October 26, 2016
Dominic Holden of Buzzfeed has published a blockbuster report outlining the split between top-funded LGBT lobbying groups over their ongoing battle to force women to give up areas segregated by sex for women’s privacy and protection from epidemic male sexual violence against women (changing rooms, showers, locker rooms, restrooms, hospital rooms, homeless shelters, lesbian services, domestic violence refuges, prison cells, etc) in order that men who desire to impose themselves on the women in those spaces would enjoy the right to do so.
Turns out the plan of convincing women and girls that male violation of female privacy is actually a Good Thing hasn’t panned out too well, and women still don’t want strange men exposing their dicks and they still don’t like strange males watching them as they wrestle out of a wet bathing suit in the locker room at the YMCA.
This, even though it’s been explained to them that biological sex doesn’t really exist and that the whole global male targeting of women thing isn’t even a thing. Even though they’ve been educated that women’s fear of creepy dudes doing god knows what fucked up thing is actually a kooky form of silly female hysteria and social panic. Even though they’ve been reassured that no man alive would ever shoulder the humiliation of throwing on a wig just to have a free ticket to get their freak on at women’s expense. Even though it’s been explained to them that some men are really scared of the other men in sex segregated spaces and/or that it really, really hurts men’s feelings that women have a boundary against male entry to spaces where they are pulling their pants down or inserting a tampon. Even though they’ve been let to know that any male who believes himself to have “female feelings” is incapable of, through commission or act of omission, taking any action which is harmful towards a female person and no such act has ever been recorded in the history of humankind. Even though they’ve been told that letting guys expose themselves and allowing them to gaze upon women undressing may be part of their prescribed psychiatric treatment plan for a ‘Gender Identity’ that all women must sacrifice their comfort and privacy in order to participate in implementing. Unless they are heartless, cruel, hysterical, prudish, bigoted, crazy, awful, nasty women. Of course. Women who want countless men to suffer gruesome violent deaths by murder and suicide all caused by their selfishness.
Anyway, the LGBT campaign against women’s right to privacy and safety, funded by millions (billions?) hasn’t worked out after a decade or so. To paraphrase Barney Frank’s cogent observation at the time of the ENDA debacle: women don’t want you to inflict your dicks on them. Crazy, huh guys?
Holden’s Buzzfeed piece exposes the breakdown of the alliance of the former Gay Rights Movement and the Transgender Penis Rights Movement and their frustration over their dual inability to coerce consent from unwilling women.
Tough break guys. Who could have seen it coming.
Well worth a read:
November 15, 2015
PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM RUTH BARRETT – Nov. 13th, 2015
Women are being burned at the stake based on erroneous evidence. This is being done without a trial and without any opportunity to give voice to her truth or her side of the story. Any attempt to clarify or engage in conversation that directly impacts the reputations, livelihoods and social standing of the accused women have been repeatedly disregarded in favor of the investment in one faction of our community’s beliefs and agenda. Shame on us as a pagan community for condoning and participating in behavior that not one of us would wish to be the recipient of.
I’m writing to illuminate, clarify and articulate my own experience of personal harassment and the organized and concerted effort to diminish my livelihood and personal reputation during this past week.
Last week I signed a petition circulating on Change.org asking…
View original post 2,092 more words
April 14, 2015
This afternoon Equality Michigan announced that Executive Director Emily Dievendorf has resigned. The surprise announcement comes on the heels of the withdrawal of support by The National Center for Lesbian Rights and The National LGBTQ Task Force for the controversial anti-Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival boycott authored by Dievendorf last year.
Dievendorf, a “Bisexual Rights” activist partnered with a male, organized the contentious boycott against members of the lesbian community who support the iconic annual 40-year-strong women-only music festival. The boycott targeted Lesbian artists, Lesbian musicians, and Lesbian vendors, as well as attendees of the event, calling for a financial attack on the women’s livelihoods. The justification for this boycott was Equality Michigan’s claim that lesbianism is a form of discrimination against male people, and that affinity groups based on the female experience are unfairly discriminatory against males. Last August, Dievendorf persuaded many national organizations that had formerly purported to advocate for lesbians to join the Equality Michigan campaign against Lesbian and Women’s Rights.
Since that time, Equality Michigan and all the signatories of the boycott have experienced a hemorrhaging of support, both financial and volunteer, from lesbians and the allies of lesbians and women. In effect, the boycott of lesbians and women resulted in the opposite effect: a withdrawal of support from the so-called “LGBT” organizations by the lesbians being boycotted. Somehow, this came as a big surprise to these organizations, who had long ago abandoned lesbian and women’s interests yet apparently believed that the ongoing, foundational, steady support of the very women fueling their “LGBT” orgs would continue even if they were targeted, insulted, and their livelihoods harmed. Finally, last week, NCLR and The Task Force, two of the largest signatories of the boycotts, publicly withdrew their names.
Two months ago, Dievendorf posted a muddled, confused statement on Facebook expressing her puzzlement over the withdrawal of lesbian support from her now formally anti-lesbian organization. It read:
August 11, 2014
Michfest (Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival) is only “the very tip of the iceberg” says a man who believes that lesbians are “bigots” against heterosexual males, because we won’t sleep with them, invite them to our lesbian potlucks, or allow them to participate in our lesbian feminist political activism as “one of us”.
But mainly, because we won’t sleep with them.
Lesbians are “hostile” to the men who desire sexual access to our bodies, and “dismissive” of male sexual desires, and this man is calling on national LGBT organizations to “take action” against this “problem”.
Before the mind’s eye of the reader (especially those unfamiliar with the current status of lesbians in the LGBT political sphere) travels too far, perhaps imagining a trench-coated sex-offender distributing cum-splattered self-produced pamphlets in bus terminals, or a member of a roving band of Ugandan corrective-rape practitioners, it should be stated that this man is not without influence, in the political left, no less. His call for action was published by the Huffington Post.
October 17, 2011
Not much of a headline is it? A man in Texas, once divorced, the father of a 17 year old girl, takes a new wife. Rumor has it he has impregnated her and they are starting a new family. Several news stories have been published about the marriage, but none of them identify the wife by name. But they do mention the husband, a successful IT software executive that markets technology to the defense industry. His name is Meghan Stabler, and he is the only transgender board member of the allegedly largest LGBT organization in the U.S. : The Human Rights Campaign.
Meghan is a self-described “Alpha Male” with strong genderist beliefs from a young age:
“Simply put, my emotional and psychological gender was not in alignment with my genetic, physiological sex. This is not an acquired condition; rather, it is an intrinsic part, a lifelong aspect of my being, something that I, and many others are born with.”
Some quotes where he describes his sex-role discomfort:
“I could have gotten an Oscar for my acting. I tried to do that ‘let’s go play golf, have a cigar, and drink a lot of beer’ stuff and hated it. You can’t say it out loud that it is revolting because you are trying to be one of the guys.”
“9/11 happened in 2001. People that I’d known either lost their lives or families were impacted. It is when I realized that many people didn’t get a chance to say goodbye or to say they truth about their lives. And I felt because I had been successful in a business career, I wanted to feel comfortable as to who I was and not live a lie.”
““Transitioning is not the same as just saying ‘I’m gay or I’m lesbian’ because people don’t have to out themselves if they don’t want to. When you transition, it a physical transformation that people will absolutely begin to see over a period of time. The risk/stakes of this game are extremely high.”
Mr Stabler joined the HRC board in 2008 to fight for the desires of transgenders: to force the public at large to act as if social sex roles (“Gender”) are legally tied to one’s reproductive sex. In other words, in his view- which he sought to enshrine into law against the wishes of feminists worldwide- sex role stereotypes must be legally enforced by
1.) legally establishing that sex roles, long disputed by women as being artificial and culturally imposed traditions designed to enforce second-class status on the female sex class, are innate. And
2.) That such sex role stereotypes (“gender”) require legal enforcement and protections to prevent erosion by gender-nonbelievers. And
3.) That the public at large must be legally compelled to act as if they believe in the supposedly innate nature of sex-roles, even if they do not believe.
4.) That any stated or acted upon disbelief in sex-roles (gender) by the public at large should be criminalized.
5.) That protections against sex discrimination should be erased and the legal category “sex” be replaced with sex-role, or “Gender”, an internal, invisible, subjective and unquantifiable belief.
6.) That legal sex be replaced with sex-role categories retroactively on historical documents of all types, from public news reports to birth certificates.
7.) That all the above should be moot in cases where a transgender decides that gender isn’t real, but only for them. In other words, that transgenders, unlike any other citizens, have the unique right to skirt the very same now codified and protected legal status of “gender” that they have themselves lobbied for. It’s like a “special snowflake” exemption reserved only for them. It says (paraphrasing): “I am a male who demands to be deemed legally female, and I demand that all females lose all legal rights related to sex, in order to protect my right to have my belief in the immutability of sex-roles legally affirmed.”
In ENDA testimony before the Texas legislature on March 30, 2011 Mr Stabler testified that he was now “labeled as a Lesbian” as so many heterosexual male transgenders claim. But last week he did something no Lesbian in the state of Texas has ever been able to do (besides impregnating women): He married his wife. That’s right! He invoked the special snowflake exemption listed as #7 above. He re-claimed the mantle of his male privilege and retracted his claims of being female and a “Lesbian” and had him a good old-fashioned heterosexual wedding.
This points out the ridiculousness of not only the “special snowflake exemption”, but the whole premise of his entire Genderist legal platform.
If male “Lesbians” can opt to claim male privilege and heterosexual privilege, what special protections does their Genderism need exactly?
Why do people who have more privileges than any person born female (not only from the moment of birth, but for their entire lives, regardless of any arbitrary and fluctuating Genderist “trans-ition”) need protections from the legal category of female sex? Why do female rights need to be eliminated, indeed even the legal classification of sex need to be eliminated to support the internal, personal, self-reported, invisible, changeable, unquantifiable sex-role beliefs of Genderists?
Males already have the legal right under title VII to be free from discrimination based on non-compliance with traditional sex-role stereotypes. We don’t need to eliminate the legal category of sex to protect the rights of individual’s private gender beliefs and fantasies.
[all bolding mine-GM]