip Bunce, in proudly accepting his male place at number 32 on the Financial Times list of Top Female Executives took the opportunity to take a swipe at (who else?) feminists, i.e.. “TERFS”.

BBC- Transgender Prisoners

September 11, 2018

 

More:

http://transcrimeuk.com/2018/07/17/karen-white/

Headline at The Times UK

Very interesting article today in The Times UK regarding Mark Hellen of Goldsmith’s University.

From The Times:

 

“Trans Goldsmiths lecturer Natacha Kennedy behind smear campaign against academics

Lucy Bannerman

September 8 2018, 12:01am,

The Times

Natacha Kennedy asked people to list academics deemed to be transphobic

A transgender lecturer orchestrated a smear campaign against academics across the UK in which universities were described as dangerous and accused of “hate crime” if they refused to accept activists’ views that biological males can be women, it can be revealed.

Natacha Kennedy, a researcher at Goldsmiths University of London who is also understood to work there under the name Mark Hellen, faces accusations of a “ludicrous” assault on academic freedom after she invited thousands of members of a closed Facebook group to draw up and circulate a list shaming academics who disagreed with campaigners’ theories on gender.

The online forum, seen by The Times, also revealed that members plotted to accuse non-compliant professors of hate crime to try to have them ousted from their jobs. Reading, Sussex, Bristol, Warwick and Oxford universities were among those deemed to have “unsafe” departments because they employed academics who had publicly disputed the belief that “transwomen are women” or questioned the potential impact of proposed changes to gender laws on women and children.

Ms Kennedy said that the list was necessary so students could avoid accepting a place on a “dangerous” course.

Aimee Challenor, the former Green Party candidate who used her father as her election agent even though he was facing charges of raping and torturing a ten-year-old girl, for which he was later jailed, was among those who responded to Ms Kennedy’s post of August 14 to the Trans Rights UK Facebook group, with suggestions of who to blacklist. All the named academics were women.

Members of the group claimed that the philosophy department of the University of Sussex was “clearly an unsafe environment” because of the presence of Kathleen Stock, a professor who has argued against redefining the category of woman and lesbian to include men.

“File a hate crime report against her, and then the chairman and vice-chair,” advised one. “Drag them over the f***ing coals.”

Rosa Freedman, an expert in human rights law at the University of Reading, had also upset activists by saying that biological males should not have access to a women’s refuge. One activist said she tried to lodge a complaint but was told that Professor Freedman had a right to free speech. “I’m replying a little more strongly and using the words ‘hate speech’ a few times,” she told the group. Another activist suggested: “Use the words . . . ‘So Reading University supports staff who use hate speech against students?’ ”

Professor Freedman told The Times: “We are talking about the aggressive trolling of women who are experts. I have received penis pictures telling me to ‘suck my girl cock’. This is straight-up, aggressive, anti-woman misogyny. In no way have I made the space unsafe. I find it deeply distressing that an academic would set out to smear my name and impugn my reputation, simply because I put forward a perspective, based on robust and specific evidence, with which they disagree. That is not academia. That is silencing people.

“The idea that writing about women’s rights automatically becomes a hate crime in some people’s eyes is ludicrous. All it has done has made me more determined to write about this, in a respectful way that allows other perspectives to come through, and not just the views of those who shout the loudest.”

Professor Stock said: “What would make a philosophy department unsafe is if its academics weren’t allowed to challenge currently popular beliefs or ideologies for fear of offending. Deliberately plotting to have my department lose students, or to have me dismissed, through covert means, is surprising behaviour from a fellow academic.” Both professors praised the support that they had received from their universities.

Last month Brown University, the Ivy League institution in Rhode Island, was accused of cowardice by leading academics in the US after it caved into pressure on social media to pull a piece of research from its website that had concluded that social contagion could be a reason why clusters of young people were identifying as trans.

Professor Stock said: “It is head-scratchingly bizarre how so many public organisations, many of them ostensibly progressive, have capitulated to passive-aggressive, emotionally blackmailing, and sometimes even outright threatening behaviour from trans activists, often online.”

One member of the Facebook group, Sahra Rae Taylor, stood by her contribution to the list. She said: “That way we can advise people applying that ‘if you want to study law, then don’t go to these places’. Which would allow them at least to avoid being taught (and marked, and under the influence in some way) by a transphobic douchebag.”

Ms Kennedy, who describes herself on Facebook as a “stroppy, bolshie transgirl with attitude who hates the Tories with a passion”, refused to comment. She represented Goldsmiths during trans awareness week in February.

It confirmed that she was an employee but would not explain which department she worked in or why she appeared to be listed twice in the staff directory: once as Mark Hellen, in the department of educational studies, and secondly as Natacha Kennedy, who is named in equality and diversity reports. Both profiles appear to be active.

It also remained unclear why an academic paper on Ms Kennedy’s specialist subject of transgenderism in children, published by the Graduate Journal of Social Sciences in 2010, cited two co-authors: Natacha Kennedy and Mark Hellen.

Read more from The Times report by clicking HERE.

Natacha Kennedy is well known to GenderTrender readers as Mark Hellen.

Mark presents himself professionally as a married heterosexual white male academic but prefers to pretend online to be a terrifically oppressed “transwoman” named Natacha Kennedy.

Goldsmith’s Mark Hellen and his alter Natacha Kennedy

Mark’s alternate Linkedin persona.

Goldsmith’s College is so invested in Mark’s dual identities that they knowingly misrepresent him professionally both as himself and also as an entirely different fictional person named Natacha Kennedy.

Mark Hellen is a failed-to-complete Phd candidate who pretends to collaborate with another academic failure, who is actually himself, wearing an ill-advised wig, as crossdresser Natacha Kennedy. He literally cosigns his professional work as a collaboration between two people: himself and his alter ego.

This results in many humorous circumstances, such as the time The Daily Nous cited discrepancies between the work of Mark Hellen and that of his fictional yet equally inept alter ego, Natacha Kennedy:

The Daily Kos humorously cites discrepancies between the research of Mark Hellen and his equally inadequate alter ego.

Goldsmith’s Mark Hellen’s interests largely pivot upon three axis:

Number one: Transvestitism.

“Going Girlie”

Number Two: Outrageous conspiracy theories about his feminist enemies.

I’ll just leave this here…

and Number Three- his keen interest in children.

Mark Hellen first tried to establish a transgender children community, called, creatively, “Transkids”.

Mark tried to establish a transgender children charity.

When the TransKids project failed, Mark Hellen used his Goldsmith’s credentials to attempt to recruit child “research subjects” into meeting with him, using his Natacha Kennedy persona:

Call for youth

Questions will vary. Just really interested in you. I’ll pay.

It would take the internet 24 years at full speed to unlock whatever Mark Hellen does with the kids he recruits. So no worries. *cough*

..

 

#StickerWoman 2018. Original work.

UK- Merseyside Police launched an investigation into the activities of #StickerWoman after tip-offs* by women with penises.

#StickerWoman is an anonymous artist (like Banksy, without the establishment acclaim and institutional support) who travels throughout England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and the western and central United States (Chicago, Seattle, Portland) placing stickers in public spaces.

#StickerWoman is rumored to be an unsexy, misandrist hag, (possibly lesbian), and is either a washed-up old crone or a young woman who hasn’t yet learned the lessons of life, according to reports. She may have a visible wart or mole on her person.

#StickerWoman drew the ire of authorities after posting stickers stating “Women Don’t Have Penises”. This was deemed a hate crime against people with penises, who reserve the sole legal right to define what women are. Previous controversial campaigns by #StickerWoman insinuated that prostitution is not a rewarding career trajectory for people with vaginas**.

Smithfield Meat Market. London.

Baby changing station. Worcestershire.

British Transport. UK.

ATM. Scotland.

TopShop window. UK.

Stonewall UK Headquarters. London.

EnGender Headquarters. Edinburgh.

Weston beach, UK

International skies. Location unknown.

#StickerWoman or suspected copycat? London.

 

Will #StickerWoman evade the manhunt? GenderTrender will follow her story closely.

 

Template reportedly used by #stickerwoman to print stickers.

 

[*no pun intended]

[**formerly referred to as women and girls]

The legendary Sheila Jeffreys. 2018. (photo: Venice Allan)

 

Men’s cross-dressing and feminism now and then

 by Sheila Jeffreys

My new book on the history of lesbian feminism, The Lesbian Revolution: lesbian feminism in the UK 1970-1990, is published on 22 August. It documents the breadth and scope of the lesbian feminist culture, theory, practice and community that we created and shows how this has all been disappeared from history. It demonstrates many differences between the historical context at that time and that of today in which a new generation of lesbians are striving to recreate a lesbian feminist movement. One difference is the existence today of an influential men’s cross-dressing rights movement which enforces men’s access to lesbians wherever we seek to meet or network. Back in the 1970s there were men who cross-dressed and tried to enter lesbian spaces, but these were very few in number. They were isolated individuals such as the man who attended the 1973 West Coast Lesbian Conference in Los Angeles and created hugely damaging divisions. Robin Morgan gave a speech against what she called ‘the obscenity of male transvestism’ at the conference in honour of his presence. In London too, there were just one or two of these men who sought to enter women’s spaces and they were overwhelmingly opposed. The term ‘transgender’ had not been adopted at the time. These men were called transvestites or cross-dressers if they did not have penectomies and transsexuals if they did.

They were unable to divert or prevent lesbian organising at that time not just because there were only one or two, but because they did not have a political movement or ideology to support them. It was not until the 1990s that some male cross-dressers were able to use the Internet to organise internationally and create a unified set of political demands for the right to act out their proclivities in public, under the rubric of ‘gender identity’ or ‘gender expression’. Today gay rights organisations, governments, the UN, political parties, education and medical systems support these men’s rights. The queer ideology which supports them has been taught to generations of young people in universities so that they now assemble to chant and jostle at any feminist meetings they have not been able to get cancelled. This is a very different context in which to recreate lesbian feminism.

In the 1970s cross-dressing was an entirely male and adult hobby. None of us (lesbian feminists) knew of any lesbians who were taking hormones or embarking on surgery to impersonate men. Children were not being transgendered at all. Rather than this behaviour being supported by a global ideology, as it is now, which argues that gender is essential and everybody has to have one and get medical treatment if theirs goes astray, the problem was limited to the weird antics of a few men. Knowing this history is important because it undermines the notion that transgenderism is something essential rather than a very recent political and historical construction. At that time, feminist organising was overwhelmingly and uncontroversially women only. In London, lesbians and feminists opposed the entry of cross-dressing men to women’s discos, meetings, marches and conferences on the straightforward grounds that they were clearly men.

My new book is based upon archive research into newsletters and documents from the 1970s and 1980s and from interviews with 12 lesbian feminists who were active in the movement. It covers the origins of lesbian feminism, lesbian culture, lesbian feminist theory, the critique of heterosexuality, and the forces which contributed to the demise such as sadomasochism, the revival of butch/femme roleplaying, identity politics and the Thatcher government of the 1980s which forbade the ‘promotion of homosexuality’ and transformed the political climate. The clarity with which men’s cross-dressing was understood at the time to be specifically a men’s rights issue, is startling, considering the extent to which transgender ideology has affected popular understandings today. The following extract from my chapter on separatism in The Lesbian Revolution illustrates the determination and strength of feeling that existed in the lesbian feminist movement on the incursion of cross-dressing men into women’s and lesbian spaces:

 

Cross-dressers mostly still kept their proclivities secret and they were not claiming to be women or lesbians. Also, the feminist politics of the time was strong. The very basis of the WLM was a belief in the importance and strength of womanhood, which was based on women’s biology and honed through growing up to face oppression as a girl and as a woman. There was an overwhelming sense, at least as revealed in the London Women’s Liberation newsletter in the late 1970s, that the handful of male interlopers who sought to gain entry to women’s discos could never be women and should be determinedly excluded.

The lesbian feminist, Maria Katyachild, for instance, wrote in the LWLN in 1979 that a male cross-dresser claiming to be a woman had attended a women’s disco,

On Saturday night a formerly accepted ‘womin’ confessed… to being a transsexual (male-to-constructed female) – i.e. a man who has had his prick cut off!… I personally am not a humanitarian, I am a feminist, there’s a difference! … It is a totally political issue…. which must …be worked out once and for all (LWLN 104, 1979, 24 January).

In the next newsletter, Pauline Long, later known as Asphodel, wrote in support of Maria, ‘And all of us say NO. Putting on skirts and make-up, even having “the” operation doesn’t turn a man into a woman. What makes us women is the put-down since birth’ (LWLN 105, 1979, 31 January). She expressed herself with much feeling, saying, ‘I am born a woman, and I reflect the pain that millions of women as well as myself have borne. I will not be put down by this new kind of person…. He does not and cannot feel it. He invades the Women’s mysteries. He degrades us’. Like other feminists at the time who sought to protect their women-only spaces, she exhorts these men to form their own groups to further their own interests. They should not ‘muscle in on us’. She says, ‘Do not divide us…  Transsexual infiltration of our groups is just one more male ploy to get us down’ (Ibid). My interviewee, Sandra McNeill, wrote a piece in the newsletter at this time entitled ‘Transsexuals and the Women’s Liberation Movement’ in which she rejects the idea that such men should be admitted to women’s spaces in no uncertain terms. She writes,

The issue is men.…. Whether there is a place for men in the Women’s Liberation Movement.…. it is an insult, an insult greater than a white choosing to wear blackface, an insult greater than a member of the middle-class choosing to drop out and not use their money or education to call themselves working class, an insult to the suffering and oppression of all women for these ex oppressors to claim to be women. To accept male-to-constructed female transsexuals as women is to allow men to reassert their control over women (LWLN 106, 1979, 8 February).

Lesbian feminist theory on transsexualism was honed by the first feminist book on the subject, which was published later in the same year, The Transsexual Empire, by the American lesbian feminist philosopher Janice G. Raymond (Raymond, 1994 1st published 1979). The issue of the right of men who cross-dress to enter women’s spaces continued to be the subject of passionate commentary in the Newsletter. On July 25, 1979 there was a one-day workshop on “Transsexuals – Men or Women” at the London women’s centre, A Woman’s Place (AWP). The policy of AWP was not to allow transsexuals to have access. The report back said that there were 25 women present and transsexuals were excluded (LWLN 131, 1979, 8 August). The majority of those at the meeting was firmly against the idea that men could become women. Furious discussion continued in the Newsletter.

In August, Mary Stott, feminist journalist, first and longest serving editor of the Guardian Women’s Page, set up in 1956, and later a Chair of the Fawcett Society and one of its original trustees, wrote a piece arguing that transsexuals should be in the WLM (LWLN, 134, 1979, 29 August). Stott’s views were those of an older generation of feminists whose politics were very different from the radical and lesbian feminists of the WLM. The historian June Purvis describes her as a ‘liberal feminist’ (Purvis, 2002). I joined in the discussion in October, stating that whether these men thought they were ‘women, ducks or Boeing 707s’ they were actually simply men and had no place in the WLM (LWLN 141, 1979, 17 October). The vast majority of the opinions in the Newsletter rejected the idea that these men should be admitted. The issue continued to be important, such that adverts for events in succeeding years specifically stated that they excluded transsexuals. The National Lesbian Conference, for instance, in January 1981, stated that they would not admit them (LWLN 199, 1981,18 January). This degree of unanimity is hard to imagine today, when a powerful movement of transgender activists has, in the absence of a strong feminist movement, made strides towards the inclusion of male cross-dressers not just in women’s meetings, but in women’s toilets, prisons, refuges and sport (Jeffreys, 2014).

https://www.routledge.com/The-Lesbian-Revolution-Lesbian-Feminism-in-the-UK-1970-1990/Jeffreys/p/book/9781138096578

[Bolding, images, added by me- GM]

 

More coverage here:

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2018/07/08/lesbians-protest-erasure-at-london-pride-march-by-halting-then-leading-the-parade/