In The Economist today


The gender-identity movement undermines lesbians

Its attempt to rebrand lesbians as queer erases their identity, writes Pippa Fleming, a performance artist

There’s an African proverb that states: “If you don’t know where you come from, how do you know where you are going?” Some of the most powerful black people known for their political analysis, social commentary, activism and legacy during the civil-rights, gay-rights and feminist movements were black lesbians. Oops! Did I just say “lesbian”, that dirty seven-letter word that has the GBTQI community scrambling to apologise for or afraid to associate itself with? Lesbianism is as ancient as the cosmos, yet it is a threat to patriarchy because it does not centre males, nor does it seek male wisdom, power or validation. Instead of finding solace within our community against the threat of misogyny and homophobia, lesbian identity is being written out.

When black lesbians attempt to navigate pop culture’s “gender-identity matrix”, searching for their kindred’s place in history, they often come up empty-handed. What matrix, you ask? It’s that maze that has people running around in circles, as they attempt to reconcile new language and theories forced upon them by the elites in education and the corporatocracy, like “cisgender”, which means you were cool with the sex you were born in, or that biology is irrelevant and as has no connection to one’s concept of self.

Pippa Fleming

Whether it be in feminist studies, gender studies or the history of gay pride, black lesbians often go without their names or sexual orientation being mentioned. The trend towards claiming that “all sexuality is fluid” and to brand everyone and everything queer and transgender, means black lesbians are rendered invisible. A queer identity embraces sexual and intimate relationships with males, females, and intersex people who identify as transgender, gender-queer, trans masculine or gay, just to name a few. My, we are a diverse crowd.

In this current wave of “free to me” gender politics, any man with a penis can claim to be a female and expect entrance into female-segregated spaces, such as locker rooms, sports teams or colleges, without question. But don’t twist it; the generosity does not flow in both directions. Just ask the women who crashed the party at the male lido in Hampstead Heath in London in May: they were promptly escorted out by the police. Lesbian identity is now being dubbed as exclusionary or transphobic. You’re damn right it’s exclusive: lesbians have a right to say no to the phallus, no matter how it’s concealed or revealed. Imagine if white folks ran around claiming they were black or demanded access to our affinity spaces. They would be called deluded racist fools!

Shush, I hear the snickering. Who’s this tired-ass dyke that nobody wants to hear from? And why hasn’t she dropped any names? I like luring in my audience with provocative statements and short-circuiting any thought process that may prevent critical thinking.

Do the names Stormé DeLarverie, Audre Lorde or Angela Davis, ring that black gay history bell? The more important question, especially for those claiming to be the “down”, Black Panther activist type is this. Why don’t you know the roles they played? Without their dauntless activism and allyship, none of us would have the vocabulary of resistance or a notion of what’s required to create tangible alliances and an empowered LGBTQI community.

Let me drop a few herstorical truths.

Read the rest of this post here:


image from the page

image from the page

Gay males have launched the hilariously titled public Facebook group “Homosexuals not Homogenderuals” designed to explore Gay Pride and the gay movement in relation to the genderist politics of the transgender movement.

They post daily items that reflect on and highlight the inherent homophobia of the “T” in the LGBT, and explore the inevitable clash between those who are same-sex attracted and transgenderists, who:

  1. Believe that biological sex does not exist.
  2. Assert that belief in biological sex is a form of bigotry against transgenderists.
  3. Therefore homosexuality is a form of bigotry against heterosexuals who “identify as” the opposite sex.

And WOW even gay men are getting violent threats (although not the sexualized violence so commonly perpetrated against lesbian bloggers) from the transgenderists for pushing back against the absurd idea that homosexuality is oppressive to heterosexuals.

Do these threats emanate from transgender heterosexual females demanding entry to the gay male community under threat of violence? Of course not. Even on a gay male page the violent homophobia is coming from: you guessed it! Heterosexual male “lesbians”.

Thank you to our gay male brothers for running this page, and do check them out and support them against the anti-gay transgender “male lesbian” death-threaters.



Heterosexual couple

When you hear trans activists and allies define lesbians as “penis-phobic” sexual “bigots” against males, a condition which can be “cured” by raping us: it is pretty clear that the transgender politic is as starkly anti-lesbian and anti-woman as a political agenda could possibly be.

There is an excellent post “There is no T in Lesbian” over at the Liberation Collective today on the topic of Transgenderism and the ways in which the “T” is at odds with the Lesbian and Gay liberation movement. Critical to the transgender movement is the silencing and censorship of all public discourse around sex stereotypes, gender, and women’s rights, and the eradication of lesbian and gay voices – even on the subject of homosexuality. This is because the goals of the lesbian and gay rights movement are in direct opposition to the platform of the transgender movement. Superficially, and to those outside of these movements, there may appear to be common ground. For example, protecting the rights of LGBT people against discrimination in housing and employment. However,  there are other minorities (African Americans, Women, etc.) who seek protection against discrimination in these things, and they have not been merged into the lesbian and gay movement. Nor have lesbians and gays been inundated with rape and murder threats by these groups as they routinely have by transgender activists.

Why then has the Transgender Movement been attached to the homosexual rights movement?

Transgender activists have explained the need for this alliance several ways. They say all sorts of things:

“Our enemies can’t tell us apart- they see M2T as “super-gay” men, and F2T as “super-lesbian”, so we may as well join together since the public sees us as the same thing anyway”.

“Gays owe us support because feminine men who insist that they “are women” suffer more discrimination than feminine men who do not, and men who impersonate women while believing they actually “are women” suffer more discrimination than men who impersonate women (drag queens) without having those feelings.”

“Women, Lesbians, Gays, must serve us and center our needs and concerns because we have high rates of suicidality and psychiatric co-morbidity and criminality and you don’t”.

“A percentage of transgenders consider themselves ex-homosexual but still have social ties to the gay subculture they once were members of”.

“Those transgender men and women who are heterosexual like to call their hetero relationships “lesbian” or “gay”, and refer to themselves as “dykes” and “fags” as part of their heterosexual transgender identity. The majority of male transgenders are heterosexual, which means the percentage of “transwomen” who consider themselves lesbian is exactly opposite to the percentages among actual females. Unlike actual females, most M2T are “lesbian” and since we are forcing ourselves into the lesbian community in droves on that basis anyway, you may as well just include us in the LG movement.”

Shannon Minter, the “ex-lesbian” transgender attorney now heading the mainly transgender, hetero and male legal initiatives at ex-lesbian National Center for Lesbian Rights (which has creepily retained its old name from the days when it did represent lesbians) believes that homosexuality itself is a form of transgenderism and as such the gay rights movement should be re-framed and subsumed under the “transgender umbrella” as a wing of the transgender movement. She believes that homosexuality is transgender, because lesbian and gay sexual relationships are not procreative, and are therefore manifestations of cross-sex behavior. No different than the conservative right wing view of homosexuality, really: a misalignment of the natural order.

Conservative, right-wing, and theocratic views on homosexuality match Minter’s views exactly. We see this in surveys which show that transgenderism is far more politically acceptable to the general public than homosexuality.  We see this reflected in places like Iran, which force lesbians and gays into state-funded medical “sex changes” under threat of capitol punishment. We see Minter’s view on homosexuality mirrored in Christian conservative preacher Pat Robertson’s recent declarations that while homosexuality is a sinful abomination, transgenderism is okay. We see this in transgender activist websites like “Lesbimen”, “TransAdvocate”, etc. which aim to prove that lesbians are “actually men”. We see this in the lightning-fast adoption of sweeping legal and social reforms designed to remove feminism’s hard-won gains of sex-based protections and their replacement with “gender identity” protections which accord rights based on one’s fealty to the very sex-based stereotypes the women’s liberation and gay rights movement sought to eliminate.

The elephant in the room is that transgenderism was invented as a “treatment” or medical “cure”  of homosexuality. The reason the “T” is included in the LGBT is that it has been historically lesbians and gays that transgenderist cures have been inflicted on. It was upon lesbian and gay bodies that medical experiments were conducted that resulted in what we now call “transgender treatments”: often on lesbians and gays who were involuntarily committed or incarcerated. Just ask Alan Turing. Just ask all the gays and lesbians rounded up and experimented on in “forced sex-change” medical camps in South Africa as recently as the late 1980’s. Just ask all the kids being medical-tracked and puberty-suppressed as guinea pigs in rapidly growing government-funded programs right now.

The act of voluntarily “passing” as the opposite sex has also long been a survival technique for lesbians, gays, and women under oppressive sexist and heteronormative circumstances and regimes. Nothing has changed, except the influx of heterosexual pornography-soaked body-mod kinksters attaching themselves belatedly to the lesbian and gay movement. This heterosexual influx not-coincidentally coincided with the birth of the modern transgender rights movement in the 1990s.

Today’s post at the Liberation Collective includes an interesting PDF chart that attempts to briefly outline “what separates the T from the LG”. Examples include (paraphrasing wildly):


Believes reproductive sex is a feeling or mental state unrelated to biology yet includes a psychological imperative to “congruity” between mental state and the social perception of one’s reproductive biology. Sex changes are impossible, so desires palliative treatment by undergoing various bodily modifications designed to approximate the opposite-sex biology cosmetically on those body parts commonly seen socially by others (genital surgery is not undergone by a majority of transgenders).

Since bodily sex does not exist, homosexuality does not exist, except as a form of bigotry and discrimination against persons with opposite-sexed bodies.


Has exclusive sexual and romantic attraction to those of the same sex.


Requires bystanders to participate in and “affirm” their self-concept of themselves as having an “opposite-sexed brain”.


Has exclusive sexual and romantic attraction to those of the same sex.


Psychological distress is viewed as a natural manifestation of sex/gender incongruence. “Change Yourself”.


Psychological distress not viewed as a natural manifestation of sex/gender incongruence. “Accept Yourself. Change social norms.”


Lobbies for hormone-suppression and sterilization of children below the age of consent.


Against reparative therapies and medical “treatments” of children below the age of consent.


Lobbies for elimination of sex-based protections for women and elimination of same-sex rights of assembly for women and homosexuals.


Does not seek to eliminate feminist gains for women. Supports homosexual and other same-sex gatherings.

And so forth. (Apologies to Liberation Collective for my scattershot paraphrasing).

Heterosexual Couple

Heterosexual Couple

Cheri DiNovo

Cheri DiNovo

File this one under “unintended consequences” for Lesbians, Gays, and Women’s Rights advocates living in Ontario. MPP Cheri DiNovo announced Friday that bill C-389, “Toby’s Act”, the 2012 bill she sponsored which intended to protect the rights of transgender persons, actually makes all same-sex gatherings illegal in the province. This will come as some surprise to many lesbians and gays who often exercise their rights to assemble freely in meetings, conferences, and social groups with other same-sex persons.  In addition, DiNovo claims the right of Ontarian women to assemble in any same-sex gatherings: whether they be reproductive rights orgs, Islamic faith gatherings, or lesbian support groups- has been eliminated by her bill. She has appealed to the Ontario Human Rights Council to back up her legal position.

DiNovo made her announcement in response to male complaints surrounding a small group of feminists holding a female-only meeting in a Toronto art gallery. DiNovo characterized same-sex meetings as “reprehensible” and vowed to use Toby’s Act to eliminate and prosecute current and future same-sex gatherings of women or lesbians in the province. “I’m hoping that now under Toby’s law, this will be considered illegal.”

Somehow I doubt this was the intent of the women, lesbians and gays who supported DiNovo and the passage of Toby’s Act. Like Washington State’s Colleen Francis using that state’s non-discrimination act to exercise his “right” to expose his penis to schoolgirls in women’s locker rooms, Toby’s Act had the unintended consequence of eliminating the rights of women, gays, lesbians, muslims, feminists, to hold same-sex gatherings. Presumably this also eliminates the rights of transgender people to assemble in sex-segregated meetings, although DiNovo has not yet clarified that point. Planned Parenthood Toronto sponsored “Breaking Through The Cotton Ceiling” seminars for transgenders to strategize how to convince lesbians to accept sex with penises. The “cotton ceiling” in that case referred to the underwear of lesbians. These public meetings were restricted to male transgenders only.

Canada faces another set of unintended consequences with Bill C-279, the Federal Gender Identity Act, which is set for a vote in the next legislative session. This bill, like Toby’s Act, purports to eliminate discrimination based on “Gender Identity”, which is the right to identify with the social role of the opposite sex.  Obviously this proposed new legal “sex-role” status is problematic for those – such as feminists and progressives- who believe stereotypes based on sex are antiquated, sexist, offensive, (not to mention they sanction inequality for women and girls). Many feel the government should not promote the belief that citizens should look/behave/think certain ways based on our reproductive sex (or our identification with the opposite sex). But what are the other, specific, legal consequences of Bill C-279, which like the erosion of women’s and gay rights to assemble caused by DiNovo’s Toby’s Act, might not become apparent until after the law is passed?

According to Senator Nancy Ruth, the first lesbian Senator in Canada, we already know what some of the unintended consequences of Bill C-279 will be. From the DailyExtra:

“Women and girls in Canada are not protected from hate speech under the Criminal Code, and this bill does not rectify that when it could,” Ruth said.

 “For 35 years, across numerous bills, Parliament has told the girls and women of Canada that, despite alarming rates of violence against girls and women, violence that typically includes hate speech, they are not worthy of protection,” she explained.

 “The omission is not an oversight. In 1985, the federally appointed Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution said that there was ‘ample evidence’ indicating women were the targets of hate material. The committee recommended that the Criminal Code hate laws be amended to extend protection to women, but no Parliament has done that. Why? I have spoken before in this chamber about this gap in the law,” she continued.

 “This bill will privilege men who choose to become women over women who are born female,” Ruth said. “While I do not question the good intentions of the sponsor and the supporters of the bill, I simply do not understand how they could advance this bill without including all women. Passage of Bill C-279 will mean that only if a woman is born a man who later chooses to identify as a woman will she receive protection, but a woman born a woman will not receive the same protection.

Senator Ruth has proposed an amendment to Bill C-279 which simply maintains “sex” as a protected status along with “gender identity”. This will prevent sex-based protections for women from being eliminated by Bill C-279, in the way that Toby’s Act inadvertently eliminated the legal rights of women and lesbians to free assembly.

Senator Nancy Ruth

Senator Nancy Ruth

Women of Canada must not lose human rights in order to protect the rights of transgender people, due to sloppy lawmaking. The battle to reclaim women’s human right to assemble- that DiNovo claims was lost by the passage of Toby’s Act- will now start its long winding legal trail towards correction, after the fact. With Bill C-279 we have an opportunity to correct an unintended consequence before it occurs, and we have a lesbian Senator making a stand for our rights, right now. Do not leave her standing alone. She needs your support on this issue. Please organize to support Senator Ruth’s amendment now. Create awareness of the issue among women’s groups and legislators. Write letters to the editor. Contact her office and ask what you can do to help.

Let us protect the rights of all Canadians. Including the rights of Women and Girls.


[bolding by me-GM]

Transgender activists have successfully lobbied the UK government to fund chemical castration studies on twelve year old lesbian and gay children. In a stunning success for transgender lobbyists the NHS this week approved medical experiments which will chemically castrate gay children in attempt to correct gender-nonconformity. The children have all been referred for psychiatric treatment due to non-compliance with sex-based gender stereotypes. The large majority of these “feminine male” and “masculine female” children are not transgender, but homosexual. The experiment is designed to test the effects of powerful sterilization drugs on gay children, preventing natural puberty from occurring. Trans activists say this is important because it will increase the attractiveness and gender-conformity of a tiny minority of these children who may be transgender, by preventing natural puberty from ever occurring. They claim that the long term physiological and psychological effects on the predominately gay and lesbian kids are acceptable casualties for such an outcome.

From the Mirror: “The controversial treatment halts puberty, stunting sex organs and preventing the growth of facial hair and sperm in boys, and breasts in girls.

The injections, previously available only to over-15s with gender identity disorder, are being made available to younger people under an NHS study after pressure from families and doctors.

Doctors admit most children with the problem do not go on to have a sex change, often turning out to be  gay.”

The experiment will follow the effects of stunted sex organs on gay children. It is expected to cause atrophy of sexual organs and gonads, eliminating hormone production, causing cessation of menstruation, halting sperm production, stopping bone growth (and height/growth spurt), decreasing bone density (leading to possible osteoporosis), preventing normal body fat distribution, interrupting natural insulin resistance and other unknown effects, some of which will not become apparent until years after the gay children are exposed. It will also track the psychological and social effects of preventing children from undergoing natural puberty at the appropriate age and the elimination of the onset of normal adolescent sexual desire. Since the vast majority of children referred with gender compliance issues or GID = Gender Identity Disorder become asymptomatic in adulthood (and largely homosexual) the studies will also test whether GID symptoms will be prolonged with treatment.

Transgender lobbyists claim that male transsexuals have a harder time “passing” as female if they are allowed to undergo natural puberty and then desire sex change surgery as adults, and that 1 to 10% of these children may turn out to be male transsexuals in adulthood. The psychological and health effects of chemical castration on the majority non-transsexual children are considered an acceptable price for the increased future “attractiveness” of the tiny minority of the boy research subjects who may wish to adopt transsexuality and “pass” as female as adults. The tiny minority of females who may grow up to be transsexual will partially “pass better” as male because breast growth will be halted, but aborted bone growth will cause decreased height causing them to be shorter than most females.

Studies on children seeking treatment for GID (a psychiatric diagnosis introduced in 1980) before these chemical castration experiments are scant. According to the overview of research in Current Problems Adolescent Health Care 2009 “GID in Children and Adolescents”:

“The studies clearly show that the majority of children

with gender dysphoria will not remain gender

dysphoric after puberty. Children with extreme gender

dysphoria or GID are more likely to have persistent

GID than children whose behavior and cross-gender

identification is weaker or less persistent. Concerning

sexual orientation, there is a strong linkage between

GID in childhood and later homosexual orientation or

bisexuality, as most children with GID later become

homosexual. It should be noted that there are no

reliable predictors of continuing GID or gender dysphoria.”

“One could argue that,

from the point of view of psychosexual development,

in early adolescence, a teenager’s clarification about

his or her own orientation in sexual desires and

fantasies should precede any fixed identification with a

prospective adult gender role. As puberty-delaying

hormones are suppressing libidinal impulses, this process

of clarification about libidinal object orientation is

likely to be inhibited, too. Other arguments against

early hormone treatment are that the effects of puberty-

delaying hormones on brain development are not

yet known, that the children are too young to make a

decision of such far-reaching consequences, and that

many children with GID have serious comorbidity or

live in extremely adverse life circumstances.

The majority of children outgrow their wish to change sex and gender.”

From “Gender identity disorders in childhood and adolescence: currently debated concepts and treatment strategies” (2008):

” Gender identity disorders (GID) can appear even in early infancy with a variable degree of severity. Their prevalence in childhood and adolescence is below 1%. GID are often associated with emotional and behavioral problems as well as a high rate of psychiatric comorbidity. Their clinical course is highly variable. There is controversy at present over theoretical explanations of the causes of GID and over treatment approaches, particularly with respect to early hormonal intervention strategies.

As there have been no large studies to date on the course of GID, and, in particular, no studies focusing on causal factors for GID, the evidence level for the various etiological models that have been proposed is generally low. Most models of these disorders assume that they result from a complex biopsychosocial interaction. Only 2.5% to 20% of all cases of GID in childhood and adolescence are the initial manifestation of irreversible transsexualism. The current state of research on this subject does not allow any valid diagnostic parameters to be identified with which one could reliably predict whether the manifestations of GID will persist, i.e., whether transsexualism will develop with certainty or, at least, a high degree of probability.

CONCLUSIONS: The types of modulating influences that are known from the fields of developmental psychology and family dynamics have therapeutic implications for GID. As children with GID only rarely go on to have permanent transsexualism, irreversible physical interventions are clearly not indicated until after the individual’s psychosexual development is complete. The identity-creating experiences of this phase of development should not be restricted by the use of LHRH analogues that prevent puberty.”

An upcoming conference of The Royal College of Physicians Lesbian and Gay Interest Group “Transgender:Time To Change” is scheduled to address lesbian, gay, and gender issues in psychiatry. Transgender activists are planning to protest the discussion, another chapter in the increasingly adversarial rift between lesbian/gay and transgender political, social and activist agendas.