A public debate was scheduled in London between feminists and transgender activists over the conflict of interest between women’s rights and the transgender movement, specifically the impact of proposed changes to the UK Gender Recognition Act. The event was titled ‘What is Gender? The Gender Recognition Act and Beyond’.

At debate is the proposal to eliminate the legal classification of women as ‘adult female human beings’ to be replaced with ‘Gender Identity’, an undefined and subjective feeling with no stated characteristics that is unrelated to biological sex. This would allow males who declare this personal feeling to opt into female areas of public life set aside to promote equality for women and protection from male violence (female prisons, female change rooms, female scholarships, etc.). Transgender activists seek the elimination of women as a legal class on the premise that doing so would improve the mental health of a small minority of males who believe biological sex does not exist.

The debate was scheduled for Wednesday September 13 at London’s New Cross Learning Center. Speakers were:

Bex Stinson, transgender liaison at StonewallUK,

a second representative of StonewallUK,

lesbian feminist Julia Long,

and gender critical transsexual Miranda Yardley.

On September 11, following complaints from trans activists, Bex Stinson pulled out of the engagement, citing personal reasons for being unable to meet his professional commitments. The other StonewallUK representative followed suit.

The event was to go forward with featured speakers Dr. Julia Long and Miranda Yardley.

Event Flyer

Following the abandonment of the discussion by StonewallUK, transgender activists complained that their point of view was unrepresented because they refused to participate and the remaining transsexual speaker (Miranda Yardley) did not support eliminating women’s rights under the Gender Recognition Act. Working under the belief that women have no right to discuss proposed changes to the legal status of women, they organized to prevent women from meeting or speaking about their legal status.

Their tactics included, among other things, disrupting the meeting with noise:

Goldsmith’s Emergency: ‘Disrupt and Drown Out’ the discussion of women’s legal status

And attempting to No-Platform by harassing the venue:

Activists directed to harass the venue

 

On September 12, the event venue, New Cross Community Library, no-platformed the discussion, citing safety concerns:

 

In 2017, in London, it is not safe for women to discuss the legal status of women.

 

As a result of the last minute no-platforming by the NewCross Community Library, the event was diverted to an undisclosed location with a public meet-up to be held, ironically, at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park.

Transgender activists responded by trying to locate the new venue so the conversation could be prevented:

Stalkers stalk

 

On the date of the discussion, September 13, the group ‘Action For Trans Health London’ issued the following:

Urgent call to suppress women’s speech

Text of their post (now deleted):

CW, TW: transmisogny, transphobia.

PLEASE be mindful of people’s capacity and experiences before inviting people to this event. This event has been circulated widely particularly amongst the trans community, but please don’t expect people of trans experience to be able to engage directly with those who target, vilify and abuse them. The two speakers have a history of launching absolutely unwarranted campaigns of violent harrassment against women of trans experience and therefore allies and those who don’t experience transmisogny are primarily who should be called upon to defend against TERFs. Bear this in mind before you ‘invite all’ – thank you.

It has come to our attention that a NEW VENUE is platforming transmisogynists and TERFs at an event TODAY(Wednesday 13th September 7-9pm) , claiming to ‘debate’ the Gender Recognition Act.

Scheduled to speak are a notoriously transmisogynistic ‘feminist’ author, Julia Long, and a ‘gender critical’ trans woman, Miranda Yardley, both of whom regularly propagate deeply hateful views, misgendering, vilifying and targeting women of trans experience and trans feminine people. Representatives from Stonewall have (understandably) pulled out, making the event nothing more than a platform for hate speech.

Transmisogny can never be legitamised or tolerated as ‘debate’,

This is violence. We know that when Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) speak, they enact, encourage and condone violence against women of trans experience, transfeminine people and those who experience transmisogny.

One trans woman does not speak for all people of trans experience, particularly when she does not experience the extreme risks of violence faced by trans people of colour.

We know TERFSs are not and will never be interested in being challenged via ‘debate’. We are not interested in engaging with them on those terms.

*** A4TH London cannot guarantee the number of people who will be in attendance to protest or disrupt this event, but we encourage you to use this space to organise with other people of trans experience and cis allies**

******WHAT YOU CAN DO (even if you can’t come )*******

FIND OUT WHERE IT IS

————————SHARE THIS EVENT WIDELY—————————

Don’t just click ‘attending’, start a Whatsapp group, a message thread – tell your friends, activist networks, make an action plan, share templates for emails or tweets or phone conversations. Post on their FB page // drawing attention to the event (FB Event page now deleted) and stating your opposition.

IMPORTANT: the organiser of the event has no interest in cancelling or engaging (of course) so the most we can do is be a nuisance.

———————————FLOOD THEIR INBOX—————————-

USE EVERY EMAIL ADDRESS YOU HAVE asking them to:

– Cancel the event, considering it can no longer even claim to be a ‘debate’ now that there is no ‘opposition’.

– BUT *please don’t forget* to highlight that there is NO DEBATE when it comes to the lives and experiences of the trans community – questioning and theorising over the validity or reality of lived experience IS VIOLENCE, is TRANSPHOBIA and is not acceptable.

– Encourage them to make a public statement apologising for hosting the event and claiming responsibility for platforming transmisogny and hate.

——————–ON THE DAY,
JOIN US OUTSIDE from 6:30pm ————-

It is a high unlikely that this event will be cancelled. The organiser has made that clear.
We must be there to expose the reality of the event inside.

We must be there in solidarity, rage and love for those who the event seeks to villify, oppress and injure.

Bring placards, banners, music, people!

We need to drown out the TERFS.
We need to let the local community to know what is going on inside.
We need to PROVE that our communities (LGBTQIA+, queer, anti-racist, antifascist) are vigilant in standing up for and in solidarity with those who experience the most violence and that it will not be tolerated here or anywhere.

We highly encourage self-organising and diversity of tactics.

We need as many allies there as possible – cis, queer, trans people who don’t experience transmisogny need to far outnumber those who do to ensure their safety.

– Anyone have any good anti-TERF chants?-

[end]

On the ‘Action For Trans Health London’ post, a man calling himself ‘Tara Flik Wood” posted his intent to attack women who are concerned with the legal status of women:

As you can see, their intent was “loved” by the organizers.

This transgender individual, along with other men, went on to assault a 60 year old grandmother in Hyde Park as seen here:

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2017/09/14/this-is-trans-terrorism-this-is-male-violence/

Trans activists also assaulted transsexual Miranda Yardley and grabbed his phone which was later recovered.

On September 14, transgender activists scrambled to defend the attack and prevent LGBT organizations from denouncing the violence:

wow. Stopping trans orgs from condemning violence against women.

 

‘Action For Trans Health” Edinburgh issued a statement supporting the attack:

Unbelievably psychotic violent men who identify as transwomen.

As you can see, ‘Action For Trans Health’ London “loved” their post.

No LGBT organizations have condemned the attack.

No LGBT organizations have issued a comment- including StonewallUK.

No LGBT news outlets have reported on the scheduled event, the no-platforming, the violent attacks, the terroristic suppression of women’s speech on the legal status of women.

Et tu, Owen Jones?

February 25, 2015

McCallum

McCallum

Wealthy transgender Twitter executive Dana McCallum evaded prosecution on multiple felony counts of rape, false imprisonment, and battery, even though there were multiple witnesses to his violent rape spree, which he inflicted on his estranged wife in the presence of their children.

Dan McCallum before transgendering

Dan McCallum before transgendering

McCallum’s friends in the media enforced a news blackout on the high profile case and the charges and trial were not reported on mainstream news sites, including the outcome of today’s hearing. Social Justice Activists maintained silence on the case. The last time GenderTrender reported on this case we were locked out of our blog by Automattic/Wordpress.com for over a week. Transgender activists were concerned that the case would publicize the facts that most male transgenders do not undergo genital surgery, and that male transgenders commit violence against women- including sexualized violence- at exactly the same rates as non-transgender males.  

Trans activists demanded media blackout

Trans activists demanded media blackout

Gawker has the story:   From Gawker:

“At a hearing in San Francisco Superior Court this morning, Dana McCallum, a Twitter engineer and prominent women’s rights and LGBT activist, accepted a guilty plea for two misdemeanors related to the alleged rape of her wife. McCallum, who is a transgender woman, was initially charged with five felonies for the alleged incident, which occurred in January.

The misdemeanors were for one count of domestic violence with corporal injury to the spouse (California penal code 273.5) and one count of false imprisonment (code 236). McCallum, whose legal name is Dana Contreras will serve three years probation, 4 days in county jail (with credit for the 4 days already served), 25 hours of community service, counseling for substance abuse, 52 weeks of domestic violence counseling, as well as some minor fees.

In court today, McCallum first said “no contest” to the plea, but the District Attorney’s office insisted on a guilty plea.

McCallum initially pled not guilty to the felony charges, which included three counts of spousal rape, one count of false imprisonment and one count of domestic violence.

McCallum and her wife are in the process of getting divorced. The victim told Valleywag that McCallum served her with divorce papers two days before the incident. However, the victim also noted that the incident occurred when McCallum arrived uninvited and unexpected at the victim’s house in Noe Valley. The victim’s three children and her daughter’s friend were present that night. McCallum’s former attorney John Runfola, who has been replaced with Nanci L. Clarence, said that McCallum served her wife with divorce papers one day before the incident. The divorce has not been finalized.

McCallum’s wife read a a moving victim’s impact statement before the judge today where she said McCallum was given two opportunities to apologize, but did not apologize or ask about her welfare. She described the incident as an “alcohol fueled sexual violent crime, but said she wanted “forgiveness” to prevail and for this to be “an inspiration for other addicts,” rather than “an ugly headline for the vultures to pick over.” She said that she still loved McCallum and was disappointed by the community’s response:

I must say that it deeply saddens me that as a victim, my only public support has been from hate groups. I expected more from the LGBT and feminist community. It’s a shame that they can’t do the emotional work it requires to process that someone they love is capable of such an awful crime. That is their burden to carry, though.

 

McCallum has been working as an engineer at Twitter since 2010. She was arrested in January and released on $350,000 bail. According to an earlier report from the San Francisco Examiner, court documents stipulated that McCallum had to attend AA meetings as a condition of her release. The Examiner also obtained a copy of a criminal protective order, which stated that McCallum must not contact or come within 150 feet of her wife.

The victim told Valleywag that they had been separated for eight months. In April, the San Francisco Chronicle said:

McCallum, whose legal name is Dana Contreras, had been separated from her wife for about a year but maintained a polite, and at times sexual, relationship with her, authorities said.

The case has been deeply troubling for equal rights advocates in the technology industry both because of the nature of the charges and because McCallum, who is best know by the handle @DanaDanger, has long been an activist for feminist and LGBT causes. Last January, she wrote a piece about women and transgender people for Model View Culture. The article has since been deleted, along with McCallum’s bio, which used to say:

Dana McCallum has been working in software engineering and engineering leadership since 2000. As an advocate for women in technology and the LGBT community, Dana helped create advocacy teams at Twitter and other companies, served as a delegate on women’s issues in India, and speaks regularly at events focused on women and LGBT people in tech.

McCallum has also tweeted a number of times in support of justice for rape victims.

In April, McCallum’s old lawyer, John Runfola, aggressively denied the allegations, telling the Examiner that the victim was after a monetary gain. Twitter went public in November, 2013. The lockup period, after which Twitter employees could sell their stock, ended in May. However, unless otherwise agreed upon California divorce law states that assets like stock options are community property and divided equally. The couple has been married since 2007, before McCallum’s tenure at Twitter. What’s more, if McCallum had been convicted of felonies, it could affect her job at Twitter and therefore spousal support.”

[Bolding by me-GM.] Read the rest at the link above.

gender hurts book cover

Two new reviews of ‘Gender Hurts’ today, both from men, one of whom has actually read the book.

The first is from Dallas Denny, who previously campaigned with Jamison Green, the President of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health, a medical lobby funded by the pharmaceutical industry) in an attempt to censor the publication of this book BEFORE IT HAD EVEN BEEN AUTHORED.

Denny opines in today’s first offering:

 “[Managing Director of Books Jeremy North of Routledge Press] suggested we could review the book after it was published. And now I’m doing just that. Or, rather, I expect I will, if ever I can bring myself to read it. What follows is not a thorough review, but an impression based on a lookover of Gender Hurts.

Interestingly, the page count of Jeffreys’ book is almost the same as Raymond’s; at 189 pages it weighs in just four pages longer than Raymond’s 185.

 Aah, yes, the page count. And what of the paper quality? How much does the book weigh? Does it have that “new book smell”? What was the cost of the shipping freight?

 

Dallas Denny

Dallas Denny

Angry men should never feel obliged to read a woman’s words before forming strong opinions about them, and subsequently publishing those very important opinions. All that female-impersonator Denny needs to do is look at the book cover to conclude that Jeffreys “adopts a lesbian uniform that makes her look more than a bit like a man. She’s about four shots of testosterone away from passing as one.” How can men possibly take the time to read the books they are reviewing when the author is lesbian, and fails to adopt a distinctly sexay laydee wardrobe requirement?

Read more of Denny’s devastatingly insightful review of a book he has not read here:

http://www.tgforum.com/wordpress/index.php/a-first-look-at-sheila-jeffreys-gender-hurts/

Author fails at performing submission

Author fails at performing female submission

Today’s second review is by another man, who in this case claims to have actually read the book he is reviewing. In a New Statesman piece Tim R. Johnston generously offers that feminists have the right to critique males but “that critique must come from a place of established respect.” Jeffreys has dismally failed to respect men in her feminist text, says Johnston. LOL!

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/06/it-s-time-end-divisive-rhetoric-sex-and-gender-and-create-trans-inclusive-feminism

“The entire text is a striking example of how not to criticise a group [men] of which you are not a member.” Insensitive, man-hating feminist dyke! In one succinct sentence Mr. Johnston places Jeffreys’ text into the entire canon of the history of the Women’s Liberation movement, on which he claims to be an authority: “The book is poorly researched and argued, and is not a meaningful contribution to feminist theory.” Oh, Okay bro.

"Mansfeminist" Tim R. Johnston

“Mansfeminist” Tim R. Johnston

Johnston suggests that women abandon women’s liberation and release ourselves from our “attachment to our sex”; By doing so (Stupid cunts! Why haven’t we thought of this ourselves!) we will..something… something …something.

When we abandon our attachment to either sex or gender identity we can more clearly see the experiences we share and let those experiences form the basis of a coalition.” Okay bro.

The important thing is that men who take pleasure in sex-roles should be prioritized over the actual violence and subjugation of women.

 “Trans women [men] may identify as women, but they are not women because they do not have the lived history of having been born and raised as women. Identity cannot replace or change your history of living as one of two biological sexes. Feminists have good reason to be attached to this foundation. Women are violently persecuted because of their sex, and the methods of that persecution, methods like rape and forced reproduction, often involve female anatomy. Uniting in this shared history is an important foundation for feminist consciousness raising and solidarity.

Many [male] people ground their politics in gender identity, describing how this identity is a persistent aspect of their experience. Cisgender people [women] must realise that a [male] woman did not become a woman after transitioning, [he] has always been a woman, and because [he] is a woman [he] deserves access to women-only spaces. Certainly not all [male] people identify as having always been one gender, but focusing on gender identity over biological or assigned sex is an important way to ensure that [male] identities are not discredited, ignored, or marginalised.”

 Jeffreys’ work, which is not meaningful to male feminism, discredits, ignores, and marginalizes male feelings and the access to women that males deserve. Oh gosh no!

Okay thanks guys! Thanks for clearing up the whole female oppression thing! Problem solved (for you)!

Women's Liberation symbol with a bunch of male shit on top of it

Women’s Liberation symbol with a bunch of male shit on top of it

From a Librarian

June 4, 2014

from a librarian

.

bailey cover.php

“Man Who Would Be Queen” author J. Michael Bailey surfaces to make a rare public appearance on memoirist Christine Benvenuto’s latest, which calls into question the claim of recently hired (white heterosexual male) NewYorkTimes columnist Jennifer Finney Boylan asserting that he is now a member of “one of the most marginalized groups in the country.” Boylan has built a successful career based solely on his transgender identity.

Christine has been censored and harassed (police being called during one bookstore reading incident) after publication of her memoir reflecting on the disintegration of her marriage to autogynephile crossdressing academic Jay (now “Joy”) Ladin. Transgender attorney and HuffPo columnist Dana Beyer, among other prominent individuals, personally campaigned for censorship of Christine Benvenuto’s work, even though they had not actually read it.

Excerpts from Bailey’s comments:

J. Michael Bailey

September 15, 2013 at 12:45 pm

I loved your book. So refreshingly honest and insightful. You had the courage to keep your eyes open. In contrast, in the NY Times this week there is a lukewarm review of a sister’s account of her financier brother’s transformation. Sounds like the same ol’.

If you are interested in learning more about the motivations of heterosexual men who become women, you can read my book (third section most relevant) here:

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/TMWWBQ.pdf

Some transsexual women tried to suppress the book by attacking me. (Talk about male privilege dying hard.) You can read about their attempts to ruin my life here:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-007-9301-1

“..one of the fundamental insights of the best science on transsexualism is that there is nothing fundamentally different between heterosexual crossdressers (as which many future transsexuals begin) and autogynephilic transsexuals (the kind that is motivated by the erotic desire to become women).”

“..both the fundamental difference and the inevitability of transition are false..”

“…I think that a careful (or even an ordinary without blinders) reading of Christine’s book shows how inaccurate her husband, then ex-husband, seemed regarding his history and motivations. Inaccurate enough to have helped inspire Christine’s book. Was this conscious dishonesty, unconscious dishonesty, delusion, or what? I suspect a bit of each.”

“Autogynephilic men who transition to become transwomen deserve some sympathy, and they have had mine. But their plight is much more akin to a normal heterosexual man’s midlife crisis decision to leave his wife for another woman than it is to their preferred narrative. The heterosexual man in midlife crisis also deserves some sympathy. But so does the family he is leaving.”

Bailey offers a free PDF of his book “The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism”. Click the above link to read it.

Read Christine Benvenuto’s post on the dubious prospect of Boylan’s alleged marginalization titled “Male Privilege Dies Hard” and Bailey’s comments by clicking here: http://christinebenvenuto.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/male-privilege-dies-hard/

.

By Brendan O’Neill, Editor of Spiked:

spiked

Trans activists really need to lighten up

Transsexuals’ histrionic response to every slight only confirms how flimsy their identity is.

Why are transsexual activists so sensitive to criticism? This is a serious question, not an insult. There must be some reason why the trans community, as it calls itself, is worse at taking criticism or tolerating insulting commentary than, say, the Christian community or the butch lesbian community, both of which also get flak on the internet and elsewhere but don’t tend to respond to it in the way trans types do.

Over the past fortnight we’ve had loads of histrionics from trans activists. Feminist Julie Bindel was hounded off a panel discussion at a British university because she once criticised trans people. Roseanne Barr, maker of the best sitcom of the Eighties, currently stands accused of ‘transphobia’ basically because she tweeted favourably about someone who criticised the trans identity. This follows the trans community’s successful removal of Julie Burchill’s trans-slamming article from the website of the Observer earlier this year. When I wrote a piece arguing that Bradley Manning is not a woman, despite his claims to the contrary, I was bombarded with suggestions that I should kill myself. This from trans activists who (ludicrously) held Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn responsible for the suicide of a trans schoolteacher and said the media must be careful never to criticise this community lest its members feel tempted to kill themselves.

Of course, ours is an age of super-sensitivity, when feeling offended, and more importantly loudly and proudly declaring your feelings of offence, has become the lifeblood of public discourse. But there are different degrees of offence-taking. Some groups seem more capable of riding out criticism than others. Yes, Christian outfits play the victim card and bleat to officialdom about feeling offended by an ad or an article, but mostly they just ignore web-based Christian-bashing, which is voluminous. Islamists are more sensitive, hollering for beheadings whenever someone mocks Muhammad or says the Koran is cobblers.

And the trans lobby is even more sensitive than that, reacting with censorious anger not only to insults but also to people’s allegedly incorrect use of language, to being called ‘a transsexual’, for example, rather than ‘a member of the trans community’. They even picket the offices of newspapers that have the temerity to piss them off. Why the extraordinary touchiness?

I think it reflects the fundamental flimsiness of the trans identity, the fragility of this so-called community. Transsexuals’ hopping-mad reaction to any perceived slight doesn’t confirm that they are a well-organised, increasingly cocky gang holding the world to ransom, as some have claimed. Rather it reveals the opposite – that this is a ‘community’ so sadly uncertain of its own claims, so instinctively aware of the largely phoney nature of its arguments, that it must protect itself from any form of public ridicule or questioning lest its facade be knocked down.

The rule of modern-day identity politics and offence-taking seems to be this: the less rooted and real one’s identity is, the more obsessed one becomes with erecting a forcefield around it in order to keep at bay awkward query-raisers.

Read the rest of this entry »