In which Nine Deuce uses the word “trans” a second time

12 Jan

The cognitive dissonance that plagues the thinking radical feminist when ruminating over trans people matters and needs to be confronted, discussed, and theorized about, but it needs to be done in such a way that some good might come of it. Radical feminism, at a bare minimum, is characterized by the rejection of essentialism, of the idea that reproductive organs and secondary sex characteristics come packaged with sets of social behaviors termed “feminine” and “masculine.” Gender role performances are simply a load of bullshit posturing forced on us by a male supremacist society that requires symbols of difference, no matter how fictitious, in order to continue to operate unchallenged. When we argue that plastic surgery exists to aid those who seek to more closely adhere to a gender role concocted by the partnership between capitalism and patriarchy, it’s easy to assume that the same impulse is at work when someone claims to identify with one gender role or the other and pursues sex reassignment surgery. It’s a very simple logical progression; having parts of one’s body surgically removed or having foreign objects inserted into one’s body as a result of a warped obsession with gender conformity illustrates the deleterious effects of socially enforced gender roles on the human body and mind in the case of the “beauty” industry, so the same must hold true for sex reassignment surgery.

The thing is, none of the radical feminists I know are trans, nor am I. I have no way of knowing whether my battle with what society wants out of me as someone born with a vagina resembles in any way the conflicts that occur in the mind of someone with male genitalia who feels a desperate need to undergo reassignment surgery. I’m guessing, however, that it doesn’t, and I’m thus not going to tell trans people how their minds work, nor am I going to make the outrageous and dehumanizing claim that they must be mentally ill. (Let us please not forget the history of the use of psychiatric authority as a justification for the marginalization, institutionalization, sterilization, rape, and murder of women.)

An even more difficult aspect of this issue is the relationship of male privilege and what society teaches male children about women and what it means to be female. Some radical feminists are offended at what they have perceived as a caricature of womanhood, or a reduction of the experience of being female to whatever a misogynistic society tells us womanhood is about (e.g., boots, bitchiness, and boobs). If all transwomen all the time interpreted and expressed femininity by channeling Bugs Bunny’s take on womanhood and ran around exclaiming that all one needs to be a woman is a facsimile vagina, a sense of fashion, and the ability to gossip, that would be the end of it. But that isn’t the case, and reality requires that we approach this discussion a little more thoughtfully and adhere to our own professed ethics and logical proclivities.

Straw Transwoman

Transwomen, it is argued, cannot ever understand what it means to be female in a male supremacist world in the exact same sense that women who were born female do. That is almost certainly the case, but who cares? Is anyone even claiming that they can? It would appear to be the opposite, in the cases in which transwomen enter into discussions with female-at-birth women and urge that their unique concerns as transwomen be taken into consideration. That leads to another problem. Some trans-critical radical feminists argue that transwomen display that most unseemly of male characteristics, the sense of entitlement to absorb all available discursive space and the totality of the available focus. Seeing as women have so few opportunities to discuss our own issues without men’s obnoxious intrusions, and seeing as there seems to be no space men do not feel entitled to intrude upon, I see the point. The problem lies, however, in whether we want to lump transwomen in with men. I don’t feel comfortable doing so. For one thing, the fact that many transwomen did not adhere to male gender norms even as children likely drastically altered the experience of male gender conditioning, and probably also sharply decreased the ability to relate to other boys and men as allies in the preservation of male privilege. Men perpetuate male privilege by “having each others’ backs” and bro-ing down in their shared misogyny and homophobia/transphobia (being unthoughtful dudes, they can’t distinguish between one kind of person they call “faggots” and another). How many little boys do you know who wouldn’t shun a little boy who displayed characteristics they’ve been taught to disdain since birth? And how many little boys who are shunned by other boys feel invested in upholding a male privilege that they feel fundamentally excluded from? Maybe some transwomen lived as boys long enough to absorb the idea that they are entitled to talk over women and that their concerns come first, simply because parents and society treat children with penises in such a way that they come to expect that. Or maybe the individual transwomen some of the radical feminist community has problems with are just self-absorbed, abusive assholes. In either case, we aren’t dealing with men. We are dealing with transwomen, and it is important when discussing something as complicated as conflicting gender theories to be very specific and delineate exactly what it is we’re talking about.

The argument goes that the existence of trans people strengthens the gender binary, but no one save the few trans activists who have attempted to force their way into female-only spaces truly considers transwomen to be women. The general public who consider themselves intellectuals because they read Time have even begun to evince an awareness, due in part to news stories regarding trans children, that there is a fundamental flaw in the gender binary. It is likely that, in a world without a binary gender hierarchy, gender roles would cease to serve a purpose and people would cease to feel the need to resort to dangerous medical procedures in order to feel at ease in the world, but we aren’t there yet. Even if everyone agreed at the stroke of midnight tonight to cease seeking out hormone therapy and reassignment surgery, trans people exist, and they exist in a no-woman’s-land between between the two ill-fitting gender roles male supremacist society has devised. We have to find ways to reconcile their existence with our mental frameworks and the physical world. Solutions need to be found to the problems that arise when people who do not fit the gender binary come up against it when standing in front of a public bathroom door sign, for example. “Fuck you, stay out” is not a solution. (Lobbying for single-user bathrooms — which make sense for several reasons not limited to trans people’s needs — is.)

The internet is probably the single most valuable recruiting tool history has handed us for ending the oppression of women, children, people of color, and the poor. If the sites people come across when looking for information on radical feminism revolve chiefly around esoteric denunciations infused with snotty, juvenile insults, how can we expect anyone to get on board with the cause? There are venues for the elaboration of theory and there are venues aimed at drawing in outsiders, but the proprietors of both have the responsibility to make themselves clear and accessible — rather than repulsive — to their audiences. That is not a request that women “play nice.” It is a request that feminists use the forums they have at their disposal responsibly.

The task at hand is not to define feminism in such a way that only eight people (of whom I am not one) qualify, it’s to figure out a way to create a world in which no one is beaten, raped, murdered, dehumanized, worked to death, devalued, or shat upon by men as a means for reinforcing male power. That will not be accomplished by using the master’s tools to try to tear down his house, i.e., using dehumanizing language that makes us sound like MRAs against oppressed people, even if some of them act like assholes. Transwomen are not in a position of power, they are not privileged over women except when women choose to efface themselves to give transwomen the stage, even if an individual transwoman feels entitled to talk over everyone. Is the claim that feminist blog discussions are a zero-sum environment in which transwomen’s issues are to be considered only to the ouster of women’s concerns? That’s ridiculous. The internet is a big place, and there is room for everyone who isn’t a complete dick to discuss their perspectives. If a site silences radical feminists (for illegitimate reasons), stop going to the site. There are places that won’t.

Transwomen who call themselves feminists are feminists, if we use the baseline belief that women are human beings as a basic definition of feminism. That some transwomen’s conception of  feminism reflects their own experiences rather than those of radical feminists who were born female is to be expected. It’s time to move away from the Second Wave/Third Wave dichotomy and move past the fragmentation of the feminist movement of recent decades. We can find ways to work with feminists who have varying priorities without descending into a radically relativistic individualism that isolates us all from each other, but we’ll have to attempt to figure out how rather than spend our time coming up with clever ways to delegitimize other feminists. Picking someone else’s position apart is far easier than building one of one’s own, but it’s a fairly dead-end pursuit. If the argument truly is that trans people demand more intellectual and political space than is their fair share, why are radical feminists creating entire blogs about them? How much effort needs to be expended on deconstructing trans politics? Does doing so really build radical feminist theory? Or change individual women’s lives for the better?

Note 1: I realize I only discussed transwomen here, which I did because I am responding to discussions in which transwomen are the chief subject. I tend to agree with the view that women transitioning to become men evince internalized misogyny, but that isn’t for this post, nor is it that shocking of an idea, given that everyone in the world is a misogynist.

Note 2: I will be moderating the fuck out of comments.

To be continued…

280 Responses to “In which Nine Deuce uses the word “trans” a second time”

  1. doublevez January 12, 2012 at 10:08 PM #

    https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/whats-up-with-toronto-sherbourne-health-center-threatening-lesbians/

    ” Xander “Sly” Sarkisova claims to work at the Sherbourne Health Center. Apparently she sent out the threatening, stalkery abusive comment on her work computer, terminal 76.75.181.89 at the Toronto Sherbourne Health Center.

    Why did she do that? Because the “ex-lesbian” was angry that a Lesbian would take issue with her homophobia. So she stalked her, and threatened her, from her computer terminal at her employers Toronto Sherbourne Health Center, where she claims to be employed helping people.

    The homophobia of “specifically” Lesbians needing to get over their “lack of desire” for cock wasn’t bad enough, she had to stalk and threaten a woman as a representative of the Toronto Sherbourne Health Clinic.”

    Want more?

  2. Fede January 12, 2012 at 10:37 PM #

    I agree with what you say here, ND, that a deciding factor is whether or not one lumps together men and transwomen. To me, the answer to that is unequivocal: transwomen are not men.

    In my book, a person’s gender denotes one thing and one thing only: their status in society. Belonging in the class labeled ‘woman’ doesn’t mean one is bound to be fond of pink, bad at football, good at menial work, or irrational. It doesn’t mean a damn thing other than ‘sub-human’.

    Only people who enjoy ‘Man’ status are men.

  3. Sugarpuss January 12, 2012 at 11:33 PM #

    Fede said:

    Only people who enjoy ‘Man’ status are men.

    The only people who enjoy man-status are those born with a penis. Fact.

  4. sneeky bunny January 12, 2012 at 11:53 PM #

    92, I’ve read your blog for about four years now, and even when in disagreement, have always admired your writing, your passion, your keen sense of justice, and your insights. You have never run this joint like an echo chamber, and have allowed space for the many flavors of feminist who might wander in to share their points of view, even if it gets a little rough and tumble between us all. That, to me, has been hugely valuable, and I have to say I agree with just about everything you wrote in this post, but obviously there are other posters here that have not, and will not. I only hope that they can come to the topic in the same spirit that you have, and not get all Maoist up in here, denounce you for insufficient doctrinal purity, and do the big flounce. This is a topic that needs many voices, and I think you have made a space here in which they might all be heard.
    Thank you.

  5. Fede January 13, 2012 at 12:24 AM #

    @Sugarpuss: Yes, that is a fact. Or, if we’re being very specific, the only people who enjoy ‘Man’ status are the ones perceived to have been born with a penis. So a few transmen might be included in that, presuming that they can ‘pass’.

    Enjoying Man status is, incidentally, a prerequisite for enjoying human status.

  6. No Sugarcoating January 13, 2012 at 12:27 AM #

    Well, I definitely don’t want to turn this place into an echo chamber, but I’m going to echo sneeky’s thoughts. I will, however, say that (at least so far) on this topic, the debate is falling short of the usual ND standard. We all agree that the examples of behavior/thinking the trans-critical radical feminists gave were abhorrent, but the “a few bad apples” defense is too reminiscent of what men say about porn/prostitution/misogyny/insertfeministconcernhere. There should be a more nuanced discussion of how pervasive misogynistic thinking is in the transgender community, and what consequences that may have. Can these circumstances be changed through some feminist outreach?

  7. No Sugarcoating January 13, 2012 at 12:28 AM #

    Actually, as I skim over this again, the last two posts read more like safety preparations for an inevitable nuclear attack!

  8. E January 13, 2012 at 12:43 AM #

    9/2, I’m not sure that I necessarily agree with all of your analysis. Much of it, certainly, but I can’t get behind the notion that FTMs inherently wish to transition due to internalized misogyny, nor the assertion that surgery, adherence to gender roles, and appearance are necessarily primary concerns for trans people.

    Many, maybe even most. But not all.

    That said, I understand if my position is seen as suspect, whether it’s because I’m MAAB or because I’ve meddled with trans identity in the past. However, it’s precisely because of those experiences that I’ve become rather disgusted with trans politics. I bought the liberal line of thought on it, fully incorporated it in to my own life, and found myself embedded in a community that was, quite simply, awful. The vast majority of it really was quite openly misogynistic, antifeminist, etc. Talk of “girlmode” abounded, nonstop talk about clothing and presentation, and every awful cliche possible.

    Others have talked in depth about the bullying and attacks targeted at radical feminists, so I figured I’d add that being an “insider” doesn’t help if you dare to criticize the orthodoxy.

    One would think I’d murdered somebody whenever I argued that FAAB-only spaces were necessary or that the desire to simply erase an entire history of socialization was problematic. I had somebody literally burst in to tears at me over the phone about how awful I was when I said that I didn’t think it was healthy to act as if childhood never happened. I tried challenging the notion that expressing femininity meant acting like a flighty ditz, or even that femininity ought to be expressed as a Patriarchy-informed structured performance. Time and again, I tried to elevate the debate, press for any kind of discourse, only to shut down with “You’re invalidating my identity!” (sometimes literally those words). The final straw was when I criticized St Julia Serrano; at that point, the insults, demonization, and even death threats against me got kicked in to high gear. My “favorite” one was somebody telling me that an abusive ex-partner of mine was justified.

    The only genuinely good person I met during this time was also demonized by the community – for stopping testosterone therapy. It’s not like my friend even talked about how transition is a mistake that nobody should follow – they just acknowledged that it wasn’t right for them personally and that they wanted to move on with their life. That apparently wasn’t acceptable, which to me, speaks to some kind of deep insecurity in the actual stability of trans identity.

    We’ve both run far, far away from “the community” and we’re both happier and healthier for it. I’m enough of a hopeless optimist to think that there’s a *possibility* for trans politics that are decent. I just haven’t encountered it in practice.

  9. mew! January 13, 2012 at 12:47 AM #

    The whole article is still about othering ingendered women. If your going to do so,do it right.As a biological condition that some see as rightfully a degree of hermaphrodism.2 % of all animal species are consistently born obviously, to some degree, intersexed.Now if we widen that scope to include internal displacements such as nervous systems(brain sex),we include transsexual and transgendered men and women.that raises that # from 2% to 6%(doubling the original twice for inclusion of both conditions).Now that heightened number can no longer be consider environmental mutation,but evolutionary purpose. If we are to accept the theory of evolution, then we all came from asexual reproduction. Therefor pollination and development of different sex characteristics, being evolutionary tools, also called mutations, in which to spread DNA.A substance that can be either strengthened or corroded all the while retaining its original function. Just as male is a mutation,so to is female. Acknowledging that social scripts and roles are inventions of any given society of animals through ingenuity and need;one may incorrectly dismiss ones true gender expression as simply a want.life is selfish and if it can stand alone and florish it will. meaning if it no longer has need for binary reproduction,it will halt its use;single celled reproduction being the original encoding.In an attempt to keep itself the most efficient form,it harkens back.Sometimes as in the case of mammals it may have evolved to far in this use of the binary to be effective,but it still trys. Producing the intersexed consistently. Waiting for a time in which this gene manipulation has a chance at furthering evolution. These poor creatures are usually cannibalised or killed by their original species in an attempt to keep that version as the staus quo,bigotry bieng an instinct thats use is as a self defence mechanism.

  10. Fede January 13, 2012 at 1:15 AM #

    No Sugarcoating, you said,

    There should be a more nuanced discussion of how pervasive misogynistic thinking is in the transgender community, and what consequences that may have.

    I can only agree with you, there.

    Thank you also, E, for your input, which I think begins to address that question.

  11. Sugarpuss January 13, 2012 at 1:50 AM #

    Fede said:

    Or, if we’re being very specific, the only people who enjoy ‘Man’ status are the ones perceived to have been born with a penis. So a few transmen might be included in that, presuming that they can ‘pass’.

    Fede, transmen get shit on much more than transwomen…simply because they are biological females. There is nothing the world despises more than a woman attempting to escape the female prison that male-born people built. This is precisely why the paparazzi is so obsessed with Chaz Bono’s cheese-purchasing habits, but has yet to show any interest in what male-born people (trans or not) are shoving into their pieholes.

    Biology is the root of misogyny. Male people hate female people for being born female. Gender has nothing to do with it.

  12. OutsideLookingOver January 13, 2012 at 2:32 AM #

    I was exposed to “The Community” during an effort to sell clothing extended from our shop to the cross-dress/transgender group we encountered in the course of running a ladies clothing shop. I felt extremely uncomfortable, as quite a number of these individuals appeared equally uncomfortable and furtive in their frocks and makeup.

    “This is me? I’m one of these oddly attired people?”

    One or two had had the surgery. The person whose house it was was reasonably relaxed… but not a single one had anything of woman about them. I’m not referring to femininity, whatever that is. I work with women… I’m the only bloke in post-op recovery. I have learned to smile, to look into eyes more, to shut-up and bloody listen. No one imposes this: I’d decided it was a key social skill. None of these people thought it was, though.

    They had a mission, a purpose.

    It wasn’t mine.

  13. delphyne January 13, 2012 at 4:04 AM #

    Nine, do you really believe that MTF trans are actually women?

    What is your definition of a woman if that’s the case?

  14. hall-of-rage January 13, 2012 at 4:23 AM #

    Nine Deuce, this article is like a breath of fresh air, as until your last post (and a comment) I really thought radical feminists and queer-trans-inclusive feminists could never mix. I hope you are not worried about lots of backlash reactions, but you’re brave for talking like this if so. Words do hurt. (They hurt me–I’m sensitive about haters on trans people, might not read comments.)

    I just want to share my POV about “no-one thinks they are women.” Maybe many don’t but I’m a cis exception and there are many others. For whatever reason, if someone “presents as a woman” to me (yes I have biases about what that means, no I don’t talk about them), I see her as a woman, apparently even if she’s a self-identified-male drag queen in drag. But for trans women I think it just takes knowing real people to see “woman” first, “transsexual” as an indicator of likely childhood experiences and some likely current experiences. My close friend (who is trans) and I not the only ones who often look at men and women and wonder if they’re trans–I keep hearing more trans people and allies say they do this, and I think that’s about seeking solidarity, not about invalidating sex/gender. Or it’s a remnant of the anxiety people feel about figuring out someone’s birth-assigned sex.

    For the comment on the last post about how trans women should make their own sex category, radtransfem really sheds light on a problem with that in her article that mentions what the third gender option for trans people really is. As far as I know constructing a sex other than “woman” is something some transgender people (an umbrella term) wish to do, or do for a while, but many find the “freak” ostracism too draining. I do know two people who consciously decided to pick male or female based on this problem, and then settled into it.

    And just to touch on the biological guns some like to stick to: aside from reproductive functions not everyone has/had/will have, the emphasis on genitalia is strange to me. It’s funny how people imagine they determine sex by genitalia when really they assume genitalia based on their determination of sex. If I had to pick a biological basis of different sexes it would be an attempt to make sense of “hormone balances over a lifetime”. Hormones regulate development of genitalia in the womb. Secondary sex characteristics and smell through puberty (first and/or second). So many other things it’s really amazing.

  15. hall-of-rage January 13, 2012 at 4:31 AM #

    Apparently I edited my comment to not quite make sense. “Words hurt me”–meaning if people respond negatively enough to my comments, particularly if they do it with transphobia. “Sex category other than ‘woman'”, should add “or man”. Sorry.

  16. Rusty January 13, 2012 at 4:33 AM #

    I don’t claim to know what it was like to be raised a boy while feeling like a girl either, I have no fucking idea. I’m sure it’s excruciating.

    Could it maybe be as excruciating as being a girl raised as a girl though? It’s possible, yeah? I mean I can empathize with the feeling that my body isn’t right, that the expectations other people have for me based on my gender just don’t work, that I’m different than what I’m supposed to be. I know what it’s like to have shit uncomfortably forced on me based on my sex, shit that has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with what I like or who I am.

    Oh look, you have a vagina! Please, before I molest you, let me tell you how weak and silly and dumb and pretty you are and how that’s what makes you the most perfect little girl! Also, you like gossip and baking cupcakes and hair clips and Strawberry Shortcake dolls and please remember that boys will always be mean to you so just deal with that gracefully because you’ll have to settle for the best that you can find as early as you can, but don’t worry! You’ll raise many wonderful happy children, as long as you don’t have a job and you focus entirely on dinner and you keep your husband well-ejaculated so he doesn’t cheat on you. Good luck, slut!

    I wonder how many little boys who felt like little girls got those same messages?

  17. Sargasso Sea January 13, 2012 at 9:57 AM #

    Duece, this piece reads like the *Liberal Feminist’s Handbook of Trans Activism* and it’s nothing that we haven’t all heard a thousand times before.

    I daresay that the Reagan years (and all the years since then) completely killed any understanding of the actual meaning of Class and Politics. Post Modern? Post Racial? Post Sex-as-a-Class.

    Bye bye, “female”! You’ve been lobbied out of existence.

  18. Boner Killer January 13, 2012 at 11:08 AM #

    BINGO. Thank you, again.

  19. Boner Killer January 13, 2012 at 11:09 AM #

    ” How many little boys do you know who wouldn’t shun a little boy who displayed characteristics they’ve been taught to disdain since birth? ” EXACTLY!!!!!!!! Women and anything related to women is hated!

  20. doublevez January 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM #

    (…) adult males who wish to surgically alter themselves to appear anatomically female fall into two main groups: (1) “conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men”[26] and (2) “heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females”.[27] McHugh, had several other impressions: First, “they [the transgendered individuals] were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled”.[28]
    University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry, Paul R. McHugh, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

    http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/men-love-the-ladies-restroom-this-week-in-the-news/

  21. Heart January 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM #

    Nine Deuce:

    We can find ways to work with feminists who have varying priorities without descending into a radically relativistic individualism that isolates us all from each other, but we’ll have to attempt to figure out how rather than spend our time coming up with clever ways to delegitimize other feminists. Picking someone else’s position apart is far easier than building one of one’s own, but it’s a fairly dead-end pursuit. If the argument truly is that trans people demand more intellectual and political space than is their fair share, why are radical feminists creating entire blogs about them? How much effort needs to be expended on deconstructing trans politics? Does doing so really build radical feminist theory? Or change individual women’s lives for the better?

    Nine, I love what you’ve said here.

    To be fair, I think one reason there are so many radical feminist blogs about transgender issues right now has to do with a long history of radical feminist bashing online, going back to pre-2000/pre-blogosphere days. For some time and not very long ago, anybody who just spoke in defense of woman-only spaces — not necessarily or specifically about transgender issues — got “swarmed,” i.e., publicly attacked in blog after blog after blog over and over again. If you were really lucky, you got your real life name plastered in blog titles to boot, hate mail, hateful ugliness posted about you, just no boundaries, really. A lot of this “swarming” was plain down and dirty. So in part Ithink all these blogs related to transgender issues are just long overdue radical feminist pushback.

    There’s something else going on, though, that isn’t so understandable (or to me, acceptable) and I wonder if that’s what you’re seeing and feeling, too. I think a lot of the anti-transgender stuff out there now is being written by people who don’t really have any real-life dog in that particular fight (only an ideological dog). If you don’t know and interact with real life transgender people as part of your own progressive community, if hey are never part of your real life, if you are isolated and the only feminist community you have is what’s online, it becomes I think too easy for these issues to become the rallying point around which to bond in a common antipathy that really, in some cases is just that– antipathy. It isn’t really thoughtful analysis of issues around gender or a response to boundaries being disrespected, it’s just hatefulness and, yeah, bigotry.

    I’ve had a good book for a long time in my bookshelf, written by Dale Spender in the 80s and titled [i]For the Record: The Making and Meaning of Feminist Knowledge[/i]. Spender was a second wave Australian feminist and this book was an analysis of the work of other well-known feminists. She asked them all to respond to her analyses with the idea of publishing their responses in her book and in that way she learned how burned feminist thinkers generally were by one another, how reticent they were to respond to her request, how hard it was for them to trust her or anyone. She said something like, feminists work so hard to develop their ideas, and when we go at one another too hard, it’s too painful, they withdraw and their voices are lost. That’s happened with so many feminists and it’s a loss every time it happens. You can’t really do good work if most of your colleagues have withdrawn and won’t talk to you anymore because it’s just to painful to. Echo chambers don’t make for good feminist process. A while back I went looking for information about her, what Spender is doing now. The long and short of it is, she doesn’t seem to be devoting her time to feminism at all,really, at least not in any public way. She is involved in copyright and new technologies work and her public face seems to be just– corporate.

    Anyway, just a few thoughts. Peace.

  22. Undercover Punk January 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM #

    Oh, wow. Where to begin!! About trans women, you say:

    In either case, we aren’t dealing with men.

    According to you, trans women are not men. Got it. But then you also say:

    …no one save the few trans activists who have attempted to force their way into female-only spaces truly considers transwomen to be women.

    Wait, what? Trans women are not men, but they’re not truly women either?? What’s your position, again???

    More importantly, this is simply not true. “Trans women ARE women” is the GLBTQLOLWTF Party Line. Feminists object to this statement because “woman” is not defined by “gender expression,” it is defined (and controlled) by SEX. Humans born into a male-SEXed bodies do not “become” women merely by practicing the sex-stereotypes associated with femininity (gender). That is not what being a WOMAN or a FEMALE *is.* Asking, nay DEMANDING, that women accept femininity (gender) as proof of “womanhood” is misogyny. THAT is what feminists like me are upset about!!!

    Still, you seem convinced that “trans” has important and meaningful characteristics:

    The thing is, none of the radical feminists I know are trans, nor am I.

    Ok, but…WHAT IS “trans”? How does one claim a “trans” I-dentity in the first place? By experiencing “gender dysphoria”? Well then, ALL gender-non-conforming people qualify as “trans” don’t they? What makes “trans” experiences distinctly “trans”?? The “trans” I-dentity needs boundaries (read: a definition) or it is effectively meaningless, and therefore useless.

    Cathy Brennan and I suggested that some very reasonable legal limits be placed on the concept of “gender identity” in a letter to the U.N. last August. Did you read that, Nine Deuce? It was a beautiful compromise. Very respectful. Guess what? We were attacked– NOT by a few wacky internet extremists– but by political blogs with significant readership bases such as Bilerico and Pam’s House Blend. We were called hysterical and transphobic. Our well-considered, pro-female position generated stunning OUTRAGE in the larger trans community.

    To women who think they can do a better job with the “trans” issue than EVERY feminist who came before her, I say bring it on. Show me how it’s done! I will be your soldier.

    Oh, one more thing: it’s not ONLY males who enforce, cooperate with, and create “male privilege.” You can’t explain away or negate the effects of “male privilege” by referencing experiences of peer bullying. It’s not the same thing. Obviously.

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM #

      UP – I already stated in the post that my view is that transwomen are neither men nor women, but exist in a liminal space that our mental taxonomies cannot cope with. Their experiences HAVE to be different than those of women born female. Thy also have to be different than those of men. If you are going to be critical, then transwomen need to be discussed with specifics. Just calling them men is too simplistic.

  23. Nicky January 13, 2012 at 12:33 PM #

    As an Intersex person, I can tell you that vast majority don’t want twanz in intersex spaces because they were never born like intersex people from birth and some try to invade to use the intersex name as an excuse to throw at people or to pretend to be one.

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 1:09 PM #

      Maybe it would be helpful to delineate trans activists and trans people as a whole for the remainder of this discussion.

  24. doublevez January 13, 2012 at 1:17 PM #

    (…) I wonder if that’s what you’re seeing and feeling, too. I think a lot of the anti-transgender stuff out there now is being written by people who don’t really have any real-life dog in that particular fight (only an ideological dog). If you don’t know and interact with real life transgender people as part of your own progressive community, if hey are never part of your real life, ”

    You have been away a long time haven’t you Heart. I hope you’ve prospered in your well-deserved sabbatical. Lesbian women have a dog in the race, so does anyone who’s a parent, teachers, orgs run by women for women (Vancouver Rape Relief) medical professionals who see how wrong are the choices their colleagues are making for the benefit of their careers and the pharma that’s backing the “research, and ultimately harming the ‘study subjects’. And my idea about why radical lesbians are the ones flying the flag here? Simply because we didn’t give up and run away.

  25. doublevez January 13, 2012 at 1:19 PM #

    Words missing in edit: “And my idea about why radical lesbians and radical feminists are the ones flying the flag here? Simply because we didn’t give up and run away.

  26. la redactora January 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM #

    How about males, then, is that more acceptable to you? XY*? Is it too simplistic to call gay men, men? How about nonwhite men? Are they not “men” either?

    *This is biological truth, and no matter how much they want to deny it, it remains.

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 1:26 PM #

      So we should oppose essentialism in some cases but use it as an argument in others?

  27. la redactora January 13, 2012 at 1:24 PM #

    Or, to be more clear, where do you draw the “non-men” line?

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM #

      With lack of male privilege. Are people arguing that transwomen exercise male privilege?

  28. delphyne January 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM #

    What’s your definition of a man or a woman then ND, if trans exist in “a liminal space that our mental taxonomies cannot cope with”

    My definition of man is adult human male, and woman is adult human female – you’re going to be one or the other unless you have an intersex condition.

    You might not think that MTF trans are women, but that’s exactly what they are claiming and what rad fems are objecting to on all sorts of grounds.

  29. doublevez January 13, 2012 at 1:30 PM #

    “Maybe it would be helpful to delineate trans activists and trans people as a whole for the remainder of this discussion.”

    We know the difference. Are you having problems with that Nine, perhaps someone reading you that isn’t one or the other?

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 1:33 PM #

      I asked that the delineation be made because you, for one, are posting bits of news about trans activists with no context

  30. la redactora January 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM #

    Yes, they are.

    So now it is essentialist to say that males and females, XX and XY, exist and are biologically different? Again, this is biological reality, it’s in our chromosomes. I made no statement toward personality traits, aptitudes, or anything else.

    Biological reality is irrefutable, but they want to refute it. These are the people who get upset when people talk about periods and uteri because such discussions are “transphobic.”

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 1:50 PM #

      La Redactora – No, it is essentialism to say that someone born with ____ genitalia must have ____ experience and thus hold ____ views. Why the insistence on delineating who is and is not female or male if not to make some kind of claim about genitalia matching behaviors? I’m well aware that bodily sex is a reality, but social gender is a falsehood. Why the insistence on the part of radical feminists that bodily sex determines behavior in this case in contradiction of basic radical feminist theory?

  31. Heart January 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM #

    Thanks for the well wishes, doublevez.

    Re dog in the fight, I agree that all the groups you mention have an ideological dog in the fight. That’s a different fight, though, from the fight that goes on between people who have real life dogs in the fight. It’s comparatively easy to denounce and remonstrate against people you have never seen, will never see, will never talk with, won’t have anything to do with. It’s not so easy when you are talking about people you do see and know.

  32. Akuba January 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM #

    Nine Deuce,
    Your definition of essentialism: “the idea that reproductive organs and secondary sex characteristics come packaged with sets of social behaviors termed “feminine” and “masculine.”” is not the same as what la redactora is getting at, which is to describe the biological fact of “sex”. From what I can tell, rad fems don’t seem to reject or ague with biology. They argue with the ‘social essentialism’ you correctly describe as “a load of bullshit”.

    I think you are being a little disingenuous here.

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 1:52 PM #

      Akuba – I am never going to argue that someone who was not born a biological female will ever be a biological female. That’s simply ridiculous. But why are we even discussing that? Men who undergo reassignment might not ever completely become biological females, but are they still men? I don’t think so, and hence I think it’s important to discuss the specifics of what is actually occurring.

  33. Akuba January 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM #

    I need to learn to read better. That’s “argue” not “ague”!

  34. la redactora January 13, 2012 at 1:45 PM #

    To be clear the “yes they are” was in response to this part:
    “Are people arguing that transwomen exercise male privilege?”

  35. Undercover Punk January 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM #

    9-2:

    …transwomen are neither men nor women, but exist in a liminal space that our mental taxonomies cannot cope with.

    My mental taxonomy cannot handle gender non-conformity? LOLOLOLOL! No, actually, I LIKE it. Butch dykes, mmmmmmmm. My ‘mental taxonomy’ rejects the misogynist suggestion that gender=sex. Femininity does not equal female. Femininity does not equal woman. Pretty simple.

    So, again, how are you defining “trans”?

  36. Nicky January 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM #

    So where dose Intersex people fit into this

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM #

      Nicky – That is an excellent question. It seems, from the “XX and XY and that’s it” nature of this discussion that intersex people are being left out. I suppose it would make more sense to ask, rather than tell, intersex people where they fit into this.

  37. la redactora January 13, 2012 at 2:00 PM #

    A) “No, it is essentialism to say that someone born with ____ genitalia must have ____ experience and thus hold ____ views”

    In response to this I will repeat what I said up above ” I made no statement toward personality traits, aptitudes, or anything else.”

    B) Is it essentialist to say that males as a class are sexist? Is it essentialist to say males can be physically dangerous toward females?

    C) “Why the insistence on delineating who is and is not female or male if not to make some kind of claim about genitalia matching behaviors?” You seem to have forgotten my comment in the other thread about lesbians and women only spaces. We delineate for sexual and political reasons. And yes, we are allowed to do so.

    Okay, I am out for the time being. Take my place, somebody!

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 2:07 PM #

      B) It is not essentialist to say that men (not males) as a class are sexist and can be dangerous. But that’s why it’s important to figure out whether we really want to call transwomen men.

      C) This is where delineating trans from trans activists might be helpful. Forcing one’s way into FAB-only spaces isn’t OK, especially when those spaces are created to give survivors of male abuse a safe arena in which to discuss their experiences, etc. But is it really correct to assume that every trans person wants to show up at a lesbian music festival and whip their dick out in a room full of naked women?

  38. Akuba January 13, 2012 at 2:04 PM #

    This argument is because many rad fems consider that the term “woman” means those that are female (or so identified at birth in the case of intersexed persons). And they consider this an important distinction for a myriad of reasons.

  39. doublevez January 13, 2012 at 2:08 PM #

    Sorry, yes, we do know them. Radical feminists include lesbian feminists so how could we not know someone? Radical feminists have families. Are we not parents, teachers, community workers? Our gay and lesbian youth are being talked into irreversible body mutilations over the lie that sex = gender. Gender Trender came about recently so maybe you’re not aware of HOW we are involved. Some very fine work being done there which reminds me of another feminist I used to know.

  40. la redactora January 13, 2012 at 2:11 PM #

    Nine Deuce, one last comment, that XY XX comment is a misinterpretation of what I said and why I said it. I never said “and that’s it” and I was discussing the majority of males and females not intersex, who can (sometimes) have a different arrangement of chromosomes though there can also be hormonal and other factors at play. But again, trans have none of those. I’m sure Nicky could explain it better than I could, but trans are not intersex.

    • zoebrain February 23, 2013 at 7:10 PM #

      Nicky believes he’s the only person in the world who’s Intersex, and all the others, Gina Wilson, Cutiss Hinkle, the leaders of OII (Organisation Intersex International), UKIA (UK Intersex Association) etc etc (including myself) are all Transsexual Infiltrators. He’s been banned from all such groups (and many others) for his threats of violence and for being an Internet Kook.

      He has issues – which are obvious if you look at his blog. Kallman’s syndrome isn’t regarded by most as an Intersex condition. I actually think it should be, as in addition to its primary symptom of anosmia (failure of the nosmic bulb in the brain to develop, so sufferers lack any sense of smell) it can sometimes lead to genital atrophy. In his case, he’s underdeveloped, but within normal range. He’s obsessed with his penis though.

      “The other thing is that the issue with penis size for me. I never can feel my penis. I can never feel it like a normal guy. See for me, my penis is 1 inches when soft and when it dose get hard, It gets hard as big as 3.99 inches and as thick as a chap stick or a lip stick. It’s not that thick or not that big either. To put it bluntly, I have a penis as thick as a lip stick. I just see my penis when it’s soft as a oversized clitoris and that the only advantage I see, is that I can push my penis inward up to 1.5 inches and almost to the pubic bone..”

      http://kallmannssyndrome.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/intersex-rants-2/

      I guess what I’m saying – contact a more reliable source rather than taking what Nicky says as gospel. He has issues.

  41. Akuba January 13, 2012 at 2:35 PM #

    “Men who undergo reassignment might not ever completely become biological females, but are they still men?” – 9/2

    I think this is where some confusion lies. Biologically, they do not “partially” become female. Biologically, they remain male.

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM #

      But not socially. I dislike the facile claim that they are “men” with no qualifier. It hurts the discussion.

  42. Heart January 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM #

    doublevez, I’m not accusing you or the groups of people you’ve mentioned of anything. Nine’s original post was about the assholishness of so many of the discussions about transgender on radical feminist blogs, the sheer number of the references to them and just generally, WTF. My comment went to that particular point that she was making. I stand by what I said. I don’t think the way the discussion is going down right now helps us.

    Peace and my best to all.

  43. Akuba January 13, 2012 at 2:54 PM #

    9/2 You said “not ever completely become biological females” I was merely correcting this misconception that the biology changes. I made no mention of the social changes.

  44. Akuba January 13, 2012 at 3:01 PM #

    I do not understand how this fact would ‘hurt the discussion’. The rad fem definition of ‘woman’ is very specific. Biology figures into it, and indeed, is quite central to it. It seems that the whole disagreement is about this definition of ‘woman’. I have not seen a compelling reason that makes sense for rad fems to change their definition.

  45. Noanodyne January 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM #

    @ND: “But is it really correct to assume that every trans person wants to show up at a lesbian music festival and whip their dick out in a room full of naked women?”

    Why is the onus on females to have to sort out (and through what means, actual assaults?) whether a male-born person with a penis claiming to be a “woman” is a predator or not? We’re just supposed to believe, believe, believe with our whole hearts that nothing bad will happen. You know, because that’s what women are supposed to do, not worry our little heads about something that never happens! Except, you know, it does.

    Your argument is one that trans* activists and their liberal allies make all the time. And it sounds exactly like the arguments that men’s rights activists routinely make about women’s “hysteria” about the “supposed”‘ prevalence of rape. It’s striking how much trans* political arguments sound like men’s rights arguments and how much they favor the male viewpoint over the female. That’s why it’s particularly strange for someone who gets the whole feminist argument about women’s realities to argue the same thing they do.

  46. Undercover Punk January 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM #

    I dislike the facile claim that they are “men” with no qualifier.

    Sorry you dislike that but sex and gender are different. I’m not sure what kind of “harm” you have in mind, but it does NOT hurt the discussion to insist that MALE and FEMALE are IMMUTABLE biological reproductive realities (as opposed to the social constructions of ‘man/boy’ and ‘woman/girl’). It may hurt some people’s FEELINGS to make this distinction, but it doesn’t hurt feminist politics. Quite the contrary, it is absolutely CRITICAL that feminism keep sex and gender separate. Always.

    • zoebrain February 23, 2013 at 7:37 PM #

      Re: biological sex – its not that clear-cut.

      The ideas that
      1) Trans women are entirely “anatomically male”
      2) XX is female, XY is male, by definition
      3) Chromosomes can’t be changed

      All commonly-held Ideas that provide the foundational basis for Janice Raymond’s and other Radical Feminists definition of sex (and that of conservative groups too), have all been found to be false.

      Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
      –The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder.–

      The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism January 1, 2008 vol. 93 no. 1 182-189
      — A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis. —

      Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients by Ikoma et al Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):608.e1-8
      This show that a bone-marrow transplant recipient’s entire bodies gradually become genetically identical to that of the donor due to cell turnover. Even the brain. Even the reproductive glands, so a female transplant recipient may end up with “genetically male” ovaries.

      While “Gendered Behaviour” is mostly a social construct, as numerous experiments have shown, a small but significant fraction – perhaps 10-20% – has at least a biological basis. It’s not controversial that men tend to be taller than women, nor that many women are taller than many men, nor that this difference is a matter of innate biology and not upbringing or socialisation. Yet when we say that women tend to have certain characteristic senses of smell, hearing, and emotional response, and men another, but with many exceptions and as much overlap as with height, that’s seen as “essentialism” and sexist.

      To refuse to allow women the opportunity to do “men’s work” as we’re “too emotional” is as crazy as not allowing a woman who’s 6ft 4″ tall into a basketball team because “women are shorter than men”. The latter is obviously reality-challenged, the former all too common, an article of Faith of the Patriarchy.

      In relation to Transsexuality – two papers describe things well, though the binary gender model is flawed at best. Gender is anything but binary and clear-cut. Neither is sex, as the existence of Intersex people graphically illustrates.

      >Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35
      –The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.–

      Biased-Interaction Theory of Psychosexual Development: “How Does One Know if One is Male or Female?” M.Diamond Sex Roles (2006) 55:589–600
      — A theory of gender development is presented that incorporates early biological factors that organize predispositions in temperament and attitudes. With activation of these factors a person interacts in society and comes to identify as male or female. The predispositions establish preferences and aversions the growing child compares with those of others. All individuals compare themselves with others deciding who they are like (same) and with whom are they different. These experiences and interpretations can then be said to determine how one comes to identify as male or female, man or woman. In retrospect, one can say the person has a gendered brain since it is the brain that structures the individual’s basic personality; first with inherent tendencies then with interactions coming from experience. –

  47. Sugarpuss January 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM #

    I have absolutely no problemo understanding the concerns of RadFem lesbians, with regard to this whole trans thing. They have explained it in a very clear & concise fashion…short of drawing a fucking diagram with stick-figures.

    But nevermind me…I only have a 7th grade education. No fancy college courses under my belt*.

    *I didn’t suck the right dicks.

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 3:51 PM #

      Uh, Sugarpuss? Are you telling me I “sucked the right dicks” because I went to college? What the fuck is going on here?

  48. rainsinger January 13, 2012 at 4:07 PM #

    Trans-activism in the real-world operates just like a patriarchal religion. It promotes, pushes and imposes a set of misogynist myths and legends and fantasies, or doctrine – that are deeply, profoundly anti-women. Mocking trannies, is up there with mocking fundies and God-botherers for their anti-feminist politics. Like all the other organised patriarchal religions (which often hate each other too), it also gets a lot of support from all other arms of patriarchy – the nation-state, education, medicine, the legal systems etc.

  49. Sugarpuss January 13, 2012 at 4:13 PM #

    @92: LOL No, not really. I’m speaking in a general fashion. No particular person in mind. I’m in a bad mood (lack of sleep).

  50. Boner Killer January 13, 2012 at 4:18 PM #

    Sugarpuss says: “The only people who enjoy man-status are those born with a penis. Fact”

    Where does that leave people who were born intersex but who appear and present themselves as men? Or do they not count? Not everyone is born with either a penis or a vagina – they are not defining factors. A woman who has had a hysterectomy for an example, is she no longer a woman? Is a man who had his testicles removed due to cancer not a man?

  51. Boner Killer January 13, 2012 at 4:20 PM #

    “(…) adult males who wish to surgically alter themselves to appear anatomically female fall into two main groups: (1) “conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men”[26] and (2) “heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females”.[27] McHugh, had several other impressions: First, “they [the transgendered individuals] were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled”.[28]
    University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry, Paul R. McHugh, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.”

    right … because medicine and psychiatry hasn’t been harming women and people of colour and first nations people for decades … great feminist argument to use male psychiatrists to back up calling trans people “she-males” and acting like they are invaluable human beings.

    • zoebrain February 23, 2013 at 6:40 PM #

      You forgot to say that Dr Paul McHugh is the former advisor on sexual matters to the Vatican, that he also expressed the view that pre-pubescent girls seduced their rapists. His report to the court in one case stated that a defendant’s harassing phone calls were not obscene – including the call that detailed a fantasy of a 4-year-old sex slave girl locked in a dog cage and fed human waste. He also said Johns Hopkins’ Sexual Disorders Clinic, which treats molesters, was justified in concealing multiple incidents of child rape and fondling to police, despite a state law requiring staffers to report them.

      The report he commissioned at Johns Hopkins on Transsexual reassignment viewed Trans women who retained their jobs as lawyers and bankers as “failures” as they didn’t adopt “gender appropriate” professions such as beauticians and secretaries.

      That McHugh’s arch-conservative misogynist views are continually being quoted by Radical Feminists in order to justify their attitude to Trans women would be funny if it wasn’t so callous.

  52. Sugarpuss January 13, 2012 at 4:30 PM #

    Actually, I have had sleep, but I’ve been keeping some strange hours (eg. going to bed at 7am…waking up at 2pm). I feel drunk.

    Ah, a day in the life of the mentally ill. :D

  53. Nicky January 13, 2012 at 4:36 PM #

    I’m an intersex person who has Kallmann’s syndrome and medically I’m a biological indeterminate gender. I have no gender when i was born due to the fact i had a micropenis at birth. The way I see myself is that I’m not fully female and I am an incomplete male due to my anatomy and chromosomes.

    As far as trans goes, they are not intersex to begin with. Trans are for those who have one biological gender to begin with and transition to another. Intersex people like don’t have a biological gender to begin with and are usually forced into a gender by medical doctors and parents, without waiting and asking what the intersex person wants.

    Vast majority of intersex person are comfortable with the gender, medicine and parents assign to them. Some like me are happy they way they are. Some even choose to fix what medicine did to them at birth and childhood. Like me, I see myself as neither cause, I’m born in between both genders and after seeing what both genders are, I’m comfortable where I am.

  54. Sugarpuss January 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM #

    @Boner Killer: I’m not even going to engage you. I’ve seen the blogs you hang out at.

    Oh, and all of the ridiculous examples you’re tossing around have nothing>/i> to do with the issue(s) being discussed. Testicle cancer? Really? What a pitiful attempt at derailing the topic.

  55. Sargasso Sea January 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM #

    No doubt about it now in my mind and it’s pretty much what *we 8* thought in the first place: we’re to STFU and/or Be Nice or we’ll ruin Radical Feminism with our H*8*N ways.

    Can’t wait to see what you have to say about F2T and how that is a giant step forward for Female Liberation.

  56. Boner Killer January 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM #

    “Uh, Sugarpuss? Are you telling me I “sucked the right dicks” because I went to college? What the fuck is going on here?”

    What the fuck is going on in here? I’ve been getting accused of all kinds of things for my post, yet no one is actually speaking of the name-calling and insults being hurled at ALL trans people (not just the ones that are being assholes, ALL of them) No one wants to discuss that, apparently. Too bad.

  57. doublevez January 13, 2012 at 4:44 PM #

    Heart I haven’t really had a chance to thank you for all the work you used to do on pornography and prostitution. Mang it got assholishness sometimes, all those rape and death threats both online and in real toward you and more than a few of us, from MRAs and transActivists.

    Oh but wait, I did thank you. I sent you a lot of money. Can we talk about that, or having you already left? (I somehow think you know who I am).

  58. doublevez January 13, 2012 at 4:57 PM #

    I recall one about taking a knife and cutting you everywhere and then raping you in every “hole” I think they said. I can’t remember the exact despicably women-hating language. But it wasn’t anything like calling some man in a dress “twanz”. I believe you also wrote one or more complete posts about a twanz stalker you had, and in fact I think I could google that, and also his website where he lived out his sick fantasy of being you.

  59. doublevez January 13, 2012 at 5:02 PM #

    And now you understand why the work on Gender Trender’s blog reminds me of you adn your blog. She’s talking about you Heart, just not actually you, but other women like you, trying to live through MtT/MRA terrorizing and stalking, through fear for themselves and their children. I really don’t know why you can’t remember. But like I said Google does.

  60. Boner Killer January 13, 2012 at 5:05 PM #

    “@Boner Killer: I’m not even going to engage you. I’ve seen the blogs you hang out at.

    Oh, and all of the ridiculous examples you’re tossing around have nothing>/i> to do with the issue(s) being discussed. Testicle cancer? Really? What a pitiful attempt at derailing the topic.”

    What blogs? Twisty’s blog? That’s a pretty nasty way to dismiss what I am saying and discredit me because you follow my activity online…wow.

    I am asking you a question, if a man doesn’t have testicles is he not a man anymore? I’m not being pitiful, you said that a man without a penis isn’t a man in society, did you not? I am simply responding, you don’t need to personally attack me.

  61. Boner Killer January 13, 2012 at 5:06 PM #

    I can’t believe how nasty some of these comments are – also, very concerned why you are following my activity online, i have no idea what would inspire someone to do that…am i not “supposed” to read twisty’s blog or blogs that may not be radical feminist, but maybe come from another perspective? I didn’t realize i was on such a strict watch! Jeesh.

  62. Boner Killer January 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM #

    I know a few intersex people who do identify as a man or a woman, or present themselves in such a way – that was what I was getting at, are they not what they say they are because they may not have the exact biological “markers” of biological sex?

  63. No Sugarcoating January 13, 2012 at 5:08 PM #

    I don’t think the hysterectomy or testicular cancer examples apply though. In both cases, the people were born with those organs and just had them removed later. Sometimes people get into accidents and lose their legs – that hasn’t impacted our understanding of basic human anatomy. Having two legs is normal. Being born with one or no legs is an anomaly.

    It would make more sense to ask whether women born without uteruses still count as women.

  64. Boner Killer January 13, 2012 at 5:10 PM #

    Very self-satisifed view by the way, Sugarpuss, “i won’t engage you because i watch what blogs you read” as if you are at some superior place over me, where my opinion is suddenly worth nothing, not your time, nothing. I don’t want to engage with you either then, because you clearly aren’t interested in speaking to me like i’m a human being.

  65. Boner Killer January 13, 2012 at 5:48 PM #

    OK.

    I’m not interested in who is “really” a woman- I’m interested in women being treated as human beings, instead of like subhuman, like dirt. My point was to say it is not fair to say someone isn’t what they say they are when it involves their bodies — what the fuck gives me the right to tell someone who they are when I don’t even know them? When I can’t generalize an entire group of human beings? I AM interested in WHY some people are choosing to call trans folks “shemales” and “trannies” -and HOW the conversation went from discussing Sheila Jeffrey’s critiques of modern queer theory and the increase in reassignment surgeries and use of pharmaceuticals to calling people names and saying that an entire group of people are just “crazy” and “hate women” based on the shitty behavior of some. I want to talk about this!! I want to know why anyone thinks it is okay to call people names like that and devalue them in such a way?

  66. No Sugarcoating January 13, 2012 at 5:55 PM #

    I don’t think gender conformity is inherent to transgenderism. I have a transwoman friend who is by no means a “girly-girl”. By all means, she just seemed like your typical soft-butch lesbian. There was no way I would have guessed that she was born male if she hadn’t said so. It’s so strange, now that I really think about it. I see her as a woman. I subscribe to the belief that behavior is not female or male, and yet…the way she is as a person is what makes it impossible for me to think of her as a man. I’m not talking about makeup or dresses or shopping. There is something there that I can’t quite articulate

    This is hard. I don’t want to hurt anyone, but there have been transwomen that I just don’t see as “real” women, if I’m absolutely honest with myself. I can be friends with them no problem, but something just seems sort of…fetishy about them. So what’s the difference between them? What does it really mean to be trans? Is there some sort of line or is it purely self-identification?

    I’ve been pro-trans since before I became a feminist, but there’s really one thing that’s been shaking my confidence in that. The example was given of a white person feeling “Black” and expecting everyone to accept and validate his identity as so. People keep brushing it off, and that’s making it seem like it’s undebatable. If the comparison is not applicable, someone explain why, because it doesn’t seem so obvious to some of us.

  67. Noanodyne January 13, 2012 at 6:20 PM #

    Boner Killer, you wrote an eloquent, supportive post at your blog called The Importance of Women-Only Spaces. I think it’s very sad (and I mean that, not snark), that you didn’t have the strength of your convictions or the solidarity with females to leave that up.

    When lesbians and radical feminists post or comment on blogs or discussion forums or social media about the need for female-only space we are immediately denounced as not understanding the issue and bashed as haters and phobic. It’s a silencing tactic and it’s worked on a lot of women.

    Some of the commenters here seem to think those of us who are trans critical just fell off the turnip truck. But it is precisely because many of us have been dealing with this issue in our communities for decades that we are critical and speaking out against a political movement which is very actively trying to make women, and especially lesbians, shut the hell up and just accept whatever that movement thinks we should.

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 6:27 PM #

      I believe in the need for women-only spaces. I have not said I don’t.

  68. doublevez January 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM #

    http://tinyurl.com/783w8wa

    The FEMALE reproductive system aka Not Your DAD’S Mangina.

  69. Old Music January 13, 2012 at 6:38 PM #

    Dear Nine Deuce,

    I’m writing this comment in response to both your blog posts on trans issues, I haven’t read all the comments, so apologies if I mention something you have already responded to.

    I read this blog frequently, and greatly respect your work. I also frequently read the Gender Trender blog and greatly respect what Gallus Mag does. I don’t think your original post was ‘baiting’ or anything other than written in good faith with good intentions.

    I too am uncomfortable with the whole ‘twanz’ thing, not because I’m particularly concerned about it hurting someone’s feelings, but because I imagine it must be incredibly alienating to anyone coming to the subject from a radical feminist perspective for the first time.

    I think you are right to try to separate out individual trans persons and trans activists. I imagine most trans persons are just doing what they feel they have to do to survive in a system (patriarchy) that crushes almost everyone, but there is a highly visible, highly vocal minority(?) who are overtaking feminism.

    I want to write this because I feel this is such an important part of radical feminism. It’s important because trans politics has co-opted the mainstream of feminism, it’s co-opted gay liberation, it’s co-opted women only and lesbian only spaces, it’s co-opted the needs of intersex people (who deserve far better than being lumped in under the ‘trans’ umbrella) and it’s co-opted feminist academia (women’s studies became gender studies etc etc). This has real knock-on effects for women, especially lesbians, and the women coming out of gender studies courses who have been indoctrinated into this stuff are the women who are going to be writing laws and government policies, running charities and women’s organisations, so it really does matter.

    The most important aspect of this to me is the way trans theory reinforces the policing of gender. Children as young as four are now being diagnosed as ‘trans’ by self-styled ‘gender experts’ and placed on a fast track to puberty-blocking treatments and ‘sex change’ surgery, followed by a life-time of expensive medical ‘care’. The long-term consequences to health of all these ‘treatments’ are unknown. Any child who does not perform gender correctly risks being treated in this way, even though most ‘gender variant’ children grow up to be perfectly normal, healthy gay adults. This is all supported and promoted by trans activists, and any questioning voice is shouted down as ‘transphobia’.

    I am still frustrated by my experience at the UK F-Word blog. This website is the first port of call for any woman new to feminism in the UK (put ‘the f word’ into google.co.uk and it is the first hit, higher than a celebrity chef’s food program of the same name), and it has been so co-opted by trans activists that it would be more accurately described as the ‘T-Word’. Just see their ‘transphobia’ definition or the ‘cis privileges’ list they link to – apparently, ‘cis’ women can “expect access to healthcare,” well, try needing an abortion in most parts of the world to see how much those ‘cis’ privileges are worth!

    The F-Word now operates absolute censorship on trans issues, and shows a real bias against FAB women, for example, when the human rights lawyer David Burgess was murdered back in October 2010, the F-Word ran a blog post titled “Cis woman charged with murder after Kings Cross Tube station death” with comments closed. It turned out David Burgess was murdered by another trans woman, but there have been zero other posts on the subject at the F-Word, no retraction, no apology, no follow-up.

    The post I experienced censorship on, amusingly enough, claimed that ‘transphobia’ wasn’t used as censorship. My comments were removed because apparently it’s ‘transphobic’ to say that being born female matters. Because we’re all just so unique and individual, our lives have nothing in common (but trans women still somehow know they are real women), and nobody knows our sex anyway, not even our parents when we’re born, it’s all just ‘gender expression’. This bullshit and more gets free rein, but it’s ‘transphobic’ to point out that female foetuses in China and India are aborted for being female, not for their ‘feminine behaviour’.

    The whole ‘cis’ concept is bullshit, trans activists claim they are about challenging gender binaries, then they create a new binary. ‘Cis’ is bullshit because it implies gender is innate, rather than a social construct, it implies there are ‘female brains’ and ‘male brains’, when there is no such thing. The concept of ‘cis privilege’ is even more bullshit, apparently it’s a ‘privilege’ to be ‘allowed’ to be feminine, when any sound feminist analysis would recognise enforced femininity as an oppression.

    Many trans activists are actively in favour of reinforcing gender codes, see here an account of trans activists’ responses to a man in a skirt, it’s ‘transphobic’ because he doesn’t claim to have a female brain, and anyway trans activists aren’t interested in challenging gender binaries.

    The very obvious contempt and hatred trans activists show towards FAB women is frightening, the sabotaging of Michigan’s Womyn’s fest being a case in point – if that were only the behaviour of a tiny minority, where is the outcry from the rest of the ‘trans community’ condemning this stuff? Why are guidelines being written and approved by gay right’s organisations that mean any man can walk into a women’s shelter and claim to be a woman, even if he looks like a man, presents as a man, has had no surgery or medical diagnosis, all he has to do is claim to be a woman and he’ll be granted easy access to women and children he can abuse.

    This matters because to present any objection gets shouted down as ‘transphobia’. The fact that such guidance creates a massive hole for rapists and child abusers is deemed irrelevant next to the feelings of trans women – the lives and welfare of FAB women and children don’t matter by comparison.

    Let’s not forget Julia Serano claiming that FAB women (including FAB women with PTSD after sexual abuse), not wanting to be exposed to penises in communal showers were ‘phallocentric’, while at the same time making breathless performance ‘art’ about how her penis was a weapon of mass destruction (I know she was trying to be sarcastic, but the end result is that she is the one going on about her penis the most).

    As a final note, check out the “MtF Butch” pictured in the comments thread to this post, he (and there is no way this person is anything other than a man), has a lovely ‘Die Cis Scum’ tattoo on his arm – I’m willing to bet he doesn’t flash that around large groups of men, it’s much easier and safer to intimidate women after all.

    • Silent Agony (@DiscordantFlesh) February 23, 2013 at 10:46 PM #

      Thank you for your comment about men going to womens sheltering claims they are trans. That is a very important issue as is have a penis phobia after abuse. Those women are not transphobic for feeling that way and should not be dismissed as such.

  70. delphyne January 13, 2012 at 6:51 PM #

    As nobody seems to be taking it on, least of all you Nine Deuce – the categories men and women aren’t social categories, they are biological and physical. Man equals adult human male, woman equals adult human female. All animals distinguish on sex, not just humans. It is a fundamental part of our being. We see it every day in our bodies. We all exist on this planet because of the two sexes it took to create each of us.

    The idea that woman is simply an invention out of someone’s head or their culture is deeply misogynist, and denies the lived reality of women and girls in human female bodies. However much a man might dream he is a woman, he can’t become one because he is physically male.

    There is something *very* odd about feminists, even some radical feminists, wanting to distance themselves from the category of woman and pretend it is socially constructed, and sadly I think it has to do with misogyny. Women are real, we exist, we are adult human females, yet out of all the creatures on the planet which humans have named we’re supposed to deny ourselves that means to name what we are, because of dislike or distrust of the term woman, a dislike and distrust that men have instilled in us.

    By handing the category woman over to trans you allow colonisation of women and erasure of us. After all if being a woman is simply something that exists in someone’s head and thoughts then anybody can think they are one, and more importantly anybody can think they are not one. And if nobody is really a woman, and it’s just a thought process, then real physical male oppression of women doesn’t exist and feminism is redundant. Is that really what any feminist wants?

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 7:37 PM #

      Delphyne – No one ever said that the category “woman” isn’t real. I take gender hierarchy based on a binary designated by genitalia as a given. But I still don’t think calling transwomen men is analytically useful. A third (or ninth) category is needed.

  71. womononajourney January 13, 2012 at 6:51 PM #

    @ NoSugarCoating

    You might want to check out a guest-written article on my site. It goes into more detail on the race analogy: http://womononajourney.wordpress.com/men-in-ewes-clothing-the-stealth-politics-of-the-transgender-movement/

    @Heart Good to see you here! I very much agree with your comments. I learn about former lesbians that no longer even consider themselves members of the group they formerly loved. It’s heartbreaking to see women dissociate themselves from other women this much.

    I also think because so many women under 30 (or so) accept transgenderism as the New Cause, it’s important to offer a critique that will really speak to them. At the same time, there needs to be places for women to vent their frustration and rage.

    Because some women are so hurt by this issue, it’s all the more important that more analysis from women of different backgrounds and with varying personal levels of grief surrounding transgenderism, are published.. And if writing isn’t your talent, I encourage you to speak up about your concerns re: transgenderism and Queer Nation, even
    one-on-one to a friend.

  72. delphyne January 13, 2012 at 7:07 PM #

    When women realised that we didn’t fit into the gender (sex roles) that had been assigned to us, we started a political movement to overthrow the oppressive system that enforced those sex roles.

    When MTF trans discover that they don’t quite fit the social idea of what a man should be, they decided the answer is to reclassify and reinvent the meaning of the term woman, and in turn erase women’s lived physical reality (“the meaning of woman is whatever a man says it is”), just so they can fit in. Because what a man wants is what a man gets.

    Why haven’t you addressed the misogyny involved in that exercise of masculinist power Nine Deuce?

  73. doublevez January 13, 2012 at 7:10 PM #

    So you’re not advocating for females to share spaces with Men?

    Because MtTs are. They want in, and are so angry about the U.N. letter authored by Bess Hungerford and Cathy Brennan which seeks to have women only spaces protected by legislation, that they have threatened Brennan with beating with a baseball bat and being run down by a car, until her blood is smeared all over the car.

    There ARE connections to the points we’re making here. Pity, the events of women’s history seems to have a life span of about three months. If any time at all.

  74. doublevez January 13, 2012 at 7:22 PM #

    Hey No Sugarcoating. I’m not Black, just First Nations. I get it. http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/

  75. Sugarpuss January 13, 2012 at 7:25 PM #

    @Boner Killer: Paranoid much? I don’t “follow” you around (don’t flatter yourself); I simply travel the blogosphere, in search of interesting RadFem discussions. Those journeys often lead me to watered-down, uber-liberal clusterfucks masquerading as RadFem spaces. It’s not my fault that you have a mysterious way of showing up in some of these blogs.

    When you ask a stupid question, you’ll get a stupid answer (or no answer at all) from me. That’s how the cookie crumbles. I don’t know why you’re pretending to be interested in my opinion (especially since I’ve already made my stance on this matter crystal clear), but the incessant leg-humping & whining over my refusal to respond is just a bit much.

  76. No Sugarcoating January 13, 2012 at 8:08 PM #

    Doublevez, do you write for that site?

  77. Boner Killer January 13, 2012 at 8:12 PM #

    Still no response as to why you were following my online activities, Sugarpuss. I find that very alarming.

    A “stupid” question? – what a terrible thing to say to someone who was merely trying to address a serious issue involving real human beings being called nasty names by feminists. After reading over some of these comments, I no longer wish to further discuss this with you, if i don’t agree with you, you will not treat me with respect, apparently — so i don’t see the purpose. Also, not once did i ever say anything about women’s only space, just as ND never said anything of it, I am wanting to understand why people are treating trans people in this way and using personal, and anecdotal situations to support giant claims about an entire group of people.

  78. Sargasso Sea January 13, 2012 at 8:39 PM #

    A third (or ninth) category would be more useful, Deuce?

    How far do we have to water it down before we don’t seem like “essentialists”?

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 10:10 PM #

      You don’t have to water it down, you have to deal with the fact that there are people who exist and do not fit into the categories you are using. I am trying to figure out how that can be done.

  79. Rebecca January 13, 2012 at 8:55 PM #

    Thanks, Nine, for this thoughtful post. I agree with sneaky bunny (one of the first comments) and also with Heart’s first post (Heart, nice to “see” you here, if you are still here!).

    It seems to me some of the points you’re making are pretty simple and are getting lost in the ensuing discussion. Not all transwomen subscribe or aspire to stereotyped, patriarchal versions of femininity. Transwomen are *neither* simply and straightforwardly women nor simply and straightforwardly men, and we have to find a way to wrap our minds around that. (For the record, I too support women-only space, and regard as arrogant and unreasonable the demands of some transwomen to be accepted as women ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE, for every possible purpose.)

    Maybe that’s enough for now. I hope that some folks who have made supportive comments here will be inspired to continue a more open conversation around these difficult issues in other radical feminist spaces (on- and offline). Again, thanks for opening up the discussion.

  80. Sugarpuss January 13, 2012 at 9:27 PM #

    Boner Killer said:

    Still no response as to why you were following my online activities, Sugarpuss. I find that very alarming.

    What in fucking hell are you talking about? Did you even READ what I wrote? An entire paragraph describing how I visit many Feminist blogs, and happened to see you posting on some of the less viable ones, was not enough of an explanation for you? How is that “alarming”?

    A “stupid” question? – what a terrible thing to say to someone who was merely trying to address a serious issue involving real human beings being called nasty names by feminists. After reading over some of these comments, I no longer wish to further discuss this with you, if i don’t agree with you, you will not treat me with respect, apparently — so i don’t see the purpose. Also, not once did i ever say anything about women’s only space, just as ND never said anything of it, I am wanting to understand why people are treating trans people in this way and using personal, and anecdotal situations to support giant claims about an entire group of people.

    Thanks for proving my case. It seems you care more about trans than FABs. You don’t give a shit about the death threats that many lesbian RadFems have been relieving…you’re more worried about the poor wittle trans’ feelings getting hurt when the women they attacked RIGHTFULLY react to said attacks. The cherry on the cake is how you pretend to be afraid of me, and basically accused me of being a stalker (quite the mental gymnastics) just because I saw you at other blogs. Well…all I have to say is…every biological female on this planet should be afraid of FunFems like you. Just feed us to the fucking alligators, why dontcha? Let’s just trust some dude when he says he “feels like a woman” and demands access to the women’s restroom. Let’s be “inclusive” to the point of putting female lives at risk. Yep, that’s the answer. Wouldn’t want to be “transphobic”, would we? A male-born person’s feelings are more important than a female-born person’s safety, obviously.

    FUCK THAT.

    • Nine Deuce January 13, 2012 at 10:11 PM #

      Does anyone really take two posts out of hundreds to mean that I care more about trans than women? Jesus fucking Christ.

  81. Sugarpuss January 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM #

    Edit: relieving = receiving.

  82. Deena January 13, 2012 at 10:30 PM #

    This has been a very interesting read.

  83. mechantechatonne January 13, 2012 at 10:40 PM #

    I think what is being said that when discussing women-only safe spaces and when discussing lesbian spaces those spaces are where the interests of FAAB women and transwomen collide. If you take the position that transwomen are women, then that necessitates allowing them entry into women-only spaces ranging from restrooms to rape crisis centers. If your point of view is that transwomen are women in the same way that women assigned female at birth are women, then you don’t believe that transwomen should be barred from woman-only space; barring women from women’s space is illogical.

    If you are saying that trans must be allowed in women’s space then you are deciding that their claims of internal gender are more important than women’s claims of feeling threatened and victimized, the very claims that caused women to seek safe spaces to begin with. Generally transpersons find women’s spaces more comfortable than men’s spaces because of danger presented by men and that’s understandable (we don’t disagree that men are dangerous) but it’s also not our problem. Transpeople should have safe spaces and they should be safe from male violence, but that is not the same as saying that they should be allowed to threaten women with their presence in their safe spaces. There is no reason that transpeople should not have their own resources, and the fact that the patriarchy does a poor job of providing resources to men that it deems lesser isn’t automatically a feminist concern or a perfectly legitimate reason for transpeople to demand of the limited resources of women.

    Gay men face oppression under the patriarchy. For other reasons men of color and poor men face oppression. Facing oppression is not equivalent to being a woman. If men find the macho paradigm displeasing and prefer to take on more feminine roles than I think they should certainly be able to do so without facing harm, but I don’t think that they should be able to appropriate the term “woman” and piggyback on all of the work done for women’s liberation simply because they are uncomfortable with masculinity. The right for men to take on feminine roles is a men’s rights issue, which immediately disqualifies it as a feminist concern.

    Radical feminists would have nothing to say about transpersons if they were to take a third option and claim their identities outside the gender binary and seek to gather resources for themselves to give themselves safe spaces and a place in the world. The issue is that isn’t the strategy they are taking; transwomen are demanding to be given access to the few things women have fought for centuries for and on flimsy grounds. It can be argued that transpeople are forming a third gender category that is not firmly restricted by sex, but it cannot be argued that they are able to go from one biological category to the other because that is simply untrue.

    The changes that come from the surgery are cosmetic; none of the results are functioning female organs. A vagina is not a hole, it is a muscle with a function. A man having a hole cut doesn’t create a vagina because a vagina isn’t a hole to start with, hence the duck-lipped speculum. It’s not actually true what the medical establishment is saying, that with some chopping and hormones men can become women.

  84. deepika January 14, 2012 at 4:32 AM #

    “The cognitive dissonance that plagues the thinking radical feminist when ruminating over trans people matters and needs to be confronted, discussed, and theorized about, but it needs to be done in such a way that some good might come of it.”

    radfems are not plagued by cognitive dissonance. most of the time, online, they are plagued by trans activists who make outrageous, repugnant and misogynist claims about themselves and women, and who take outrageous, repugnant and misogynist actions.

    it would have prevented a whole lot of blowing up in the comments section if you, ninedeuce, had made it clear in your two posts who you were specifically referring to, trans women or trans activists. (i’m guessing it’s trans women irl, who generally seem a lot less fussed politically about the whole BEING REAL WIMMINZ thing, though there is a great deal of overlap)
    your context for the radfems (online) and your context for trans women (irl i’m guessing) seem to be entirely different, and in your posts you completely downplay some of the unconscionable shit trans activists say and do (e.g. “a few trans activists” – it’s not a few, it’s almost all of them.)

    further, the t-vox trans 101 page states clearly that male and female are sex, and man and woman are gender (it does not say anything about adult human male, adult human female). wtf? this is obfuscation/circular thinking at best, a complete denial of reality at worst. i bring this up to highlight the fact that this is the base that so many pro-trans people and feminists start from and build their entire pro-trans values around. it’s going to take a whole lot more than “but trans women aren’t really men or women!!” to change something as fundamental (to trans theory) as that.

    so some clarification on your part is needed as well so we are all on the same page “language wise” which will aid in further discussion.

    like rebecca above, i’m also very glad that you’ve opened up said discussion, and am looking forward to the next part.

  85. delphyne January 14, 2012 at 7:40 AM #

    How about calling MTFs what they are though Nine Deuce, which is men.

    If you’re saying they don’t fit into the category men i.e. they aren’t adult human males, then what about them sets them apart? What are you seeing here? What specifically makes them not-men if man equals adult human male, apart from them claiming they aren’t men? A simple declaration appears to be all it takes and suddenly the reality of physical sex doesn’t exist.

    “No one ever said that the category “woman” isn’t real.”

    Actually they did, trans are claiming that the category woman, which has always meant adult human *female*, doesn’t exist, and that womanhood is based on how someone “feels”.

    It doesn’t appear that you’re thinking this through.

    • Nine Deuce January 14, 2012 at 9:57 AM #

      The fact that I don’t agree with you does not mean I have not thought this through, delphyne. I am attempting to devise a way for discussing trans people, who do not fit into a social gender category, and, if they have undergone reassignment, do not fit a bodily category. Saying transwonen “are men” might make you feel comfortable, but it deserves more analytical clarity if a solution other than trans people disappearing is to be found.

  86. Sargasso Sea January 14, 2012 at 9:59 AM #

    Following along on Delphyne’s line of questioning: are you arguing *brain sex*?

    • Nine Deuce January 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM #

      No, I am not arguing brain sex. Lisa has not commented. I have only trashed one comment in the course of this discussion. How exactly am I using anyone to make a point? (By the way, I don’t have any group of eight people in mind.)

  87. Sargasso Sea January 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM #

    (hate to comment back-to-back but we crossed ND)

    [...] if a solution other than trans people disappearing is to be found.

    It’s pretty clear at this point that trans aren’t going anywhere what with the entire psych/med establishment, liberal/ *Queer* politics and the vast majority of feminists backing them up.

    And what it appears you are asking us to do is just accept it (regardless of biological fact/female vulnerability) so you can justify a radical feminism that would embrace men as women.

    Again, I feel like you are using *us 8* (care to name names?) to educate. Maybe not you, per se, but your audience. What happened to Lisa? You haven’t modded “the fuck” out of Lisa have you?

  88. delphyne January 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM #

    You haven’t answered my questions though ND.

    If you’re saying that men claiming that they are women suddenly makes them not-men, then what sets them apart from adult human males? What is the definition of “man” if a feeling can suddenly erase the reality of adult human maleness? I agree it does need more analytical clarity, and as it’s you making the claim I’m sort of hoping you’ll provide it.

    “I am attempting to devise a way for discussing trans people, who do not fit into a social gender category”

    Well like I said, when women decided we didn’t fit the social gender category we were assigned to, we became feminists. We didn’t suddenly claim we weren’t our sex or that we weren’t women. Why aren’t you advocating that for trans? In fact trans reifies gender roles, because it argues if a man doesn’t fit into the masculine category and he “feels” differently from it, he must be a woman (an adult human female).

  89. deepika January 14, 2012 at 11:02 AM #

    well – some radfems use the term male-to-trans*, or m2t for short, which i find is neither rude nor disappearing, and is quite accurate.

    *female-to-trans or f2t for short

  90. Nicky January 14, 2012 at 11:23 AM #

    As an Intersex person, I don’t call any M2T’s intersex because they are not intersex like me or any other intersex person. I don’t even call any M2T’s their perceive gender either because they are not biological born women to begin with. M2T’s are still men regardless of how many surgeries or hormones are pumped into the system. They are still men, with their male in born behavior, mentality and privilege. Even their DNA will read their original birth gender.

  91. FCM January 14, 2012 at 12:25 PM #

    you cannot change your sex, and SRS and hormone therapy only accomplishes one thing: it makes you “the sex you were born with, non-reproductively-viable.” the non-viability is either temporary or permanent.

    there is not a political category for that because there doesnt need to be one.

    and those “transgenders” who arent made non-reproductively viable via SRS or hormones are not the same as those who have. there doesnt need to be a political category for them either.

    the framing of the issue is important, and you framing it *your way* doesnt mean we have to frame it your way, or engage in creative gerrymandering to exclude born-womens issues from the realm of sexual politics, or to include *and to differentiate* those of women or men who fit into either of the above groups (but who also fit into established political groups at the same time). you are pandering to the transactivists in the very framing here, and i reject your frame.

    also, agree with the poster above who said that radfems DO NOT, in fact, suffer from cognitive dissonance on this issue. you know who does though? fun fems, who state with conviction that “biology doesnt matter” and that theres no such thing as a “universal female experience” but then simultaneously, they are all taking hormonal contraceptives, and otherwise dealing with the UNIQUELY FEMALE fallout on their female-bodies of PIV and PIV-centric sex, and rape, where contraception and pregnancy are in fact concerns universally shared by all women around the world, across time and place. its amazing they can even walk in a straight line for the headspinning, and completely *unsurprising* that they cannot talk or reason in a straight line when this kind of contradiction is front and center in their lives every minute of every day. THEY are suffering from cognitive dissonance, not us.

    http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/cognitive-dissonance/

  92. Sargasso Sea January 14, 2012 at 12:36 PM #

    Thanks, ND for answering my questions.

    Also, Deepika makes a good point. (now I’ll be quiet for a while :) )

  93. deepika January 14, 2012 at 12:46 PM #

    (sorry, just a quick correction – my asterisk above for f2ts was not meant to ‘clarify’ m2ts, just to point out the same terminology is used for trans men)

  94. Sugarpuss January 14, 2012 at 1:34 PM #

    Mechantechatonne said:

    The right for men to take on feminine roles is a men’s rights issue, which immediately disqualifies it as a feminist concern.

    BINGO.

  95. spinsterrella January 14, 2012 at 1:59 PM #

    “The cognitive dissonance that plagues the thinking radical feminist when ruminating over trans people matters and needs to be confronted, discussed, and theorized about, but it needs to be done in such a way that some good might come of it.”

    I think some good HAS come out of it already, why are you assuming it hasn’t?

    If it wasn’t for these trans-critical bloggers, I wouldn’t have been able to break free from my own male-centric mindset to see that transwomen *aren’t* women, and they, like any biological male, *don’t* have a place in our movement, I don’t care if some of them don’t act like assholes – the ones that do, are enough to cause a major derail, major harm, major damage to our psyches, our spaces, our liberation. I’d had some really negative/abusive experiences with M2Ts in my life and from reading the trans-crit radfems’ writings, I could finally put a name to that treatment – misogyny. I realized that others just like me had had the same experiences and I *wasn’t* just crazy! Now when someone says “oh it’s just a few transwomen”, I think “bullshit”, because that’s not been my experience, and the long record of abuses by transwomen, documented online & in real life, towards females prove that.

    As for the delivery, I personally feel like it’s necessary to be harsh, since being nice has never worked in the past. (this post at Femonade makes that point here : http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/ongoing-to-far/). The time is long past the point of being “bigger” than them. At first, I cringed a little, reading some of the more harsher blogs, but over time, there was something about the bluntness that eventually felt absolutely necessary to me. It feels more honest to me, like a breath of fresh air. It’s not couched in some shallow “feel good” language that makes everyone happy. Trans-critical radfem bloggers are treated like pariahs in the mainstream feminist online “community” by women and trans alike. It cannot be easy to be such an outlier all the time, but there they are, sticking it out, and building their own community, building a community for women. Within that context, it became easier for me to trust that these women/radfem bloggers were completely, consistently on the side of females. Now when I go back to blogs that claim to be radical feminists like Violet Socks or IBTP, I can hardly stomach the writing & commenting there (with a few rare exceptions), although they had been really helpful for me in the past. There’s just something missing, something I don’t trust. Like they’d choose transwomen over women if it came down to it.

    So yeah, I don’t think these radfem bloggers need to change a thing. I hope they don’t.

  96. MM January 14, 2012 at 3:46 PM #

    I want to give you a fucking round of applause for this post, despite the apocalypse it generated in the comment…which kind of proves your point about feminists losing their shit over the ‘trans question’, doesn’t it? Endless debate over what precisely defines male or female aside, the simple fact is that trans women are not treated the same way as men by society so it’s ridiculous to say that they have ‘male privilege’. I will reserve my hate for those who are actually oppressing me.

  97. Rae January 14, 2012 at 4:45 PM #

    For people who are so attached to the idea of biological sex, there are a lot of misconceptions about sexual difference here.

    Let me start out by pointing out the ways in which sexual difference manifests: chromosomes (XX, XY, XXY, and many others); internal and external reproductive characteristics/genitalia (gonads, uterus, menstruation, clitoris, labia, penis, balls, etc); hormone levels (which vary over the lifecycle and between individuals of the same sex); secondary sex characteristics (hair, breasts, facial features, muscle arrangement, body fat percentage, body shape, voice pitch, etc). There’s probably some stuff I’m forgetting, too. I know “brain sex” is controversial, and I’m of the belief that neuro-plasticity in humans makes it hard to determine whether brain differences in feminine and masculine persons is a cause or effect, but this is potentially another sex characteristic.

    The problem is, any of these can mismatch in any given person. You can be an XX woman with high testosterone levels, a uterus, small breasts, and lots of upper-body strength. You can be an XY man with a high-pitched voice, an inability to grow facial hair, a penis, and the ability to lactate (for real – MAAB men can lactate and breastfeed without medical intervention in rare cases or quite commonly if their prolactin levels are artificially increased ). You can be a FAAB woman with all the female primary and secondary sex characteristics of childbearing age – yet not be able to menstruate or conceive a pregnancy. Pre-pubescent and post-menupausal women can’t menstruate or get pregnant at all.

    So it seems to me that this idea of biological sex is a lot murkier than anyone wants to admit. Take FCM for example:

    also, agree with the poster above who said that radfems DO NOT, in fact, suffer from cognitive dissonance on this issue. you know who does though? fun fems, who state with conviction that “biology doesnt matter” and that theres no such thing as a “universal female experience” but then simultaneously, they are all taking hormonal contraceptives, and otherwise dealing with the UNIQUELY FEMALE fallout on their female-bodies of PIV and PIV-centric sex, and rape, where contraception and pregnancy are in fact concerns universally shared by all women around the world, across time and place. its amazing they can even walk in a straight line for the headspinning, and completely *unsurprising* that they cannot talk or reason in a straight line when this kind of contradiction is front and center in their lives every minute of every day. THEY are suffering from cognitive dissonance, not us.

    *Not all females can get pregnant. Even excluding those females who will develop this ability or previously had it, some women are just infertile. At a given time, any particular women may not share the same contraception, conception, and pregnancy concerns as any other women.
    *Not all women who can get pregnant use hormonal contraception (duh)
    *Hetero trans women must deal with PIV-centric models of sex
    *Men and trans women (both those with and without SRS) can be raped. If you doubt me – anyone with an anus or an opening between their legs can be raped by a penis or object

    So what does any of this have to do with trans women? Well, I think a prerequisite to getting on your high horse about biological sex difference is having a freaking clue about it. I understand using “women” as shorthand for “humans who can get pregnant” – but this is a strategic essentialization, not a universal fact.

    FWIW, I believe gender is socially constructed. Therefore I will abide by the wishes of other people regarding what gender they would like to be referred to as, and group them with their preferred gender to the extent that is possible and to the extent that gendered grouping is even necessary. I have serious qualms about cosmetic surgery of any kind, particularly if it damages bodily sensation or function. However, evidence indicates that trans people will seek SRS whether it is legally available or not, so from a harms-reduction perspective I think it should be above-board, safe, legal, regulated, and probably paid for by insurance. Furthermore I will be gentle and appropriate in voicing my concerns to individuals who seek this surgery, just as I would for individuals who seek breast implants. (I’m not going to give my friend’s trans boyfriend shit about getting his breasts removed because it would be woefully inappropriate, just like I’m not going to tell my aunt that I’m so sorry the patriarchy made her get breast implants.) It is the societal structures – ironically, in this case, the gender binary that so many here want to push on trans people – that ought to be harshly and thoroughly questioned.

    I think biological sex characteristics are very important. The ability to get pregnant is a very important trait because it forms the foundation for both many rational accomodations and many irrational oppressions of women as a class. But please, stop mistaking sex for a unitary phenomena and stop equating it with gender. I expect better of radical feminists and honestly this is a big reason this is the only radfem blog I follow anymore. The hateful screeds bashing trans people are totally unreadable drivel, and they are all to numerous. It’s even more nauseating than the stink of individualism and capitalism at some of the more mainstream liberal feminist blogs.

    • Nine Deuce January 14, 2012 at 5:00 PM #

      Rae – Thank you for that comment.

  98. Rae January 14, 2012 at 4:55 PM #

    Oops, quote fail! The paragraph after “Take FCM for example:” and the asterisked bullet points is a quote from FCM.

    Also I realized I didn’t address intersex people. I think intersex conditions demonstrate that biologically, human sexual difference is not binary. Of course being intersexed is completely okay and I don’t think the choice to either remain intersex or to transition to a binary sex is (a) anyone’s decision but the intersex person themselves, and (b) a different question than SRS operations for trans people. Regarding the transition from intersex to binary sex, though, I still simultaneously feel that it is not my place to criticize individuals and yet that I am skeptical towards surgically altering the body for cosmetic or psychological reasons.

  99. delphyne January 14, 2012 at 7:19 PM #

    You can’t be XX, in other words a woman, and have a penis and testes though Rae. That’s where your long-winded sophistry falls down. MTF trans claiming to be women are XY and were born with penises and testes and may still have them. Using rare medical anomalies or bringing in issues that don’t relate to someone’s sex to attempt to disguise that fact is quite a feat of intellectual dishonesty.

    I can’t believe you’re actually grateful for that comment ND.

    And you still haven’t explained your definition of a man, if a man (adult human male – XY, penis and testes) can simply claim he’s not one. What do you rest your definition on then? Why do the categories men and women, male and female even need to exist, if in fact according to Rae apparently they don’t? Why would any of us bother to place ourselves in fantasy categories that have no relation to physical reality?

    Well I’ll tell you why men do it. Because femaleness/womanhood is real, and given that they’ve stolen pretty much everything else from us on this planet, the last thing that’s left is our selves, so they are getting a bit grabby in that direction too. It’s about power, something you as a radical feminist ought to be able to recognise.

    • Nine Deuce January 14, 2012 at 7:23 PM #

      delphyne – Do you actually believe the motive of every male person undergoing reassignment surgery is to exercise power over women? I am ready to assume that almost everything men do has that subconscious motive, but I am not so sure about this one.

  100. FCM January 14, 2012 at 8:01 PM #

    infertile women *DO* use birth control, including hormonal contraceptives. this happens all the time. think about it, and try to figure out what that means.

    if you cant wrap your head around that, you arent thinking hard enough.

    *Not all females can get pregnant. Even excluding those females who will develop this ability or previously had it, some women are just infertile. At a given time, any particular women may not share the same contraception, conception, and pregnancy concerns as any other women.

    and you know who else can have as much PIV as they want, without becoming impregnated? pregnant women. yay, isnt this FUN!

    and im not talking about individual special snowflake reproductive CONCERNS, although feelings are a part of it and often include terrible anxiety and fear. i am talking about female REALITY. nice deflection into special snowflake-ism though.

    *Not all women who can get pregnant use hormonal contraception (duh)

    i didnt say they did. i said hormonal contraceptives and OTHERWISE DEALING WITH female reproductive reality.

    *Hetero trans women must deal with PIV-centric models of sex

    fuck your “model” bc its not reflective of womens experience of PIV which includes the risk of pregnancy, and things being stuck into their vaginas. almost always these “things” are penises which have special significance to women that men cannot and do not experience ever. transwomen deal with penetrative sex as men, whether they are giving or receiving. and they dont have vaginas so they cannot have *anything* in their “V” bc they dont have one.

    *Men and trans women (both those with and without SRS) can be raped. If you doubt me – anyone with an anus or an opening between their legs can be raped by a penis or object

    who cares? men raping men is a mens issue. womens reproductive reality, and the use of sexual violence against women as a sexual class by men as a sexual class, and female-specific reproductive harm, are feminist issues.

  101. Sugarpuss January 14, 2012 at 8:13 PM #

    92, how come you only thank people who post opinions that you agree with?

    Also, you may not realize it now…but you’re making the same mistake that 3rd wavers did when they associated stripping & porn with “empowerment”. As far as I’m concerned, transgenderism is just the latest trick out of the master’s bag…and you’re falling for it BIG TIME.

    I’m not going to say anything else about it, as I feel like I’m beating my head against the wall. Women will never be free.

    • Nine Deuce January 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM #

      Incredible. You know what? I have been accused of a lot of things in my time on this blog, but being a traitor to women is not one of them. I can work toward the end of male supremacy without engaging in ridiculous, dehumanizing, unproductive demagoguery. I thanked Rae for expressing some fucking empathy toward other human beings. I have often thanked you, Sugarpuss, for your comments, and have always enjoyed reading them. I am not so impressed with the most recent few.

      Everyone has decided, on whatever authority they think their interpretation of radical feminism affords them, that I am no longer a radical feminist because I won’t get down with an overly simplistic position that is out of keeping with my intellectual and ethical make-up. When were all of the Directing Committee of Radical Feminist Theory seats handed out to a few people who write like fucking lolcats? I truly wanted to discuss this, but I’m a bit tired of being told that I can’t form my own thoughts lest everything I’ve ever done for women’s liberation be deemed worthless.

      And really, that shit about “sucked the right dicks” yesterday was way out of line. It’s funny what staunch anti-misogynists some of you are until you suspect a woman of apostasy.

  102. Rebecca January 14, 2012 at 8:46 PM #

    Keep your head up, 92. What you’re doing is valuable, and valued by some of us.

  103. Undercover Punk January 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM #

    9-2, FEMINISM is not about demonizing the individuals who seek to live and pass as the opposite sex–from surgery to pronoun changes. But nor is it feminism’s job to make trans people feel good about themselves and these decisions.

    Feminist criticism of the trans movement is POLITICAL. We are concerned with law and sex-segregated spaces. We are focused on the relationship between bodies and the institutionalized power dynamics of gender (<<the ideological source of female oppression). Feminism is opposed to anything that stakes claim to female behavioral naturalism. Trans politics, a kind of I-dentity politics, says that men with healthy male reproductive systems can *become* women through (feminine) gender expression. Radical feminism rejects this claim. ‘Woman’ is not a synonym for feminine. This isn’t mean, it’s feminism. Get on board.

    • Nine Deuce January 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM #

      UP – You can’t use current law to argue for sex-segregated spaces. US and UK law are based on rights which are thought to inhere in the individual. It is doomed to failure. I am well clear on “woman” not being a synonym for “feminine,” as anyone who reads here knows. The problem is that that is a strawman. You know that’s not what I’m saying, so please quit pretending otherwise.

      For anyone who needs clarification on my position: gender and sex are not the same thing. Gender a social construct. Sex is biological. Sex, however, is not as simplistic as the people I disagree with would like it to be, and we must deal with the reality that trans people exist and figure out how their existence can be understood in radical feminist theory, even if it means that theory must evolve. It is unproductive and repels those who might otherwise agree with radical feminist theory to discuss human beings who are shat upon enough in the course of their daily existence in terms that make our points seem spiteful. Catharine MacKinnon does not call people “twanz.”

  104. Undercover Punk January 14, 2012 at 9:05 PM #

    I won’t get down with an overly simplistic position that is out of keeping with my intellectual and ethical make-up.

    Radical feminism MEANS something. In general, words have meaning. A dog is not a cat, you know? They’re different. I still don’t understand how TRANS is being defined here. But still, how does keeping the concepts of sex and gender separate violate your intellectual and ethical make-up?

  105. Sugarpuss January 14, 2012 at 9:06 PM #

    92, I think I already explained the “dick sucking” comment. That wasn’t even directed at you…or anybody in particular. It’s just an observation…a reality of life.

    Also, If you cannot understand why I (and other like-minded women) are angry about this situation, then I don’t know what else to say. Rae’s comment (that you thanked her/him for) was nothing short of a “what about the menz!” derailment. This is what always happens when trans issues are brought into the discussion. I’m just amazed that you can’t see it. I’m tired of being made to feel as if I’m just imagining all of this. I feel like an alien…or somebody stuck on a deserted island. It’s an extreamly frustrainting situation that I find myself in. Of course I’m angry. But hey, isn’t this blog called Rage Against The Man-chine? If it is not permissible for women to rage here…then where?

    • Nine Deuce January 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM #

      Rage all you want, Sugarpuss. I’m not banning anyone.

  106. Undercover Punk January 14, 2012 at 9:08 PM #

    You can’t use current law to argue for sex-segregated spaces.

    Yes, I can. And I have.

    You know that’s not what I’m saying,

    Seriously, I have no idea what you’re saying.

    • Nine Deuce January 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM #

      UP – Precedent has to pose problems to that attempt, no?

  107. Undercover Punk January 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM #

    Oh, you edited your comment. Thanks for clarifying on sex vs. gender.

    Intersex and trans are not the same in regard to sex/bodies/reproductive functioning. I think Nicky covered that.

    • Nine Deuce January 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM #

      Clearly trans and intersex are not the same thing. But neither are trans who have had their bodies altered the same as FAB or MAB individuals. As far as those who have not had their bodies altered, that is probably worth serious discussion, though I would of course not say that someone with an unaltered male body was a woman (nor would I say that a man after SAR was a woman — or a man).

  108. Undercover Punk January 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM #

    Explicit legislative protections for sex-segregated spaces covered here. Just a few examples.

    http://undercoverpunk.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/female-bodies-biology-and-the-bathroom/

    • Nine Deuce January 14, 2012 at 9:17 PM #

      The problem with legal arguments for sex-segregated spaces is that they will stand as argument against the ERA. I don’t know that I care that much about the ERA since my ideas are a little more radical than US political culture can ever produce, but some people might.

  109. Undercover Punk January 14, 2012 at 9:30 PM #

    What do you mean that sex-segregated spaces are an argument AGAINST the ERA? The ERA doesn’t define sex. If you want to argue law with me, come to one of my blogs. This is about *your* desire for a brave new path on the trans issue. I’m listening…

  110. Sugarpuss January 14, 2012 at 9:55 PM #

    Well, right now, I think I’d like to rage about how difficult it is to write a blog post. It’s easy to comment on other people’s blogs, but when I try to actually compose one of my own, it’s like I can’t think. I’m currently working on one entitled Pantyhose erase privilege :D, but I’m having a hell of a time just getting through the first paragraph. I have a really short attention span, so this blogging thing is especially challenging for me.

    Oh, I just drank a Coke Zero. Didn’t help.

  111. Heart January 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM #

    Nine Deuce: Catharine MacKinnon does not call people “twanz.”

    Exactly right. CAM doesn’t address transgender issues at all, in any of her writings. Maybe she’s been too busy bringing lawsuits against, for example, Generals Mladic and Kradzic of Serbia, pro bono, on behalf of survivors of rape camps in the former Yugoslavia. Or, defending those harmed by pornography, prostitution and sexual harrassment in the workplace. I’m pretty sure CAM has a position vis a vis transgender issues. I respect her decision not to make that position public. I am a long time defender and supporter of woman-only spaces (“woman” by the traditional definition, I don’t think all the acronyms, i.e., “FAAB” and “MAAB”, are a good thing; “woman” is our word, full stop). I’ve taken the hits for the stand I have taken big time, publicly and privately, a long story for another day. I’ve paid my dues and done my share of heavy lifting. I respect all who likewise take the stand I’ve taken. Having said all that, I think it is possible and right to take that position while at the same time respecting the views and positions — and humanity — of transgender/transsexual persons, and their allies, who disagree. Nine Deuce, you have my respect.

  112. marilynpierce January 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM #

    This whole discussion feel to me like Northern Whites and Southern Whites discussing whether or not blacks exist and if they’re even human.

    Thanks for the crumbs.

    • Nine Deuce January 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM #

      I was kind of worried that it was sounding that way. I want more input.

  113. AlienNumber January 14, 2012 at 11:05 PM #

    Hi ND!
    Just jumping in really quickly, because I took a class with the CAM (MacKinnon) and she did have a position on trans. She was much – like WAY MORE – aligned with UPs position than NDs btw.

    At the risk of misquoting the CAM, she did start her lecture on the “transgender issue” with a little story about the social construction of mental illness. She said that she – and other genius people- have good reason to believe that certain mental illnesses are typical to certain times. Then she said, for example, at the end of the 19th century Freud’s Europe there was such a thing as hysteria. People, women mostly, really were behaving like hysterics and it was a real problem. She also mentioned that it was a troubled time in terms of women’s rights and a lot of people were confused about gender and such. CAM continued to say that these kind of mass mental illnesses have an expiration date, as it certainly looks like today, we have absolutely no cases of hysteria. Which doesn’t mean hysteria was not a real problem for those people at the end of the 19th century.

    And then she started her lecture on the trans issue (very respectfully and lady-like, because, like, she’s a lady!). But I’m running out of time.
    The people who can, should read between the lines because I think the CAM was trying to say something with that little anecdote.

  114. marilynpierce January 14, 2012 at 11:07 PM #

    So from what I’ve learned in reading and learning from the Radical Feminist and other Feminist blogs is that females (adult human females) come in many different biological varieties, histories and experiences, while males (adult human males) have only one biology, history and experience. And all males are exactly the same. Evil. Kinda short sighted, but of course no one here cares about equality of lives.

    From the Janice Raymond’s Transsexual Empire to Ray Blanchard’s Autogynephilia, supposedly educated people are discussing mine and others lives without ever involving us. Also, to quote McPugh a noted Catholic apologist is simply amazing.

    Many commentors have in this discussion have noted that there is a difference between the Trans-Activist and the everyday transsexual (and the difference between transsexual and transgender). Most of us just want the same things as other women. Safety, autonomy and equality.

    But, since we aren’t considered women or men, we must be something other or lesser and should just STFU and just take what we are given. Fine, I’ll do that because if I were to try to speak for myself as a woman I’m an imposter, and if I try to speak for myself as a trans woman I’m man-splaining. There is no way for me to be heard.

    We have no voice in these discussions about us. You are the keeper of you is male or female. Please remember, there many things in the sciences (biology, sociology, psychology and ecology) that are still not known, and someday the cause of all this may be known. I know I don’t know, but I refuse to discount anyone’s lived experience.

  115. AlienNumber January 14, 2012 at 11:34 PM #

    But really, YES, there is a way for you to be heard, Pierce. You go mansplain somewhere else, with the added bonus that it won’t be called mansplanation if you do it on regular blogs.

    (Of course this is not my blog so I can’t tell you to go away, but your post is so irritating because you’re just forcing women to accept you as a woman because you say that you’re a woman. Because you say so. And if we don’t accept your manipulative “reasoning,” then what, cry us a river?
    Or follow your own advice and STFU.
    Gah, males are so irritating).

    • zoebrain February 23, 2013 at 8:12 PM #

      Sure you’re not an MRA? Isn’t that comment a perfect example of the classical arrogance of privilege?

      Please read what you wrote. Silencing. Commanding someone to “STFU”

      Exactly how do you differ in your treatment of Trans women from the MRA’s treatment of all women, Trans or not?

      You don’t see it. Others do though. You want an explanation why your views are being seen as increasingly fringe, why others frustratingly “don’t seem to get it”? It’s because of what you write.

  116. deepika January 14, 2012 at 11:38 PM #

    “This whole discussion feel to me like Northern Whites and Southern Whites discussing whether or not blacks exist and if they’re even human.”

    marilynpierce, no one is denying that trans people exist. no one is denying that they are human. no one has denied that they have rights. please, do not make this bigger than it is.

    what people are discussing here is, basically, what to call trans women because this is apparently a sticking point for ninedeuce. they’re not men, they’re not women, they’re….?

    i suggested m2t and f2t because that seems accurate and inherently neutral, but ninedeuce has not shown any interest in the terms. so now i am sitting tight and waiting for her next post.

    also, this “supposedly educated people are discussing mine and others lives without ever involving us”

    again – who is stopping trans women from commenting and joining the discussion? nobody apparently, because here you are. yay! also, you seem to be implying that because we’re having a discussion about trans women without you we’re uneducated… that implication is a little bit classist, and a little bit mean. just sayin’…

  117. deepika January 15, 2012 at 12:07 AM #

    “since we aren’t considered women or men, we must be something other or lesser”

    also, please note, that in this entire thread, only marilyn pierce has equated (at the very least, implied) other with being lesser. as an asexual person, i disagree with that premise. i am ‘other’ in this regard (being asexual) but that definitely doesn’t make me ‘lesser’.

  118. Sugarpuss January 15, 2012 at 12:31 AM #

    @marilynpierce: So…you’ve never visited any of the countless mainstream liberal feminist blogs? They are all very trans friendly…to the point of telling females to “shut up” when we attempt to discuss things like our periods, pregnancy, menopause, etc, on the grounds that it is “insensitive” & “transphobic”.

    You’ve got a lot of nerve.

    Also, I believe 92 said that she doesn’t like the “black people” comparison. However, she seems to have changed her mind (again). I guess it’s only okay if a transwoman uses it. *eyeroll*

    • Nine Deuce January 15, 2012 at 12:43 AM #

      Sugarpuss – I still don’t like it, but I was uncomfortable with the whole conversation taking place with no input outside of radfem arguments.

  119. marilynpierce January 15, 2012 at 12:33 AM #

    deepika:

    “again – who is stopping trans women from commenting and joining the discussion? nobody apparently, because here you are. yay!”

    Apparently, AlienNumber would like for me to STFU:

    “Or follow your own advice and STFU.
    Gah, males are so irritating).”

  120. Sugarpuss January 15, 2012 at 12:40 AM #

    From marilynpierce’s blog:

    My Dad started to take me with him to work. Dad’s business at the time was Ice Delivery. Our families’ fortune came from frozen water.

    HA! Let’s see now…how does a rich, white male compare to black people?

    What a joke. This is the type of crap I’m talking about.

  121. doublevez January 15, 2012 at 12:42 AM #

    Hysteria (sic) and mutilating bodies are creations of the medical profession. Always with the job creation.

    • Nine Deuce January 15, 2012 at 12:44 AM #

      Doublevez, I am actually with you on that.

  122. doublevez January 15, 2012 at 1:13 AM #

    The male-centric medical profession has always been about destroying and controlling ~female~. This is just another part of that. Men serving male needs, creating a woman more to their liking. Male stampede to pornify female children is part of this too. Anything but an adult female, bleeding, leaking from her nipples, fecund and ‘hyster-ical’.

  123. marilynpierce January 15, 2012 at 1:17 AM #

    Great, fine… Message heard loud and clear. Continue with your echo chamber. I’m Shutting the F**k up. I’m sorry to bother you. You have my real name and a link to my blog if you care about discussing this with someone your are affecting.

  124. marilynpierce January 15, 2012 at 1:18 AM #

    edit, sorry *you are affecting.*

  125. Sugarpuss January 15, 2012 at 1:31 AM #

    @marilynpierce:

    You have my real name and a link to my blog[...]

    Yeah, unfortunately. After reading that mind-boggling display of gender delusions, all I want to do is ask 92 to blow my head off with an elephant gun.

    • Nine Deuce January 15, 2012 at 1:43 AM #

      Who would have thought that conversation after midnight on Saturday would be unproductive?

  126. deepika January 15, 2012 at 1:48 AM #

    marilynpierce – are you really just going to shut up and go away because one commenter said so?

    you are free to comment and discuss on this blog, you are free to ignore sugarpuss, you are free to talk here as much as you like while the blog owner allows you. and, even beyond just allowing you, she is very much in favour of you commenting here because she is worried that radfems are questioning the very existence and humanity of trans people.

    a curious thing: despite pandering to trans women in so many ways, ninedeuce has still said time and again that they are not “women” as far as she is concerned, and that women-only spaces (meaning spaces without m2ts) are important. it’s interesting that the entire pro-trans world hasn’t blown up over the comments section here. which is a good, but still curious, thing…

  127. Sugarpuss January 15, 2012 at 1:55 AM #

    I don’t drink. :)

  128. doublevez January 15, 2012 at 2:15 AM #

    Nine Deuce may give lip service to “women-only” space but she doesn’t walk her talk. There’s always been a welcome sign here for doods.

    • Nine Deuce January 15, 2012 at 2:30 AM #

      I said I supported women-only space. I didn’t say this was one.

  129. Old Music January 15, 2012 at 2:19 AM #

    Dear Nine Deuce,

    I left a comment here Friday evening, I’m a new poster and my comment was very long with lots of links, so it may have got stuck in moderation.

    I really would like to participate in this discussion, please could you check if my comment has ended up in your spam folder?

    Thank you

  130. Sugarpuss January 15, 2012 at 2:20 AM #

    deepika said:

    you are free to ignore sugarpuss

    How on earth could anybody ignore me? I’m blog crack.

    However, I am also a boring ‘ol bio-female…and transwomen are so much more exotic.

  131. Old Music January 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM #

    That’s interesting, when I posted my comment before it disappeared, but my last comment I can see with an ‘awaiting moderation’ note – I’ll try posting my first comment again.

    Dear Nine Deuce,

    I’m writing this comment in response to both your blog posts on trans issues, I haven’t read all the comments, so apologies if I mention something you have already responded to.

    I read this blog frequently, and greatly respect your work. I also frequently read the Gender Trender blog and greatly respect what Gallus Mag does. I don’t think your original post was ‘baiting’ or anything other than written in good faith with good intentions.

    I too am uncomfortable with the whole ‘twanz’ thing, not because I’m particularly concerned about it hurting someone’s feelings, but because I imagine it must be incredibly alienating to anyone coming to the subject from a radical feminist perspective for the first time.

    I think you are right to try to separate out individual trans persons and trans activists. I imagine most trans persons are just doing what they feel they have to do to survive in a system (patriarchy) that crushes almost everyone, but there is a highly visible, highly vocal minority(?) who are overtaking feminism.

    I want to write this because I feel this is such an important part of radical feminism. It’s important because trans politics has co-opted the mainstream of feminism, it’s co-opted gay liberation, it’s co-opted women only and lesbian only spaces, it’s co-opted the needs of intersex people (who deserve far better than being lumped in under the ‘trans’ umbrella) and it’s co-opted feminist academia (women’s studies became gender studies etc etc). This has real knock-on effects for women, especially lesbians, and the women coming out of gender studies courses who have been indoctrinated into this stuff are the women who are going to be writing laws and government policies, running charities and women’s organisations, so it really does matter.

    The most important aspect of this to me is the way trans theory reinforces the policing of gender. Children as young as four are now being diagnosed as ‘trans’ by self-styled ‘gender experts’ and placed on a fast track to puberty-blocking treatments and ‘sex change’ surgery, followed by a life-time of expensive medical ‘care’. The long-term consequences to health of all these ‘treatments’ are unknown. Any child who does not perform gender correctly risks being treated in this way, even though most ‘gender variant’ children grow up to be perfectly normal, healthy gay adults. This is all supported and promoted by trans activists, and any questioning voice is shouted down as ‘transphobia’.

    I am still frustrated by my experience at the UK F-Word blog. This website is the first port of call for any woman new to feminism in the UK (put ‘the f word’ into google.co.uk and it is the first hit, higher than a celebrity chef’s food program of the same name), and it has been so co-opted by trans activists that it would be more accurately described as the ‘T-Word’. Just see their ‘transphobia’ definition or the ‘cis privileges’ list they link to – apparently, ‘cis’ women can “expect access to healthcare,” well, try needing an abortion in most parts of the world to see how much those ‘cis’ privileges are worth!

    The F-Word now operates absolute censorship on trans issues, and shows a real bias against FAB women, for example, when the human rights lawyer David Burgess was murdered back in October 2010, the F-Word ran a blog post titled “Cis woman charged with murder after Kings Cross Tube station death” with comments closed. It turned out David Burgess was murdered by another trans woman, but there have been zero other posts on the subject at the F-Word, no retraction, no apology, no follow-up.

    The post I experienced censorship on, amusingly enough, claimed that ‘transphobia’ wasn’t used as censorship. My comments were removed because apparently it’s ‘transphobic’ to say that being born female matters. Because we’re all just so unique and individual, our lives have nothing in common (but trans women still somehow know they are real women), and nobody knows our sex anyway, not even our parents when we’re born, it’s all just ‘gender expression’. This bullshit and more gets free rein, but it’s ‘transphobic’ to point out that female foetuses in China and India are aborted for being female, not for their ‘feminine behaviour’.

    The whole ‘cis’ concept is bullshit, trans activists claim they are about challenging gender binaries, then they create a new binary. ‘Cis’ is bullshit because it implies gender is innate, rather than a social construct, it implies there are ‘female brains’ and ‘male brains’, when there is no such thing. The concept of ‘cis privilege’ is even more bullshit, apparently it’s a ‘privilege’ to be ‘allowed’ to be feminine, when any sound feminist analysis would recognise enforced femininity as an oppression.

    Many trans activists are actively in favour of reinforcing gender codes, see here an account of trans activists’ responses to a man in a skirt, it’s ‘transphobic’ because he doesn’t claim to have a female brain, and anyway trans activists aren’t interested in challenging gender binaries.

    The very obvious contempt and hatred trans activists show towards FAB women is frightening, the sabotaging of Michigan’s Womyn’s fest being a case in point – if that were only the behaviour of a tiny minority, where is the outcry from the rest of the ‘trans community’ condemning this stuff? Why are guidelines being written and approved by gay right’s organisations that mean any man can walk into a women’s shelter and claim to be a woman, even if he looks like a man, presents as a man, has had no surgery or medical diagnosis, all he has to do is claim to be a woman and he’ll be granted easy access to women and children he can abuse.

    This matters because to present any objection gets shouted down as ‘transphobia’. The fact that such guidance creates a massive hole for rapists and child abusers is deemed irrelevant next to the feelings of trans women – the lives and welfare of FAB women and children don’t matter by comparison.

    Let’s not forget Julia Serano claiming that FAB women (including FAB women with PTSD after sexual abuse), not wanting to be exposed to penises in communal showers were ‘phallocentric’, while at the same time making breathless performance ‘art’ about how her penis was a weapon of mass destruction (I know she was trying to be sarcastic, but the end result is that she is the one going on about her penis the most).

    As a final note, check out the “MtF Butch” pictured in the comments thread to this post, he (and there is no way this person is anything other than a man), has a lovely ‘Die Cis Scum’ tattoo on his arm – I’m willing to bet he doesn’t flash that around large groups of men, it’s much easier and safer to intimidate women after all.

  132. Old Music January 15, 2012 at 2:27 AM #

    I tried reposting my original comment, because my comment today is showing up with an ‘awaiting moderation’ note (which I didn’t get on Friday) but my reposting has disappeared as well.

    Maybe it’s too long? I’ll try reposting it in two parts. My apologies, Nine Deuce, if this is all showing up as spam for you to deal with!

    • Nine Deuce January 15, 2012 at 2:33 AM #

      Old Music – You were right, it was spammed. Now approved.

  133. doublevez January 15, 2012 at 2:37 AM #

    Heart says: I think a lot of the anti-transgender stuff out there now is being written by people who don’t really have any real-life dog in that particular fight (only an ideological dog)

    This is ridiculous. Just have to say it again. Completely. Like I should not care about anything unless it’s affecting me, personally? But since you question, why not ask a manager of a women’s shelter how MtTs affect her? Did you posit something this silly for people who object to women being sold in brothels in Germany? No German relatives, not right to protest?

    If you know someone who has a family member being propagandized with this crap, send them here. The star of the video is one of the principles of the Trans Youth Family Allies: http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/if-tyfa-is-the-transgender-children%E2%80%99s-fund-who-is-playing-sally-struthers/

  134. Old Music January 15, 2012 at 2:37 AM #

    Thanks Nine Deuce, please feel free to delete duplicate postings as you see fit!

  135. rainsinger January 15, 2012 at 3:49 AM #

    wow, this thread is still going! All because Nine-Deuce got her knickers in a twist over bad language of other radfems, and taking them to task. Like a well-trained middle-class woman, doing the feminine thing, ‘policing’ other women’s behaviour. Telling the naughty girls to grow up, and behave like ladies.

    Being human, means the ability to express the full range of human behaviours – even unpleasant ones.

    Nine-Deuce: The righteous rage of an oppressed class towards their oppressor class, may be expressed in all shapes, forms and sizes, even if some women use styles of expression that I might not use myself, or both you and I, and other women, feel very uncomfortable about other women using. “There is no one true path, grasshopper”

    But at least they know who their enemy is. They are mocking their oppressors.

    Whereas some radfems, prefer to mock other women with sarcastic put-downs.

    The bottom-line of what I am reading, is that Nine-Deuce and others do not agree with 40+ years of radfem analysis and theory – that trans-politics is anti-woman, misogynist and anti-feminist politics, that is harmful and constitutes social and political Violence-Against-Women, and is established, maintained and promoted by the patriarchy. Plenty of individual women and men, support all sorts of patriarchal politics, from religion to pros/porn to capitalism – some of them are really nice people too, empathic, sympathetic, as individuals.

    You keep saying these trans-dudes are “oppressed” – and you seem to assume (without any question) that they are more or less “equally” oppressed to women as a class? – and hence we shouldn’t mock an equally “oppressed” group, they should be our allies.

    I say bullshit. This is where we don’t agree. The political principles of radical feminism (in contrast to other feminist schools of thought) maintains that trans* beliefs, doctrine, dogma, policy and practice is one of the major ‘Master’s Tools’ of the oppressor class. Plenty of males, are oppressed too… by other males. But no matter how oppressed some groups of males are, they always maintain power over females.

    Mocking trans, is mocking the oppressor… as in there are plenty of ‘Nice-Guys’ too, but we often mock them as well, because for all their niceness, they remain members of the oppressor class. Plenty of feminists mock ‘Godbags’ . Plenty of ‘Nice Guys’ or Nigels, aren’t overtly or consciously or deliberately misogynist. A few, as individuals, could even be classed as ‘pro-feminist’ allies. The same goes for M2t’s . But they are still members of the oppressor class, no matter how nice some of the individuals are.

    As for trans-politics in particular, just like other patriarchal institutions, or “master’s tools”, they are supported by main(male)stream – by the law, govt funding, medicine and education etc.

    If you don’t agree with that radfem 101 principle, then why do you keep insisting on calling yourself a radfem? Or making distinctions with ‘trans-exclusionary’ radfems versus *regular* ones? What sort of radfem are you? Why not just be a liberal feminist? Plenty of lib-fems are genuinely wonderful allies and ‘sympathisers’ with radfems on various single issues like pros/porn, DV etc… but at least some of them believe in political solidarity – by maintaining silence on issues where they disagree with radfems.

    • Nine Deuce January 15, 2012 at 1:51 PM #

      rainsinger – I don’t think the oppression is equal, I think it’s different. But it all stems from the same source: male supremacy’s requirement that everyone fit neatly into gender roles. Contrary to apparently popular belief, radical feminist theory isn’t divine revelation. It has grown, evolved, changed, etc. in the course of recent decades, and you don’t get to decide who is and is not a radical feminist. I do not call myself a liberal feminist BECAUSE I AM NOT ONE. As anyone who has read a single post on this site knows.

    • Nine Deuce January 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM #

      rainsinger, doublevez, and Gallus Mag — If you are so disgusted with my calling myself a radfem, then why do you continue to comment here? I have no idea who told you you were in charge of the radical feminist movement, but there is obviously some disagreement on that.

  136. Sugarpuss January 15, 2012 at 4:12 AM #

    @Old Music: That was a great post but….

    Any child who does not perform gender correctly risks being treated in this way, even though most ‘gender variant’ children grow up to be perfectly normal, healthy gay adults.

    I’m getting a little tired of the way in which people who don’t conform to gender norms are automatically being stamped as gay/lesbian. Oddly enough, it actually sounds very heteronormative, because the assumption is that if one behaves in a stereotypical fashion that resembles one gender, they must automatically be attracted to someone who behaves like the opposite gender. Not true.

    But like I said, great post otherwise.

  137. Old Music January 15, 2012 at 5:39 AM #

    Sugarpuss,

    I accept your criticism, some gender variant children will grow up to be healthy happy and straight, while others will, with luck (given our homophobic society) grow up to be healthy happy and gay.

    My emphasis on growing up to be gay was a reflection on the homophobia of society and trans theory, trans theory is not just about policing gender performance, it’s a way of disappearing gay people – the large number of young lesbians ‘transitioning’ being a case in point.

  138. Old Music January 15, 2012 at 5:45 AM #

    Also, I take this (the whole trans thing, not Sugarpuss’ comment!) quite personally, I can’t help but think that if I was a child now, some well-meaning adult might be trying to label me ‘trans’. I was a tomboy as a child, and I still don’t perform gender correctly (people’s first assumption is that I’m a lesbian and I do occasionally get challenged using the “lady’s room”), but I’m sexually attracted to men.

  139. Old Music January 15, 2012 at 6:56 AM #

    I’d like to add my thoughts on the subject of how we define ‘men’ and ‘women’.

    Certain things are biological facts (chromosomes, organs, hormonal make up), but we don’t have a clear binary even for biological sex; we all exist on a biological continuum, one end gets labelled male, the other female, and in between intersex, but everyone’s existence at which ever point on that continuum is a biological fact.

    When we are born, we get placed in one of three categories, male, female or intersex, but this placement is politically and socially mediated, our ideas of what ‘men’ and ‘women’ are supposed to be like is gender, and this includes biological characteristics. For example, baby girls in the US may have their clitoris removed or ‘reduced’ if the medical establishment deems it ‘too big’, that diagnosis is based purely on cultural assumptions, and parents agree because they don’t want their daughters to stand out. The basic fact is that ‘gender’ extends beyond behaviour into the biological, into what male and female bodies are supposed to look like.

    We can see an example of this in the treatment of the South African runner Caster Semenya, she didn’t look the way women are ‘supposed’ to look, she had muscles etc, she didn’t look remotely ‘feminine’. The result of her case is that the sports establishment doesn’t use chromosomes to define sex any more, they’ve set threshold levels of sex hormones.

    So then, the ‘best’ (as in the one that best reflects the way the world actually works in practice) way to define ‘men’ and ‘women’ is by the category they are placed in at birth. This defines the way one is treated by family and society and the law, and this makes a huge difference. ‘Men’ and ‘women’ are political categories, and the category you are placed in affects everything from the way you are socialised, to whether you get fed properly and taken to the doctor frequently, to whether you survive to your first birthday (in most parts of the world, if you are placed into the category ‘woman’ you won’t). Which political category one is placed into is determined solely by the appearance of ones genitals at birth.

    Intersex individuals may be placed into the category intersex, they may have their genitals mutilated to fit them into the category ‘woman’, this is a very complex area, which is why I said before that they deserve and need better than to be lumped under the umbrella ‘trans’. If society actually accepted intersex as a real category, we would have to give up a huge number of assumptions, including ‘gender’ itself. At the moment it seems we (by ‘we’ I mean western society) are saying intersex individuals need to be left alone till adulthood when they can ‘choose’ which category they want to place themselves in.

    And now on to gender! There is a spectrum of human behaviours, some get labelled ‘male’ or ‘masculine, others ‘female’ or ‘feminine’. The essentialist position is that these are somehow innate and that we have sexed brains, which is bullshit and I’m not going to waste any more space on it than that.

    Trans theory seems to say (and it’s hard to tell because it’s all over the place and inconsistent as hell) is that since growing up we are aware of and are absorbing all the gender policing that goes on (eg a girl will see the boys around her being trained into masculinity), the category we are placed in at birth is irrelevant. They claim that trans women are ‘real’ women because they were aware of the gender policing girls around them experienced.

    It seems fair to say that yes, we do see how others are policed, we are not just aware of how we ourselves are treated. It’s true, but it’s trivial, a white child may be aware of the different way her non-white classmates are treated, an able-bodied child her disabled classmate etc. This doesn’t prove the trans argument, children police themselves, peer pressure is one of the major factors of gender enforcement, so of course girls are aware of how boys are ‘supposed’ to behave, and vice-versa

    Trans activists claim that trans women really experienced misogyny as children, because they were ‘really’ girls, and trans men didn’t experience misogyny as children because they were ‘really’ boys – that second one is the hardest to get my head round, how do they define their treatment then, being told they can’t do certain things and must do certain things because they are girls – they’ve created a narrative for themselves that fits in with their identity as trans men, that ‘proves’ their trans identity, but it sounds like total dissonance, a complete denial of childhood experience.

    (I think I need to add a note in here about misogyny. Misogyny is a hatred of women, but also a hatred of femininity, so trans women and gay men also experience a form of misogyny – they are hated for being associated with anything female or feminine. I reject the term ‘transmisogyny’ though, as it is used by trans activists to invisiblise and trivialise anything that happens to female-assigned-at-birth women and girls, it implies that there’s an extra special important form of misogyny suffered by trans women that isn’t really connected to the general woman-hating of patriarchal society.)

    Trans women claim they are ‘really’ women because they have female sexed brains, and their choice of behaviours labelled feminine is offered up as proof of their female sexed brains. I truly believe that if we lived in a genuinely gender neutral society, there wouldn’t be any more trans, there would just be people who’s body existed at a point on the biological sex spectrum, and who’s behaviour sat at a point on the spectrum of human behaviour.

    My main point is that ‘women’ exist, just about, as a biological fact, and exist, definitely, as a political fact. As I said before, I have every sympathy for individuals who can’t fit on the ‘right’ point of the behaviour spectrum, but the solution is not to deny that the political category of ‘woman’ exists – this hurts women as it makes sex-based violence invisible – but to try to break down the concept of gender, while recognising that biological sex exists, and some aspects of it, eg pregnancy, means that certain types of ‘positive discrimination’ will always be necessary. We can only become ‘sex blind’ once male violence against women stops, not before.

  140. Deena January 15, 2012 at 2:27 PM #

    ND I have enjoyed reading all these comments. I’m not sure what it is that you seek. I personally know perhaps 12 or so M2Fs, a few F2Ms, thousands of women and men as well as an assortment of drag queens, lesbians, gays and assorted other flavors of humans. I can’t really speak for any of them but I can tell you my understandings and perhaps some of what all those people have expressed to me.

    Let’s start with basics. I don’t know a single M2F who will assert that she is a woman. I also do not know a single FAB who ever needed to make that assertion. I have, however, encountered many people who seem to have a compelling need to make such an assertion. My perception (and I could be very wrong) is that those people fit into the category of M2T. In a like vein I have encountered some people who feel compelled to assert an intersex condition. The problem is that everyone seems to have a different definition for exactly what that means. I used to be curious and ask each one exactly what that entailed but I quickly learned that questioning the specifics could be interpreted as an attack on the person’s integrity. Best to just smile and say “how interesting”.

    All the M2Fs I know are acutely aware that they were born without ovaries and uterus. It is a situation that has been very emotional since birth. Coupled with the very intense emotion of not being a man surely you can understand how an M2F would prefer to just get on with life and not get into endless and senseless discussions about sex and gender.

    Does any of that make sense to you? To others?

  141. m Andrea January 15, 2012 at 2:31 PM #

    In my last comment (in another thread) I forgot to mention how much I do like, appreciate, and respect feminists most of the time — except when she’s massively hurting my fee-fees with her craptastic logic skills. The feelings of some folks are hurt by RUDENESS — whereas my feelings are hurt by BAD LOGIC. If I’m supposed to refrain from triggering your ouchie then godfucking damnit remember that you need to be careful of mine. Hello. Or do you want to be a hypocrite? If you want to make the claim that “you can’t help sucking at logic and therefore can’t help hurting my feelings” then for god’s sake please remember that I can’t help sucking at politeness. THE HYPOCRISY, IT BURNS.

    People continually assume they understand how basic logic works. Yet the vast majority of people utterly suck at logic. And consequently, they cannot reason through a problem with any degree of accuracy.

    The thing is, none of the radical feminists I know are trans, nor am I. I have no way of knowing whether my battle with what society wants out of me as someone born with a vagina resembles in any way the conflicts that occur in the mind of someone with male genitalia who feels a desperate need to undergo reassignment surgery. I’m guessing, however, that it doesn’t, and I’m thus not going to tell trans people how their minds work, nor am I going to make the outrageous and dehumanizing claim that they must be mentally ill.

    An “opinion” is “how someone feels about some subject”. No actual reason is present in the above statement. I like strawberry icecream. is an opinion. I think you should do x is an opinion.

    As soon as someone does include an actual reason, then they are in longer in the land of opinion wherein everyone is equally entitled to hold a different opinion and can expect that everyone’s opinion would be considered equally valid. As soon as a reason is present, then they are in the land of logic and they better know what the fuck they are doing lest someone who does understand basic logic come along and explain why they are wrong.

    A reason is usually preceded by the word “because” (or that word can be included if the writer left it out of the sentence”. As soon as someone says “You should do x” or “you should not do x” then we look at the reason which explains why someone should obey a command.Your implicit assertion is: “IF someone is not experiencing something, THEN they have no right to pass judgement on that thing”.

    Is the problem with your assertion obvious yet? You still haven’t given a reason for your opinion. The phrase which you assume is your reason (if someone is not experiencing something) is merely a QUALIFYING statement. A qualifying statement describes. It does not explain. We still need a reason which explains why “your readers should refrain from x”. We are still only dealing with your opinion — which is no more valid than anyone else’s.

    Unfortunately for most people, I do know how logic works and I give reasons: The reason which explains why it is appropriate to refer to some transgendered individuals as mentally ill is BECAUSE their behavior does indeed match the medical criteria which is used to define mental illness.

    If you would like to argue that some transgendered behavior cannot be defined as mentally ill, then please attempt to construct that argument and remember to give a reason.

  142. Rae January 15, 2012 at 2:33 PM #

    @Delphyne – The fact that the biological reality of sex is sophistry to you is a large part of the probem. I’m not saying that there are no biological differences between trans women and FAAB women – clearly there are. But it’s interestig to me that you treat chromosomes and gonads as determinate of sex, when secondary sex characteristics are what we typically visually sex people by. If an XX FAAB person takes testosterone, begins to grow facial hair, builds male muscle patterns, has hir clitoris grown to penis-length and surgically shaped like a penis, and socially assumes the male gender – you still consider this person a woman in theory, even though they now have assumed many male sex characteristics. How are you going to make sure you’re properly sexing people, demand a doctor’s note certifying their gonads match their external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics? Is that even important?

    So what is real womanhood? “Woman” thus far has only been defined by patriarchy, and the accusation that women are not real women has been used to police us and trap us in socially assigned gender roles. Sometimes you’re not a “real woman” if you’re not a mother. Sometimes you’re not a “real woman” if you *are* a mother. Sometimes you’re not a “real woman” if you’re black or an immigrant or poor. I don’t think the experience of womanhood is pregnancy, preventing pregnancy, PIV sex, menstruation, or having breasts; those can all be components of it but it’s essentialist to reduce our experience of womanhood to only those things since not all women (born women) experience all of them, and because defining womanhood in a purely biological sense ignores all the social realities women have to navigate (like the virgin/whore double standard, the pay gap, compartmentalization into careers labelled for women, etc.)

    I spend a lot of time reading and thinking about what womanhood means – and I still have not reached any concrete conclusions, any definitions that can be used without playing into patriarchal exclusion of some women. I do think the possibility of conceiving of womanhood as neither men’s opposite, nor exactly the same as men, nor the complement to men is one of the more radical projects we can pursue (hat tip to Luce Irigaray). I don’t feel like the possibility of imagining a womanhood beyond patriarchy is threatened by the existence of trans people. I don’t feel like referring to them as belonging to a social category they don’t feel a part of is liberating to me, it just makes me feel like a jerk for further hurting someone who has already been hurt in the most severe way by the conflation of sex and gender and the gender binary. I do not think they are responsible for my oppression.

    @PNC – Yes, some infertile women take birth control because they have medical problems it rectifies or because they don’t know they are infertile and don’t wish to become pregnant. Let me spell out my point in criticizing your post, since I think you missed it. Reducing women to the function of reproduction is extremely limiting and plays right back into all the societal structures designed to promote birth by some women and inhibit it by others. I am not just a potential mother, and my mother is not just a mother. We can have thoughts, feelings, careers, selves – beyond just our potential to create life. Of course reproductive freedom (and not just in the negative rights sense, but also in the sense that we provide actual material and social support for both mothers and women who don’t have children) is a huge issue that we can’t ignore, that remains central to the question of what womanhood is. But womanhood is still not reducible to pregnant-or-could-get-pregnant.

    @92 – Thank you for providing this discussion space. I rarely feel that I can comment on this issue because I don’t quite agree with the party line of either side.

  143. Rebecca January 15, 2012 at 3:45 PM #

    The logic in 92’s passage (quoted by m Andrea in her comment above) is actually fine. She does not say, or even imply, that no one may make a judgment about anything they haven’t directly experienced. What she says is, she’s not going to tell trans people how their minds work BECAUSE she has no way of knowing whether their struggles around gender are qualitatively the same as hers, and some reason to surmise that they are not. She doesn’t specify what the latter reason is — this is, after all, a blog post and not a published paper — but, just for starters, how about the fact that most of us who have struggles with what society expects of us gender-wise (which is to say, most of us full stop) DON’T feel compelled to radically alter our bodies as a way of coping with said struggles? There’s a difference for you. (And to anticipate the response, by “radically alter our bodies” I mean to approximate the body of the “other” gender. I am aware that many women feel compelled to alter our bodies in order to conform to beauty standards, etc.)

  144. m Andrea January 15, 2012 at 4:07 PM #

    Part of the problem that I have with both that other post and this one, is that you keep talking about “we” as if “we should do this” or “we should do that”. In order to talk about “we” then there has to be some sort of consensus — and personally I insist on an actual valid, proven reason when someone is advocating group action.

    It also seems like you’re advocating that EVERY radical feminist coddle trans’ EVERY demand ALL THE TIME, with no awareness that radical feminism is comprised of individuals with their own opinions and accompanied by a great deal of reasoned analysis, or that a particular tool might have better results in different types of circumstances, or when used with varying levels of intensity. You seem to be massively concerned with rudeness, as if the only problem *is* rudeness. Personally, I’ve always thought the primary problem was stupidity; and of course people who do or say something stupid never appreciate having their stupidity delineated — so they change the subject from stupidity to how they feel about having their stupidity proven to be a fact.

    I went looking for “rude” blog posts disagreeing with the transgenderism ideology, and the only ones I found were mine (which consisted of two posts in a two years) and Davina’s. So why get so freaked about rudeness?

    Come to find out, the problem isn’t rudeness at all, it’s that a GROWING number of feminists feel comfortable publicly admitting that they find the transgenderism ideology to be sexist, and a GROWING number of fence-sitters who admit that many tenets of the trans ideology make little sense.

    We have to find ways to reconcile their existence with our mental frameworks and the physical world. Solutions need to be found to the problems that arise when people who do not fit the gender binary come up against it when standing in front of a public bathroom door sign, for example. “Fuck you, stay out” is not a solution. (Lobbying for single-user bathrooms — which make sense for several reasons not limited to trans people’s needs — is.)

    Ah, now I understand. First you use guilt-trippy manipulation to accuse all radfems of being “rude” when the vast majority of them aren’t even close, fail to notice the “rudeness” which I and Davina do express is simply the normal response when logical inconsistencies are repeatedly not addressed, and then you insist that every radical feminist agree to change their individual goals into a collective goal of your own design without ever once developing an actual reason for your guilt-trippy manipulative opinion.

    I have already figured out “ways to reconcile their existence” with “my mental framework” of patriarchy. It’s to write them off as mentally ill — eunuchs protected by patriarchy for the purpose of guarding the harem.

    • Nine Deuce January 15, 2012 at 4:50 PM #

      m Andrea – I don’t take issue with rudeness, I take issue with online feminism being obsessively focused on what ought to be a side issue, and with online feminist writing lacking in content other than repetitive snark.

  145. Sargasso Sea January 15, 2012 at 4:13 PM #

    Exactly, m Andrea. Thank you.

  146. delphyne January 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM #

    “The fact that the biological reality of sex is sophistry to you is a large part of the probem.

    No your distortions, and glossing over the reality of biological sex is the problem. I didn’t call the biological reality of sex sophistry – more distortions from you.

    “I’m not saying that there are no biological differences between trans women and FAAB women – clearly there are.”

    Yes clearly there are. MTF trans are male (XY, penis and testes – they haven’t had them lopped off, and if they have they are men who have been castrated) and women are women (XX, ovaries, uteruses, vaginas and breasts).

    “But it’s interestig to me that you treat chromosomes and gonads as determinate of sex,”

    Because they are, so why wouldn’t I. Gonads are the reason every one of us exist on this planet.

    “when secondary sex characteristics are what we typically visually sex people by.”

    Sex isn’t just visual though. It’s physical – including chemical and chromosomal. You’re talking about “passing” not sex.

    “If an XX FAAB person takes testosterone, begins to grow facial hair, builds male muscle patterns, has hir clitoris grown to penis-length and surgically shaped like a penis, and socially assumes the male gender – you still consider this person a woman in theory,”

    Because she is, in reality, not theory. She’s still XX through every cell. Her body is still female. She’s a woman taking testosterone, not a man.

    “even though they now have assumed many male sex characteristics.”

    Except the main ones – XY chromosomes, penis and testes, which are what make a person male.

    “How are you going to make sure you’re properly sexing people, demand a doctor’s note certifying their gonads match their external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics? Is that even important?”

    How about people stop lying about their sex? Or is that too difficult for trans? Just because some trans pass doesn’t make their claims about sex reality. they are still fantasy.

    “So what is real womanhood?”

    Well according to MTF trans it’s what a man experience when he claims to be a woman. It’s that simple!

    My answer – womanhood doesn’t involve a penis and testes. No way, no how, not ever.

    • Nine Deuce January 15, 2012 at 4:44 PM #

      I trashed your second comment because you are calling feminists who disagree with you masculinists. Knock that shit off or stop commenting here. Would you like to see a feminist movement with no members?

      • Nine Deuce January 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM #

        Also, to whoever asked me who the 8 I mentioned in the post are, I was just using an arbitrary number to point out that online feminism is becoming a consciousness contest in which almost no one comes out radical enough. No thanks.

  147. Sugarpuss January 15, 2012 at 5:01 PM #

    Old Music said:

    Also, I take this (the whole trans thing, not Sugarpuss’ comment!) quite personally, I can’t help but think that if I was a child now, some well-meaning adult might be trying to label me ‘trans’. I was a tomboy as a child, and I still don’t perform gender correctly (people’s first assumption is that I’m a lesbian and I do occasionally get challenged using the “lady’s room”), but I’m sexually attracted to men.

    Yes. This is exactly what I’m thinking, too. I was/am the tomboy type (although I did practice a few “gender-correct” behaviors, like wearing makeup). Nobody ever accused me of being a lesbian because, based on my behavior, it was pretty obvious I was into men (I say “was” because I’ve been celibate for nearly 8 years, due to utter disgust with typical male behavior). I don’t use public restrooms (germs), but I know that if I did, it wouldn’t be a problem because everyone can tell I’m female (height, size, bone structure…THE HANDS. LOL). However, my internet experiences have been problematic; I’ve been accused of being a man on multiple occasions, and if I discuss anything relating to sex…I become a gay man. :D I joke about it now, but it really does bother me. Gender norms are ridiculous & very limiting. I feel paralyzed by them…watching every word I type…then, getting so sick of monitoring myself that I just blow up and start dropping F-Bombs. LOL

    Like you, I keep thinking about if I were a child growing up in our current pro-trans environment. What would be done to me? Even as an adult…how long before somebody walks up to me, observes that I am wearing a man’s t-shirt, no makeup and have short hair…and asks me “Hey, are you trans?”.

    Transgenderisn is a plague. I’ll never support it.

  148. Sugarpuss January 15, 2012 at 5:08 PM #

    *Transgenderism

  149. PG January 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM #

    I’ve been depressed and confused about this topic ever since the most recent disappearing-post-debacle on IPTP– although transgender issues don’t directly affect my life, it makes me uncomfortable to have an incomplete or potentially broken philosophy of radfem. So it’s a welcome experience that your summary, ND, doesn’t make me think: hey, that’s not logical and doesn’t match my experience as a bio-woman; OR, gee, although I’ve met people who fetishize gender in an icky way, I’ve also met people who were suicidal before they were able to have surgery, and it doesn’t seem fair to lump everyone in the same bucket; OR, maybe we shouldn’t just ignore this issue when discussing radfem because the relevant population is so small. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic and bringing radfem into a more cohesive philosophy!

  150. Nicky January 15, 2012 at 6:10 PM #

    The problem with Biology and genetics is that when you throw intersex into the mix, it just makes things more complicated than it is. The fact is, and MTF is not a Female and it is still a MALE. If you were to do a DNA test on a MTF, you would not find any female DNA in them. Your would find more XY cells in them. That would mean an MTF is still MALE by DNA.

    That’s why Intersex people like myself are regarded as a biological third gender. Although medically, they see intersex people as indeterminate gender.. So which means that Intersex don’t have a gender to begin with and according to most medical and scientific research, Intersex people are biological third gender.

    Also, with the Intersex, I have seen alot of trans who have pretended and claim to be intersex. Their are Trans people such as the Zoe brains and Valeries on the internet who like to claim intersex and claim to be intersex as well.

  151. Sargasso Sea January 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM #

    Deuce, it was me who asked if you’d “care to name names?” about the 8 and I have already thanked you for your answer on that point.

    Now, I know I said I was looking forward to Part 3 (presumably your… whatever… on F2T/*transmen* – last but not least?) of this exercise in Radical Feminism: What It Means to Me, but I’ve changed my mind.

  152. rainsinger January 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM #

    “I don’t take issue with rudeness, I take issue with online feminism being obsessively focused on what ought to be a side issue, and with online feminist writing lacking in content other than repetitive snark ..”

    So your repetitive snark is OK, but other women’s snark isn’t?
    “Ought to be a side issue”… well.. some of us disagree there too, for some of us it is not a side-issue, but one battle among several battle-fronts in the global War-Against-Women. There is also such a thing as “Choosing your battles”, there are plenty of them to go around after all.

    What are your other complaints? Besides it being a “trivial” subject? (Who is establishing agendas and priorities for radfeminism now?) oh.. now I remember – it gives radfeminism a ‘bad name’, doesn’t sound inviting to other women.

    It may not be your battle-front, but thats no reason to be all snarky at other women fighting it. If its so trivial and not worth your time and effort, why are you snarking so much about women who are involved in it?

  153. m Andrea January 15, 2012 at 10:05 PM #

    okay, I would like to apologize to Nine Duce for sounding so freaking angry. It is probably not understandable to you why I am so angry, which is my fault for not addressing your actual concerns. You have always been one of those folks who is willing to open every discussion to folks from all sides of an issue and considering that I probably am not able to articulate to you my reasons, then from your perspective you have displayed a great deal of patience. Thank you for that.

    It’s just… when I first realized that patriarchy and misogyny existed, I didn’t sit around and wonder how I could better accommodate those things and make them feel more comfortable taking up even more space which rightfully belonged to me. I didn’t ask my friends how we could make misogynists feel good about themselves as they literally and sometimes figuratively raped our humanity from us. I pondered how I could get rid of all that patriarchal bullshit, once and for all.

    If somebody could explain why transgenderism is not sexist, then I would support the individuals who hold those beliefs instead. It really is that simple. But after noticing a great many incongruities in their claims which to this day goes unanswered, it does appear as if transgenderism reifies the absolute worst of misogyny. So until proven otherwise, I’m not interested in accommodating that ideology or making those who hold such beliefs feel more comfortable.

  154. maggie January 16, 2012 at 3:23 AM #

    This is not a discussion on what defines man/woman or masculinity/femininity, although as someone has pointed out above, DNA can delineate perfectly well the biological differences and intersex conditions.

    Let’s look at the issue of sexism and make correlations to racism. I’m thinking perhaps jokes. If a white person says to a person of colour that the joke made was not racist but the person of colour says it is, then it is racist.

    Similarly if a person tells a sexist joke and the other person listening says it’s sexist, then it is sexist – no need for them ‘to get a sense of humour’ – and who would say that anyway to a person of colour.

    If a person thinks that transgenderism is sexist then it is sexist.

  155. hall-of-rage January 16, 2012 at 4:17 AM #

    @No Sugarcoating–
    On the one hand, you have your friend: a person with lived experiences, whom presumably you like. On the other hand, you have abstract ideas that are making you feel alienated from and suspicious of people like her. That’s a problem that should be familiar from other contexts where people are “othered”, and the answer (to me) is always that abstract fear clouds one’s judgment of real people. The same goes for a lot of comments above. Personally, I try not to theorize too much about biological and psychological workings of sex and gender, because for every non-wishy-washy theory, I know someone whose life really contradicts it.

    I want to know why so many cis feminists want to talk about trans women. I know why I do here, and that’s that I would like to stop the hate, as it were. But I don’t spend time in big feminist gatherings like the Michigan Music Festival, only small queer-feminist workshops and women-related things. So I’ve never felt this “trans women invade women’s space” phenomenon. I would like to know if there is anything else that any trans women are doing to hurt women, besides existing (that would be snarky, but some people really seem to think so).

  156. hall-of-rage January 16, 2012 at 5:15 AM #

    @delphyne, about how people transition instead of change the definition of what “male” or “female” should be: That might be a good thing for male cross-dressers to do, and it would help transsexual people but likely not cause everyone to be happy with their assigned sex. So questioning restrictions of gender is a goal of transgender communities (and individuals) I know. But when you criticize, keep in mind there isn’t strength in numbers like there is with women. Transsexual people are in a small minority, *and* being seen together is sometimes risky (e.g. increases the chance of not passing, in contexts where passing=safer), so they are more likely to be isolated, and I’ve heard one has to seek out cis allies. Not to mention that if you look at the whole transgender community, there are a lot of different needs and cross-purposes, yet people ally, and get stuff done.

    @others, about how it would be nice if more trans people would speak up here, theoretically no-one’s stopping them:
    That would be nice, for the debate, and I wish it because I feel like I am speaking for others here without much chance of correction. However, I have to say that reading these comments is very difficult for me (a cis woman, trans ally, much more so than I was when it was mostly theoretical), as there is not enough protection from insults general or specific, yet much of it is old, so I’m not about to ask my trans friends to participate. If I were trans I wouldn’t be here–people give out enough funny looks, harassment, declaiming of theories and bald insults in real life. It’s really amazing actually, how *much* harassment men feel entitled to when it comes to trans women. I mean, take the same men who think “[unfamiliar cis woman] dressed like that just to please me”, translate that to the mindset of “[unfamiliar trans woman] made herself a woman (regardless of how she’s dressed) just to please me”, and imagine how they act. Hint: the “but she was asking for it!” gets worse, the ability to relate to the victim’s humanity does too. And the reason I mention this is cis people do not do enough to stop it. The more people preach that transsexuality is a moral failing, the fewer people will help a transsexual man or woman who is attacked, actually that goes for all transgender people. (That comment is not well worded as it comes from me being upset/scared.)

    I would be interested in a discussion of how communities of trans women in second puberty are sometimes similar to those of adolescent girls in standard puberty: trying to derive self-esteem from performing femininity better, and putting effectively misogynist pressure on each other. Of course it comes from the same patriarchy, but it must play out differently in the details and the effects on others, when done by adults instead of children. What I even know about that is secondhand and discussing it might be crossing the line, but it would be an interesting discussion if it could be less vitriolic. It is worth looking to see if someone’s written one.

  157. Former Slave January 16, 2012 at 7:33 AM #

    Oh, I see.

    All those years I was raped for being a woman – that’s an XX woman, female assigned at birth woman, told by the Bible I’m a woman and therefore inferior, that’s a woman who gets a menstrual period because she has a uterus and is a woman, who has physical health problems related to that because it is something that will only happen to a female XX chromosome female woman and these things are dismissed by the medical establishment and mocked by society and in fact used as an excuse to pay me less historically and in fact used to shun me for 25% of every month by many major religions because it makes me a dirty, filthy non-human rather than one who needs some medical attention for my problems, that’s a woman who has been pregnant several times but only managed to have one living child who’s birth nearly killed her and who has had shame heaped on HER by society ever since for having been an unmarried “slut” when she did it since only the female XX chromosome uterus bearing woman is ever blamed for that too, that’s a woman who took all those chemicals and devices and hormones that made me sick so I could try not to get pregnant again while I was being forced to have sex to survive and finally the surgery which nearly killed me but did indeed keep me from ever getting pregnant again, that scarred up my female born XX chromosome only uterus and Fallopian tube bearing person only insides – well all those years and all those experiences, they don’t count for anything. To talk about them as if they matter in any important, specific way, or as if they might possibly have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the ACTUAL BODY I was born in and am STUCK WITH makes me “essentialist”. What matters is how I “feel”.

    Oh, well I “feel” like a human being who ought to be treated with respect, which has gotten me exactly JACK SHIT in life, because I AM A WOMAN. That’s the whole POINT. If you are born and they see “no penis” from that point on, you are FUCKED, literally, spiritually, and metaphorically. Your whole life.

    There’s no where safe to go, clearly.

  158. Former Slave January 16, 2012 at 7:47 AM #

    The trans movement and the BDSM movement have a lot to do with each other. There’s a lot of overlap. I personally came to know a lot of trans persons in the BDSM world. Many, many, many of them claim they are intersexed and this is “why” they are trans. My best guess is 75% are MTFs. At least half have had no surgery and many do not take hormones either. Of the ones I knew more closely, when questioned (most will talk very openly about it in person because of this great desire to justify the transition to anyone who will listen) the “intersex condition” they had was usually some very minor anomaly that never put their birth gender in question – some of them even have self-diagnosed their intersex condition. In other words, most of these trans persons claiming intersex as the reason for their transgenderism are lying. I know one who claimed she was a transman because she had a large clitoris. Really. She made a video of it to show people. It looked perfectly normal to me, just not porn sized. This was a woman who had even had a child, but was claiming “intersex”. There was nothing to really show any intersex condition existed. It was just something of which she had mentally convinced herself.
    I never met any person in the trans/BDSM movement with an actual intersex condition that had made their birth gender/sex indeterminate. In short, the trans movement is using intersex people for their own purposes, and from all I have seen, most of them deeply resent this.

  159. marilynpierce January 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM #

    m_Andrea,

    Interesting points. What proof would you except?

  160. marilynpierce January 16, 2012 at 8:11 AM #

    Sorry, spellcheck error * accept

  161. Boner Killer January 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM #

    “I have been accused of a lot of things in my time on this blog, but being a traitor to women is not one of them. I can work toward the end of male supremacy without engaging in ridiculous, dehumanizing, unproductive demagoguery.”

    Oh, i’m also being called similar things — but you know what ? that’s just it – it’s LOW name-calling and it gets us nowhere…how that makes you a “traitor” to women is beyond me…

  162. Boner Killer January 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM #

    @ Rainsinger,

    “All because Nine-Deuce got her knickers in a twist over bad language of other radfems, and taking them to task. Like a well-trained middle-class woman, doing the feminine thing, ‘policing’ other women’s behaviour. Telling the naughty girls to grow up, and behave like ladies.”

    Are you serious? The names that other people were being called were “she-male” “trannies” and “twanz” “men with dicks cut off” and You believe this is just a “bourgeois” attempt at empathy, targeted at radical feminists to “police” people? Well, i guess that is a lot easier to say than, “Wow, we were calling people horrible names, I wonder why we did that” rather than, “I can use degrading language against whoever I want, if you don’t like it, then you’re a middle class feminine woman who wants to tell me what to do!!!!! you can’t disagree or you hate women!”

    I’m sick of this derailment from that fact that people are being treated like subhumans, why does this not matter?

    I don’t think the the intent of this blog or other bloggers concern with the names and insults being flung at trans women is to “police” radical feminists or “be feminine and nice” — in fact, suggesting that empathy towards other is “feminine” is thus “bad” is fucked up.

  163. Sugarpuss January 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM #

    @marilynpierce: Why are you promoting gender stereotypes on your blog? Why are you getting papsmears on a mutilated penis? Why are you claiming to be exactly the same as a woman who has had a hysterectomy? Why are you exoticizing the female sex, as if it’s some magical state of being? Why are you living in a fantasy world? How can a wealthy, white male-born person have the audacity to claim they’re oppressed?

  164. m Andrea January 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM #

    I have to say that reading these comments is very difficult for me (a cis woman, trans ally, much more so than I was when it was mostly theoretical), as there is not enough protection from insults general or specific, yet much of it is old, so I’m not about to ask my trans friends to participate. If I were trans I wouldn’t be here–people give out enough funny looks, harassment, declaiming of theories and bald insults in real life.

    That seems like male supremacy to me. As a woman, I am used to seeing derogatory, sexist, dehumanizing comments and images about women *everywhere* I go. There is no safe space, not even in feminist space. I am USED TO THIS. It is normal, standard operating procedure.

    Expecting a safe space is not possible for women, yet trans and their supporters assume that trans are magically entitled to safe spaces where their every word is accepted as gospel. They want more than what is possible for real women.

    I learned a long time ago not to let my emotional response to dehumanization prevent me from arguing the crap out of the situation. Trans apparently is too fucking wimpy and entitled to do the same. I also learned that a woman whining about her feelings got her absolutely nowhere. (And in fact, I agree with the idea that feelings do not matter — feelings are not the appropriate criteria for civil rights.) Again, trans and their male-centric supporters continually assume that trans are entitled to a level of respect and validation which real women never get.

    If they are “real women” who “internalized as a child what it means to be female” then they would have known about this already, and they wouldn’t be whining about it every 30 seconds. Most importantly, if their female supporters weren’t such raging male supremacists, then those women wouldn’t expect more for trans then what they themselves experience.

  165. Nicky January 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM #

    @Former Slave
    That’s very common within the trans community. They like to use the “intersex condition” to justify their transition. Their are even very few who have claimed to be intersex including one known trans by the name of Zoe Brain. I have seen Zoe Brain claim every type of intersex condition from 17BDHH to 5ARD, just to justify his transition. The majority of trans that do try to claim to be intersex or even pretend to be intersex are those who are uneducated about what it means to be born intersex or are looking to justify their transgenderism. I have even seen some who self-diagnose themselves and try to pass themselves off as an intersex without ever going to see a Medical doctor. They do so, because they want to justify their transition or they want that status of being intersex or even to use it as an excuse as to why they are trans. That’s why most of the trans who do try and claim to be intersex are nothing more than deluded liars and con artist. I would say 75% have tried to claim to be intersex and got caught lying about being intersex when they got confronted by an actual born intersex person. Even some who claim to be intersex, have actually fathered a child before trying to pretend and claiming to be intersex. That’s why your seeing the trans movement using the intersex claim at the expense of real, actual born intersex person and every intersex person resents having their name being used and abused by trans people.

  166. m Andrea January 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM #

    In fact, I consider whining about how you feel about the criticism, is just another way for you to avoid dealing with the criticism.

    Address the criticism. Stop whining about your feelings. Speaking of the actual criticism, apparently the f-word defines “cissexism” as:

    Cissexism is “a related (albeit distinct) form of prejudice [...] which is the belief that transsexuals’ identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals (i.e. people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their subconscious and physical sexes as being aligned). [...] Common examples include purposeful misuse of pronouns or insisting that trans persons use a different restroom. The justification for this denial is generally founded on the assumption that the trans person’s gender is not authentic because it does not correlate with the sex they were assigned at birth.”- Julia Serano.

    I assume that any bio male can express whatever characteristic and perform whatever activity he wants, in the body he was born with.

    I keep asking “what is the reason which explains why he feels the need to reject his birth body, IF his only desire is to perform some amount of stereotyped femininity?” and EVERY SINGLE ANSWER IS CIRCULAR. Answer the damn question in a non-circular way which does not reify sexism, and I will support their stupid whiny asses. Really.

  167. Sugarpuss January 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM #

    LOL Boner Killer, I got a real chuckle out of your “No Men” policy, on your blog. If your argument consists of “hey, let’s treat human beings with respect”…are you asserting that men aren’t human? How exactly do you define a man, if not by sex?

    What I’m seeing here is nothing short of pure hypocrisy.

    At the end of the day…it all comes down to what’s between our legs & the color of our skin. These two things are, more or less, what determines our level of privilege in the world. To deny this is just foolish & idealistic.

  168. marilynpierce January 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM #

    Sugarpuss,
    Thank you for taking the time to read my blog. I know that nothing I say here will me a hill of beans to you, but maybe someone else may want to hear.

    >> Why are you promoting gender stereotypes on your blog?

    I didn’t think I was promoting anything, I thought I was just being me. However, since you bring it up, I believe everyone falls into some kind of stereotype. The funny thing is that we don’t put ourselves there. We are placed there by the people we interact with. Oh, I know that there are things we can do to encourage where we are placed, but we have no real control of it.

    I don’t know you, and you don’t know me, but you don’t seem to have any problems imposing your stereotypes on me. I don’t have to act like any stereotypes. I just have to be me. I hope you don’t either.

    >> Why are you getting pap smears on a mutilated penis?

    Mutilated Penis? I don’t remember you ever having access to judge the state of my genitals. Oh, that’s more of that stereotyping. Well, if you truly read my blog then you’ll know how I feel about people living by the stereotype.

    As far as the pap smears, get ready for some science (I know that it will mean nothing to you):

    “However, in patients who have undergone penile inversion vaginoplasty with the glans penis retained as a neocervix, routine cytological examination of the neocervix may be indicated. The glans appears to be more prone to carcinomatous change than the skin of the penile shaft, and intraepithelial neoplasia of the glans is more likely to progress to invasive carcinoma than is intraepithelial neoplasia of other penile skin. These factors make regular cytological examination of the glans-derived neocervix a reasonable practice in MtF transsexuals.”

    Anne Lawrence, M.D. (oh look, isn’t that a female name)

    Vaginal Neoplasia in a Male-to-Female Transsexual: Case Report, Review of the Literature, and Recommendations for Cytological Screening – Volume 5, Number 1, January – March 2001

    More research out there, google is your friend.

    >> Why are you claiming to be exactly the same as a woman who has had a hysterectomy?

    Wait a minute, didn’t an earlier commentor state that being an adult human female is about anatomy? Let’s see, it was stated that a female has ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, vagina, clitoris and labias. So let me count, after my mothers surgery to remove her ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, and having the cervix closed. She was left with a vagina, clitoris and labias. That is what I have anatomically. Tell me the anatomical difference? Oh, that right, you’ll claim that it is not a “real” vagina. My gynecologist doesn’t agree with you, and I believe she’s in a better position to judge.

    >> Why are you exoticizing the female sex, as if it’s some magical state of being?

    So I tell a real story about two five years olds sharing a bonding experience and suddenly I’m exoticizing the female sex? Is that even a real word? I know that I have no control how anyone chooses to interpret a story they read, but I don’t recall claiming the female sex is a “magical state of being.” I wrote the story to tell about how I betrayed the trust of my cousin. I’m sorry you missed the point. I guess I’m just a bad writer. I can work on that.

    >> Why are you living in a fantasy world?

    So, now you are my psychologist. Let me assure you that you are not my psychologist. You have just placed yourself into the same world as Fox New’s Dr Keith Ablow. Thanks for sharing your fantasy world with me.

    >> How can a wealthy, white male-born person have the audacity to claim they’re oppressed?

    First, if you knew anything about the Ice business in Texas then you would know that no one is wealthy, and I certainly wasn’t born into it. My father worked his ass off to gain his fortune. Trust me when I tell you, I never have nor will I ever see a cent of it.

    Other than the coldness of my family, where did I claim to be oppressed? My earlier comment was about what the discussion felt like to me, not that I was feeling any oppression. Although, Sugarpuss, your quick and biting replies has me wondering (of course, I know that you will prove my point again, and reply with something witty).

    Sorry for the long response.

  169. lizor January 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM #

    @Mandrea

    “I have already figured out “ways to reconcile their existence” with “my mental framework” of patriarchy. It’s to write them off as mentally ill — eunuchs protected by patriarchy for the purpose of guarding the harem.”

    Can you please back this statement, that all trans people are mentally ill with some evidence-based logic?

    And can you explain how you got the [straw] argument that trans people are NOT mentally ill, out of ND’s posts? I cannot see anywhere in this post where she asserts that she is going to show that trans people are not mentally ill. This is your trip, and the “I’ll put you emotional irrational little ladies in place with my superior logic” is familiar, nauseating and the last thing I expect to see on a thread like this.

    Thanks ND for the posts. I am still trying to wrap my head around this issue. I have read many posters here as well as some theorists like Jeffries and I can see the anti-trans position on a theoretical level, yet this is very much at odds with my experience of trans people in my own community. I get keeping women only spaces safe – there should be no argument there.

    But when positions like “all trans is mental illness” or “If a person thinks that transgenderism is sexist then it is sexist.” I feel a bit embarrassed* to be associated with a community or philosophy that can make such sweeping condemnations of a very diverse group of people. I’m with Deuce; surely we can do better than that.

    *OLO, I know you are reading. Based on your posts, you seem sane, highly sensitized to sexism and your posts on this blog regarding your own specific experience always contribute to the discussion.

  170. Deena January 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM #

    @ m Andrea. You ask the impossible. I use the word knowledge to refer to “learned things” which means assembled thoughts not requiring an experience. I use the word understanding to refer to things grasped through experience. A woman who has given birth to a child can impart “knowledge” about being a mother but no matter how eloquent can never provide understanding of childbirth to a childless woman. You might take issue with how I use the terms “knowledge” and “understanding” but that is simply the way I use those terms.

    Applying those terms in that way leads me to conclude that an M2F can never “understand” a FAB but can accumulate knowledge about being one. But, life only begins at birth and an M2F can actually experience many female events during a lifetime. Perhaps instead of M2F we could label those experiences as Female Post Birth or FPB. For example, in our sexist society a passable FPB will surely have the door held open at the convenience store by some misogynist and experience being “talked over” in mixed company gatherings by men.

    So, back to your question of why a man would reject his body. Can you grasp it when an FPB simply says “it had male bits and those did not fit who I am”. You can think it BS and the person is mentally ill or whatever but you will never be able to “understand” it. Just file it away as “knowledge”. You can even see the FPB as a freak and less than human and the FPB is powerless to change your perception. Kinda like an FAB is powerless to change the male perception that women are sex objects.

  171. Akuba January 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM #

    9/2 “I don’t take issue with rudeness, I take issue with online feminism being obsessively focused on what ought to be a side issue”

    Wait a minute now 9/2! You did state that you didn’t like the tone from some radfems (“Since when is using a snotty, crass word like “twanz” to refer to a member of a group of oppressed human beings considered acceptable behavior for a radical feminist?” etc.), and yet now you tell us the problem is that trans politics “ought to be” a side issue in the radical feminist discourse?

    Aren’t both those type of statements on one of those old bingo-card thingies about discounting words of women, or mansplaining or something? In any case, they work as a way to try to dismiss real ideas and are a major impediment to real debate.

    A more thinking response could be “Why are these radfems so angry with trans activists? Transsexuals seem like a nice bunch to me that need help from oppression. They are unfairly treated. Can we join forces? Why or why not? Does trans theory support or work against radfem theory?

    Instead your comments come across as an admonishment to radfems to “be polite and play with Johnny”. I do see that there are some very fundamental theoretical conflicts between these two groups. And it is political, not personal.

    No radfem is promoting violence against transsexuals. In fact, many probably understand why M2F wish to separate themselves from all things masculine. I imagine a good part of it is safety:

    see Hall of Rage’s comment :

    “being seen together is sometimes risky (e.g. increases the chance of not passing, in contexts where passing=safer)”

    No one can really blame non-gender conforming persons from trying to create a safe space in society for themselves. If you look at the numbers from the CDC’s survey on intimate partner violence the overwhelming majority of violence is perpetrated by male persons – 98.1% men against women, and 93.3% men against men. And with our incredibly misogynistic society, you can bet that males that exhibit characteristics that are seen as feminine are targeted.

    A lot of the reasons trans persons give for transitioning are very understandable given the society we live in. However, as much sympathy as we may feel toward trans persons, it is not acceptable for them to hurt women and interfere with the liberation of women from the oppression of men in the process of gaining safety and comfort for themselves. Trans politics creates a barrier to women’s liberation. Radfems find this unacceptable.

  172. Akuba January 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM #

    Sorry! Bad proofreading again on my part. Please read “non-gender conforming persons” as “persons not conforming to binary gender roles”.

  173. maggie January 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM #

    But Marilyn you write on your blog that you had a micro penis at birth. This couldn’t possibly produce a ‘hole for fucking’. I’m not calling it a birth canal or a vagina. Your mother doesn’t need a pap smear as she has no cervix but I take it she still has her breasts? However where does that put a woman born FAB who has had breast cancer, a double mastectomy, and her reproductive organs removed? Is she less of a woman than you?

    You are disengenuous. I was prepared to listen to you but when you responded to m_Andrea with the question “What would you except (accept)?”, I knew instantly that you were born male.

  174. marilynpierce January 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM #

    >> But Marilyn you write on your blog that you had a micro penis at birth. This couldn’t possibly produce a ‘hole for fucking’. I’m not calling it a birth canal or a vagina. Your mother doesn’t need a pap smear as she has no cervix but I take it she still has her breasts?

    I never used the word “Micro Penis” and for the record I will never claim to be intersex. A small, deformed protrusion does not a “Micro Penis” make. Ask Nicky, since Nicky is the expert on Micro Penises. I’ve lived with hormonal anomalies yes, but intersex no.

    You’ve seen my mother’s anatomy? I haven’t. Yes, she and I have breast. And we both have a history of breast cancer that runs in the family. Should I ignore that too?

    >> However where does that put a woman born FAB who has had breast cancer, a double mastectomy, and her reproductive organs removed? Is she less of a woman than you?

    I’m not the one who is deciding who is a woman or not. You are the one’s placing so much meaning in body parts. I’m just pointing out that I have those parts too.

    >> You are disengenuous. I was prepared to listen to you but when you responded to m_Andrea with the question “What would you except (accept)?”, I knew instantly that you were born male.

    So, asking a question of someone who said they would like proof means I’m male. Interesting connection.

  175. maggie January 16, 2012 at 2:57 PM #

    @ Deena. I do not for one minute think that all trans is mental illness, nor would I ever say so. To say it is mental illness is name calling, as is twanz, shemale, etc. I would never resort to that, nor ever have done. Hope you understand.

    @Akuba. Brilliant post <3

  176. maggie January 16, 2012 at 3:42 PM #

    Sorry that should be @Lizor not @Deena. Apologies to you both.

  177. maggie January 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM #

    @ Lizor ‘highly sensitized to sexism’ – WTF?

  178. sneeky bunny January 16, 2012 at 4:19 PM #

    @maggie:
    Lizor was talking to the regular poster OutsideLookingOver who has decided to stop commenting. OLO has been here a long time, and happens to be trans. They now feel that their participation here, despite 92 indicating they are welcome, to be inappropriate. I feel that to be a pity.

  179. Boner Killer January 16, 2012 at 5:21 PM #

    Hey! did you know, ND, that if you disagree, you’ll be removed from link lists and blog rolls – luckily you still remain on RadFem central, i have, of course been removed due to expressing a counter opinion. Again, didn’t realize we were all supposed to be ideologues and are supposed to keep our goddamn counter opinions to ourselves to avoid getting “written off” by other women who used to support you. Funny how quickly support and solidarity can slip away…really telling to me…

  180. Boner Killer January 16, 2012 at 5:22 PM #

    So much time and energy in these comments being spent on evaluating the human value of a group of people, neat!

  181. Charley January 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM #

    For me as a person who was assigned female at birth I do firmly and wholeheartedly beleve gender is a social construct but it’s hard to articulate things in a language that doesn’t have the words to express how I feel and what I identify as.

    I don’t want male privilege and fitting in with the guys doesn’t bother me but snce I was a child I’ve known I wanted to shave and as soon as puberty hit periods and breasts felt incredibly wrong. It’s not about me not wanting to be female, it’s about me not wanting a woman’s body to live my life in. Not because I thnk women’s bodies are wrong but because having one is wrong for me. That’s as far as it goes I don’t want to destroy women’s spaces, I want to deconstruct the gender binary and I’d love for every child to have a life that managed to be as blessedly free of gender roles and stigmatisation as mine managed to be if not more so.

    Some people cannot love and accept the body they were born into and it’s wrong to force them to have to endure that. It’s not a life, it’s a half life of dispair, anger, hatred and fear and there is no counselling that will cure it, no amount of gender deconstruction that will change it. It just is. My gender is fine as it always has been my body is unutterably wrong and always has been and I will use surgery and medication to make it the closest approxmation I can of what I need it to be if I’m gong to live in it even if it’ll never be 100% perfect I’ll take even 30% right if that’s the best I can get over what I’ve got at the moment.

  182. Akuba January 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM #

    9/2 :”Transwomen who call themselves feminists are feminists, if we use the baseline belief that women are human beings as a basic definition of feminism.”

    The “baseline belief” of feminism that you proffer in your post is problematic. As you state it, it really doesn’t mean too much. You could ask Rick Santorum if women are “human beings”, and he would tell you “yes” and he isn’t much of a feminist.

    As for feminism reason being ” it’s to figure out a way to create a world in which no one is beaten, raped, murdered, dehumanized, worked to death, devalued, or shat upon by men as a means for reinforcing male power..” This is still not quite right but perhaps will be a by-product in the event that feminists are successful in their efforts (In fact, this is where I remember Betty Freidan getting into trouble, wanting to include men in the oppressed class that feminism was fighting for).

    Central to feminism is the idea that women as a class are oppressed by men as a class for the mere reason that they are female (and viewed as the sex class), and the purpose of feminism is to liberate women from this oppression.

    I think more than eight people believe this.

  183. sneeky bunny January 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM #

    It is sad, but often true, that with in an activist community, there is no greater sin than that of (as I mentioned early in this thread) insufficient doctrinal purity. People on both sides of the issue feel betrayed, and hurt, and can end up tearing each other to pieces. Nobody wins.
    Well, except the Patriarchy in this case,,,,
    Divide and conquer.

  184. lizor January 16, 2012 at 6:29 PM #

    @maggie. I was quoting Mandrea in the first quote, your post in the second. Sorry for the confusion.

    Thanks for the clarification note, sneeky bunny. :)

  185. womononajourney January 16, 2012 at 7:05 PM #

    @Charley,

    It seems to me not liking one’s breasts or period is what being female under male supremacy is all about. Sure, this varies in degrees. It also plays out in different ways for different females; some cut and/or burn their bodies, , some starve or binge or binge and purge. Some girls even try cutting off their breasts at puberty. For many women, the struggle to accept their body is intense, and goes on for years and years, if not an entire lifetime.

    I’m interested to know why it’s not socially acceptable to cut or starve one’s body, but it’s considered treatment to chop off healthy body parts…? I genuinely don’t get it. I also wonder if the women that do this wonder if it’s triggering to other women, such as other?) survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

    I’m interested in anything that impacts women and is a pattern as opposed to a blip on the radar. Transitioning is becoming increasingly common for young females. They can declare their hatred of everything female loud and proud and be supported by the medical community, who,in some cases, makes money off of their suffering. Any pattern under a structurally unequal system such as male supremacy needs to be examined. Why are so many women transitioning? Why now? What role does this play in the struggle for Women’s Liberation? Who benefits?

  186. Akuba January 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM #

    sneeky bunny, (I like that name!) – regarding insufficient doctrinal purity; what do you propose? What can be done to elaborate on the basic tenants of feminism to make it more ‘inclusive’ that does not render it both toothless and totally meaningless? Does it not cease to exist if it can mean anything anyone wants it to? As I understand both theories (radical feminism and trans theory), they are incompatible at a pretty fundamental level. Why does one have to join the other? Why do trans activists have to cal themselves ‘feminists’ if they don’t agree with feminist theory? I don’t see betrayal and hurt expressed by the radical feminists as much as I see anger at being asked over and over again to capitulate and change their goals without the benefit of being supplied with compelling arguments that these changes will benefit women.

    • Nine Deuce January 16, 2012 at 7:36 PM #

      If transwomen are men, why are radical feminists spending so much time writing about them? I’ve been called a masculinist and a fake feminist here for writing two posts on this topic by people who almost never write about anything else. Kind of odd.

  187. sneeky bunny January 16, 2012 at 7:39 PM #

    @Lizor: Happy to help! :)
    I hope OLO comes back.

    Akuba: The way the mods worked it looks like I was replying to your last post. I should have indicated that I was responding to Bone Killer’s report of 92 being stricken from blog rolls over this.

  188. Sugarpuss January 16, 2012 at 7:53 PM #

    Marilypierce said:

    I didn’t think I was promoting anything, I thought I was just being me.

    You weren’t promoting gender stereotypes when you wrote “I walked like a girl, ran like a girl, talked like a girl”, etc, etc..? Oh, and FYI: Wearing a cute wittle yellow dress has nothing to do with being a girl/woman. My mother grew up in a generation where girls were simply not allowed to wear anything but dresses. Her bare legs (and the legs of all the other girls) were often exposed to the winter elements, on the school playground. As she described it, it was nothing short of torture. One day, she tried to wear jeans to school…and she was sent home. Dresses are not a part of womanhood…they are a symbol of women’s oppression. You have a very distorted idea of what it means to be a woman. Female greatness is not found in frilly fabrics, baubles, face paint, or any other patriarchy-approved adornments. Your lifestyle is based on a lie.

    [...]we have no real control of it[...]

    Hmmm…. now where have I heard that before? Anybody care to help me out, here? *wink* *wink*

    Mutilated Penis? I don’t remember you ever having access to judge the state of my genitals. Oh, that’s more of that stereotyping.

    SRS is a stereotype? o_O So…you just had it cut & reformed at your local KFC…or what?

    As far as the pap smears, get ready for some science (I know that it will mean nothing to you)

    You know, for a fella so keen on science…you seem awfully reluctant to accept the biological fact that female = XX, not XY.

    Wait a minute, didn’t an earlier commentor state that being an adult human female is about anatomy? Let’s see, it was stated that a female has ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, vagina, clitoris and labias.

    Well, there’s a been a few females born without one or more of those things…but what does this have to do with somebody like you…who was born with none of those things? I don’t see ballsack on that list.

    That is what I have anatomically

    Have you ever heard of Mock apple pie? I believe it’s made from crackers, some spices, bunch of other fillers…everything except apples. It’s a very poor substitute for the real thing. Nature > Science. Oh, and I’ve never heard of a woman with a prostate gland…or did you have that removed too? Oh, and don’t forget pheromones. Generally speaking, vaginas don’t normally smell like cock.

    So I tell a real story about two five years olds sharing a bonding experience and suddenly I’m exoticizing the female sex? Is that even a real word?

    I found your story bizarre, pervy, and quite typical of most male prose. And yes, that’s a real word, genius. Google is your friend. ;)

    Let me assure you that you are not my psychologist

    Let me assure you that no amount of money in the world could convince me to take on such an enormous burden. I’d rather have liquid nitrogen poured down my asscrack.

    My father worked his ass off to gain his fortune

    What did your mother do? Oh wait…that’s not important.

    Trust me when I tell you, I never have nor will I ever see a cent of it

    Well, yeah… there’s none left after daddy paid for your snazzy, new female-impersonation device. Now the whole family is probably living off of beans. Way to go, sport.

    [...]where did I claim to be oppressed?

    On your blog?

    Although, Sugarpuss, your quick and biting replies has me wondering (of course, I know that you will prove my point again, and reply with something witty)

    What exactly was your point? Oh, right! That you’re exactly the same as a biological female. Yeah…some people will buy horseshit, others will even sit down & eat it. I don’t fall into either of those categories.

  189. Akuba January 16, 2012 at 8:07 PM #

    9/2 Is this a serious question? Perhaps because trans theorists/activists are calling themselves feminists while working at cross purposes to radical feminists? Perhaps because you wrote a couple of blog posts talking about this and people took you at your word that you wanted explanation/ discussion?

    • Nine Deuce January 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM #

      I do want discussion, Akuba. I have gotten a lot of “fuck you, you aren’t a real feminist anymore because you have a disagreement with a few people who have appointed themselves the radfem Illuminati.”

  190. m Andrea January 16, 2012 at 8:24 PM #

    m Andrea I don’t take issue with rudeness, I take issue with online feminism being obsessively focused on what ought to be a side issue, and with online feminist writing lacking in content other than repetitive snark.

    As other people have mentioned, you are being disingenuous. First you claim that all radfems are “too rude” when the vast majority are quite respectful in their terminology, and then you attempt to parley accusations of rudeness into guilt-trippy manipulation. The average radfem is way too smart not to identify that technique and to take offence when you direct that technique at your friends.

    However (and this is not intended as a censor), just in the last few comments I have seen phrases which I personally would not use when discussing my objections to transgenderism, were I in a face-to-face conversation with a trans person or even in a internet thread with one. Actually, I don’t even use those types of words in private with other radfems. At most, terms such as “stupid” and “non-logical” are thrown around rather frequently. :-) Although… there was a certain lightbulb moment the first time someone mentioned that yes, they are simply carving a fuckhole into their body so men can satisfy their urge to stick their dicks into anything which stands still long enough. It literally doesn’t serve any other purpose.

    So you do have a limited point regarding “rudeness” but please let’s notice the guilt-trippy manipulation and the fact that this accusation of rudeness is entirely one-sided. Normally I just delete those comments wherein a trans threatens to track me down and rape me to death (as they tend to be kind of triggering and derailing when left in a thread) — but if the safety of women is not important to you and you need to see them firsthand, well… suppose I could approve them…

    The other thing ND, is that I don’t consider transgenderism to be a “minor” issue. It is currently the most insidious assault on women’s liberation ever devised, with the obvious potential to reify every patriarchal norm ever invented. It covers every trope from women are born “that way” to women enjoy being born “that way” with a supercilious jab at erasing Woman from the category of class-based oppression. Which, yanno, makes it kinda hard to even identify the existence of sexism. Plus, transgenderism is the only ideology which uses the tools of social justice against the very group who invented those tools, which renders it particularly effective against the naive. Damn straight it gets my attention.

    Anyway, the reason I was so angry and the reason I am spending so much time trying to weed through this crap is precisely because I do consider us to still be friends. HELLO. And unfortunately for you, I do hold my friends accountable. :-) Perhaps that was your motivation as well?

    • Nine Deuce January 16, 2012 at 8:32 PM #

      I am not being disingenuous. RUDE is perfectly fine. Slurs are not rude, they are tasteless and discredit those who use them.

  191. Akuba January 16, 2012 at 8:58 PM #

    9/2, your question @at 7:36 PM was phrased in a way that makes it seem that you are suggesting that radfems have unwarranted concern about the topic of transgenderism vis a vis radical feminism. If you are indeed posing this as a serious question, I hazard to guess most writings on the topic come about because trans activists have been bringing their theories into feminist spaces and claiming their theories to be ‘feminist’ while (as I said before) those same theories work at cross purposes and are incompatible with radical feminist thinking and goals. I don’t understand why you think it odd that there would be concern about this. And why wouldn’t radfems write about men, trans or not, invading their spaces and taking over their discussions and telling them what to think?

    I am sorry that you are having your radfem credentials questioned, but from what you have been writing so far, it guess I am not surprised. You seem to be missing some really fundamental understanding on the subject. And some of the comments you have been making have been uncharacteristic for you (I have read your off and on for a number of years) and appear to be sort of nonsensical logic wise.

    • Nine Deuce January 16, 2012 at 9:05 PM #

      Akuba — The fact that I don’t see the whole thing as settled doesn’t mean I don’t understand it. I am profoundly uncomfortable with the state of discussion on this issue and probably dashed off the first post without giving enough thought to how people would react, so I have clarified what I have to say in the other posts. What is it that is so nonsensical?

  192. Akuba January 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM #

    Jeez, I wish I could type properly! I meant to say that I have read your blog off and on for a number of years…

  193. Aileen Wuornos January 16, 2012 at 9:32 PM #

    I have no problem accepting that people have fantasies/ideals of how they should be versus how they are in life.

    I do have a problem when others expect me to indulge in and/or validate their fantasies, especially when they expect others to participate as a part of their validation.

    This, alone, is enough for me to not support any trans-gender argument.

    • Nine Deuce January 16, 2012 at 9:41 PM #

      AW – I’m not supporting any transgender argument anywhere in these posts.

  194. Akuba January 16, 2012 at 9:36 PM #

    Well, as far as it seeming nonsensical, take the last question by you to which I responded, the one: “If transwomen are men, why are radical feminists spending so much time writing about them?”. When I first read it, I thought it must be a mistake! Why wouldn’t radical feminists spend a lot of time writing about theories masquerading as feminist/woman supporting that are becoming very popular, but are harmful to women and at odds with their own theories and goals? Why should they care less about this rather than more if transwomen were viewed as men? It’s a goofy non-sequitor, like radfems don’t usually discuss anything to do with harm from men.

    Also the comment about essentialism (@January 13, 2012 at 1:26 PM). It seemed like you were being purposely dense. And the comments about sex changing with transitioning. and the derailing tactics (too rude, not important topic). It just seems like you are responding/commenting in a strange manner that does not move any discussion forward in any meaningful way.

  195. Aileen Wuornos January 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM #

    I realise ND, I’m just putting my perspective out there.

    I don’t blog anymore/often because of the large number of hate mail and death threats I received for my perspective on the “transgender issue”. Now I have put my 5 cents out there, I can retreat back to being a lurker.

    Thanks.

  196. deepika January 16, 2012 at 11:47 PM #

    “but no one save the few trans activists who have attempted to force their way into female-only spaces truly considers transwomen to be women.”

    hah. try saying that anywhere except your own blog and the super-cabal-of-8 radfem blogs and see how fast you get shouted down and banned by literally EVERY feminist website out there. “trans women are not actual women/real women/really women” boom! heh heh. right.

    “I’m not supporting any transgender argument anywhere in these posts”

    okay, so would you be comfortable saying that the basic tenets of trans theory are fundamentally at odds with feminist theory (namely that they define men and women as “genders” and that there is “physical sex” and “subconscious brain sex” despite no research to back these claims up)? would you be comfortable calling yourself a “cis woman”? would you be comfortable with the idea that because trans women are not truly women, their apparent oppression is, baldly speaking, SEP (somebody else’s problem)? why is it incumbent on WOMEN and FEMINISTS to find these solutions you are so keen on?

  197. Noanodyne January 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM #

    9D: “If transwomen are men, why are radical feminists spending so much time writing about them?”

    This thread is full of absolutely brilliant explanations of the radical feminist position on all things trans* by some great thinkers who have been considering the issue in depth for a while now. When you ask a question like that, 9D, I can only conclude one of two things:
    1) you haven’t bothered to read any of those comments or
    2) you absolutely refuse to absorb what they say

    The questions you just keep asking have been answered over and over, here and in the writings of the radfems you are so anxious to discredit. That you can’t “get” it is completely on you. Thankfully, all this time you’ve remained blissfully ignorant on this thread, many lurkers are having AH HA! moments.

  198. Sargasso Sea January 17, 2012 at 3:22 PM #

    When you ask a question like that, 9D, I can only conclude one of two things:

    I’d like to add:

    3) collecting material for a book

    • Nine Deuce January 17, 2012 at 4:42 PM #

      Sargasso – If you have something to add other than snide insults to me, do so. If not, please stop commenting.

  199. FCM January 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM #

    whats the proper way to refer to “experience” taking into account the following: ONLY women have female reproductive organs (as opposed to “all women do”)? this is a serious question. can we not say that this experience is “universal” to women? if not, what should we say? (that ALL MEN UNIVERSALLY EXPERIENCE ‘not’ having them?)

    what would the trans accept about reproductive reality of women versus reproductive reality of men (if anything)?

    putting aside for the time being the per-se idiocy of the suggestion that a WOMAN who has had a hysterectomy (or one who is pregnant already) is not a woman bc she cant get pregnant and doesnt menstruate (but a man is a woman).

    also, thinking of having a fake pap smear on a glans sewn into the back of a fake fuckhole was really not a nice image. but since it was brought up, according to wiki, pap smears are done on FEMALE internal genitalia, and anal paps are an adaptation of a pap. cant we say that the MTF pap is an ADAPTATION of a pap too? or is it just 100% required that trans appropriate all things female? you may as well say that a neovagina is a second asshole, it would be as accurate as saying that its a vagina. in reality, its neither. im just saying.

    or is wiki just TRANSPHOBIC!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pap_test

  200. FCM January 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM #

    also, some of these comments are really great. :) thats what i love about radical feminists. they move the discussion forward by making things devastatingly clear. which is the exact opposite of libfem (and trans) discourse actually, which seems to effectively (if not deliberately) move the discussion backward by making things confusing, and making the smart (honest?) people in the room spend their time getting everything back on track. its exhausting, it really is.

    9/2 i saw that you said this debacle has tired you out, i recommend you consider that THAT IS (at least partially) THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of libfem and trans discourse. its a waste of time, leaving nothing left to put towards the important work of liberating women from men. get to work on your porn part 10 post. its got to be better than this trans idiocy, especially considering that you *still* have yet to make any actual points here and you are completely exhausted for your troubles. its deliberate. dont fall for it.

    • Nine Deuce January 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM #

      That isn’t what’s tiring me out, FCM. I am sure you can guess what is.

  201. FCM January 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM #

    what, the radfems are wearing you out? LOL that makes no sense to me at all. spinning your wheels and trying to reconcile things that cannot be reconciled, aka. cognitive dissonance, are exhausting. libfem and trans discourses are exhausting. making lemonade out of lemons is exhausting. capitulating is exhausting.

    i am serious about the “ONLY” versus “ALL” language, i am sure the difference can be expressed logically but i dont know the difference right off hand. do you?

  202. m Andrea January 17, 2012 at 10:34 PM #

    sure you do FCM. all means “everything” while “only” is used to qualify a particular subject… which could include everything. All boys are awesome until only some them are not. Sorry I can’t think of a better example off-hand.

  203. m Andrea January 17, 2012 at 11:19 PM #

    whats the proper way to refer to “experience” taking into account the following: ONLY women have female reproductive organs (as opposed to “all women do”)?

    oh. apologies. in my previous example, the qualifier would have been referring to humans. You were right FCM. “only females have the potential to possess reproductive organs”, but not all do, and the lack of reproductive organs does not mean that they are suddenly non-female.

    And that type of statement also doesn’t mean that “anybody who can’t do x IS female”. You bring up a seriously interesting point. It’s like a trans supporter is trying to argue that the following:

    If somebody can do X then she’s female.
    AND
    If somebody can’t do x then she’s female.

    are true at the same time. Which, when I write it just like that, I would end up agreeing with both statements. Which is what trans wants me do. But, and here’s the kicker (at least the way I’m thinking about it). They changed both the form and the focus. Here’s the form which was originally used by FCM:

    ONLY females have the potential to perform x activity or not perform x activity.

    They changed the focus, from “subcategory of human” to “the activity” which can be done by ANY/EVERY/ALL subcategory of human. They’re no longer focused on the qualities restricted to females, but on what any human could do or not do.

    So idk, maybe the next time they say that, I’d respond with “so what, men don’t have ovaries either and that doesn’t mean men-without-ovaries have suddenly turned into transwomen”. Hey, your straight het husband is now a transwoman, according their logic. :P

  204. FCM January 18, 2012 at 10:41 AM #

    thanks ms.a. :) maybe a graphic is in order?

  205. Bore February 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM #

    “I’m guessing, however, that it doesn’t, and I’m thus not going to tell trans people how their minds work, nor am I going to make the outrageous and dehumanizing claim that they must be mentally ill. (Let us please not forget the history of the use of psychiatric authority as a justification for the marginalization, institutionalization, sterilization, rape, and murder of women.)”

    I really wish you weren’t the first person I’ve seen point this out explicitly. :(

    Awesome post, as is the first one.

  206. S. A. Vince March 5, 2012 at 5:41 AM #

    Hello, transman input here.

    I’ve read most, if not all the comments here and I’m still a bit confused. What exactly is the core issue here? Whether transwomen are women? Whether they should have an equal stand with biological women?
    In the last 100+ years, many issues have come a long way, I thought the feminist movement was about womens rights and choices. Isn’t transgenderism reflective of that progress? To be able to live and present as male/female with all the same rights as anyone else?

    Nobody makes the choice to be transgender, for many of us, it is either that or death (or a very long, depressing, unhappy life). I do not see my transition as a betrayal to the feminist movement or an attempt to live out any subconscious misogynistic ways. I have had little to no priviledge through my life. Being of mixed race in a mostly white school (with the exception of 3 other black/multi-raced kids) and being of a “lower class” single parent family in a predominantly rich community had made me the lowest of the low on the social spectrum.

    We must consider that everybody is unique, trans people are no different. I see many other transguys as cocky and arrogant, much like the typical misogynist male, but then I see others who just want to get by in everyday life and transition is just a step forward. The transwomen a poster or two has spoken about who have assaulted women, that is not common and one persons experience cannot speak for all.
    By the way some have spoken, it appears that the only thing that can determine who you are as a person is chromosomes. By looking at a person, trans or not, you cannot tell what their chromosomes are. I don’t understand how thinking, feeling, humans with personalities and people who love them became walking, talking chromosomes or genitals, that is ridiculous. It is just as ridiculous to think they have an ulterior motive for their transition, as if alienating yourself from society, destroying family relationships and putting yourself in harms way is all just a scheme to get in on your all female club to show you that a man can take that away too. When in reality, unless somebody has been in your position, they have not earned the right to pass judgement on your situation. That is like if a woman told another woman who was the victim of abuse “it’s not so bad”.
    I take these new “m2t” and “f2t” terms to be very insultive, I am not “female to trans” and I do not wish to be treated as so. It pisses the hell out of me that we are treated as a third class party, we are not good enough to be women, we are not good enough to be men, we are nothing. We are but the dirt on the bottom of your shoes and deserve to be treated as such.

    I deeply believe in 97% of what 92 says, but when she made transmen even lower than transwomen with the “I tend to agree with the view that women transitioning to become men evince internalized misogyny” comment, that’s just over the line for me. I absolutely adore the women in my life and cannot fathom the thought of treating them like lesser human beings.

    And to the Nicky person, get off your high horse, nobody is trying to intrude on your intersexism, atleast you have a place, people know you were given no choice in the matter, that being intersex is a birth defect. The majority still think trans people are just ill in the head and need therapy, camps, prescription drugs and a good smack in the face to tell us just how stupid and ridiculous we are. Transmen get laughed at to even think that we can be as good as a precious male and their precious penis, we are short and silly, not to be respected or taken seriously, just a joke. Would it make you feel better if we all just stuck nooses around our necks and hung ourselves? The belittling of us to make you feel better about yourself is getting very old. Please stop.

    It disturbs me that anyone would take rips and stabs at someone who is an ally to them. I will defend you and lend you a helping hand, contributing to your cause, educating ignorant people in the world, participating in justice for all women and young girls, but you’ll just spit in my face.

  207. unchainedaura May 18, 2012 at 3:42 AM #

    please, the trans community try to be good allies, but not getting treatment is not an option, average life expectancy of a transperson due to a 41 percent suicide rate is down as low as 23 years old, as for our growing numbers yes 2000 of us in the entire UK according to official stats, meaning born women outnumber us fifteen thousand one hundred to 1 if you do the math , and men fourteen thousand three hundred to one. Those numbers are not MtF or FtM but the entire community. Yes a lotta trans folks fight for better rights for transfolks, a lot fight on many fronts. Many are too scared to fight again and simply dissapear, Most of us are tired of fighting, just want to live out a life in which we aren’t routinely murdered, raped, assaulted, or having our damn humanity put up for debate yet again. Where do we go?

  208. Leon Easter-Rabby May 20, 2012 at 2:25 AM #

    I wonder if maybe there is a confusion regarding tone here. Many of 9D’s posts are asking for clarity, not specifically niceness. Is ensuring what you are saying makes logical sense and doesn’t carry implications and exaggerations which distract from the key point asking for “niceness”? Maybe its not about pulling punches, but ensuring you hit your target.

  209. kobella August 12, 2012 at 1:39 AM #

    As a young FAAB lesbian feminist, I’m glad to see this discussion opening up a bit more, although it hurts to see so much disdain towards trans women. I was brought into radical feminism by a trans woman, so I feel strongly that the idea that trans and radical feminism can never be reconciled is false. Yes, much of the discourse of prominent trans activists is irredeemably liberal. But trans experience is more than the dominant discourse. The fundamental thing is that trans people are those who feel an extreme, consuming need to transition to another gender medically and/or socially. From Woman Hating: “There is no doubt that in the culture of male-female discreteness, transsexuality is a disaster for the individual transsexual. Every transsexual, white, black, man, woman, rich, poor, is in a state of primary emergency as a transsexual. …[E]very transsexual has the right to survival on his/her own terms. That means every transsexual is entitled to a sex-change operation, and it should be provided by the community as one of its functions. This is an emergency measure for an emergency condition.”

    The main ideological problem I see is how trans activism often fights for gender essentialism and the liberal notion of gender as “personal identity.” I feel that one can reject those, however, and still embrace trans women as real women. I feel sisterhood with trans women because I know they share much of my material condition of existence. Trans women are harassed as women, belittled as women, disadvantaged (in many ways) as women. And trans men are often advantaged as men – consider the (albeit small) studies that have shown trans men are more successful in the workplace after transitioning. I suppose I believe that the oppression of women is based largely on gender, not just on sex. Is that necessarily at odds with radical feminism?

    Perhaps to some radfems, but not me. Patriarchy and misogyny are a function of both sex and gender. And if trans women are interested in uplifting the status of all women, and agree about the importance of female reproductive justice, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be part of the feminist movement.

  210. Hunter January 14, 2013 at 12:46 PM #

    Just a little male perspective…
    I grew up very much a part of the punk/goth/new wave subculture of the nineties. I bought my first dress at 15, wore it with whore red lipstick, and wondered around in tights that said things like “Bitch” and “Slut” on them.
    For me, it had nothing to do with gender. I simply wanted to explore various aspects of myself and I enjoyed new tools of external expression.
    However, I quickly discovered, perhaps due to an androgyny that made people more comfortable with me, that most men I spoke to felt too trapped by society to be free.
    A very well-off gentlemen I met loved feminine boys and masculine women. He married a stepford style southern baptist because he feared losing his job and place in society otherwise.
    A female dominatrix I met had almost exclusively powerful executives as clients. They despised the constant need to hide their submissive natures from their wives, clients, co-workers, etc.
    Not one, but two marines I met by chance have become trans. One informed me he began wearing high heels at five.Despite that, a constant pressure led him to become a masculine stereotype externally. He couldn’t accept his feminine side, and feel culturally accepted, without divorcing that masculine side completely and becoming female.
    I don’t believe in gender as anything but an antiquated social construct, but anything promoting freedom and self-actualization I have to accept.
    And some people are too brainwashed to divorce genitalia/breasts from social expectations.
    Its just the semantics that get in the way between groups.
    That said, I volunteered at a LGBTI youth counseling center for a few months. Every meeting started with an announcement by each individual of their name and preferred gender pronoun for the day. It pissed me the hell off. If you genuinely have some sort of gender dysphoria, ok. But the kids, and even volunteers, would change PGP based on clothes,makeup, expressed traits, etc.
    I can be in pantyhose and mary janes and it doesn’t make me not a man.
    As far as intersex/dsd, a friend of mine edits the baylor journal. She said about 1:1000 births are are proscribed sex by their doctor. That terrifies me.

  211. Sugarpuss January 18, 2013 at 6:32 PM #

    Wow, this cocksmoker is making his rounds.

    Hunter said:

    Just a little male perspective…[...]

    Eh, in case you haven’t noticed, the mainstream media is chock-full of the “male perspective”. That’s the last goddamn thing I want to hear, hence the very reason I only read Feminist blogs. Tell me, why is it that you penis-welding shitheads can’t stand being ignored for even one-tenth of a microsecond? Why must you invade a Feminist space, climb atop your milk crate, and screech like some deranged owl/banshee hybrid with jock-itch? Get off the internet and take out the garbage, you daft knob.

  212. sneekybunny January 19, 2013 at 1:49 PM #

    See, stuff like this right here? Is why I love reading your comments Sugarpuss. ;)

  213. zoebrain February 23, 2013 at 8:51 PM #

    Norah Vincent in 2001:

    http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-05-22/nyc-life/welcome-to-the-transsexual-age/

    But it has taken the likes of Foucault, Derrida, and their imitators to kill something that is, arguably, far more precious. Namely, the self. And that, I submit, is what the rise of transsexuality indicates, or—to use the thoroughly fashionable term—”signifies.” It signifies the death of the self, the soul, that good old-fashioned indubitable “I” so beloved of Descartes, whose great adage “I think, therefore I am” has become an ontological joke on the order of “I tinker and there I am.”

    All of this came to mind of late because the San Francisco Board of Supervisors just voted in favor of giving city employees health benefits that include coverage of up to $50,000 for sex change operations and procedures. This struck me as an astounding capitulation to postmodernism.

    … there is a big difference between an equal-opportunity society in which people of all persuasions are allowed to pursue their own happiness—at their own expense—and an ideologically skewed culture in which special-interest groups are merely piggybacking on the latest trendy philosophies. And getting special treatment.

    Norah Vincent, 2006 , after 18 months of “doing the boy act” as described in her book “Self Made Man”. And after a mere 18 months of getting just a taste of Gender Dysphoria as the consequence, suffering a nervous collapse.

    “When you mess around with that, you really mess around with something that you need that helps you to function. And I found out that gender lives in your brain and is something much more than costume. And I really learned that the hard way,”

    Norah Vincent, 2009,

    “Advocate: What was it about living as a man that pulled your psyche apart at the seams?

    Norah Vincent: It was emotionally exhausting to be an impostor, and also an impostor of the opposite sex.
    That’s what most transsexuals feel before they make the transition. When I started, I’d thought that gender had to do with costumes and haircuts. I didn’t understand that there was some mental component of how you view yourself in terms of gender that’s deeply embedded in your brain and that you can’t just pull that out and not expect trouble.”

    She learnt the hard way that much of the theorising about Gender engaged in by so many is so much rubbish. It collides with Reality. The hundreds of narratives of Trans people that have been so cavalierly dismissed as the ravings of the deluded (at best), or deliberate attempts to rape women by ultra-males, actually accurately reflect reality.

  214. Sugarpuss February 24, 2013 at 12:29 PM #

    Dear zoebrain,

    Fuck off and get a life. You are a notorious RadFem basher, and you’ve got a lot of nerve even showing your stupid face here.

    Fraudster.

    • zoebrain February 25, 2013 at 4:11 AM #

      While RadFems continue to say things about Trans women like this:

      “They expect we’ll be shocked to see statistics about them being killed, and don’t realize, some of us wish they would ALL be dead.”

      While they critique Trans women as “not real” for not being able to give birth, then follow up with this:

      I can just imagine their gloating if they can get female body parts and reproduce (not to mention how reproduction is destroying the earth and the likelihood of birth defects and bad health from babies coming from such a place.) There are no words to describe them. There are tiny parasitic wasps who paralyse small animals (spiders, caterpillars, etc.) and lay their eggs on them, so the animal is alive while being slowing eaten by the growing baby. But the wasps aren’t deliberately cruel. These men remind me of a deliberately female-hating version of that. They’ve prove what I’ve been saying for decades — they are more female-hating than even many het men. The character in Silence of the Lambs who skinned women to wear really seems more accurate all the time. “

      While they publish – using the Internet – words like this

      “like the purpose of transgenderism, the purpose of the internet has been rape, and disseminating, normalizing and perpetuating men raping women across time and place. thats all. its been nothing more, and nothing less than that.”

      and

      Every trans abomination is a misogynistic slur. You lot rape women just by existing.

      Then of course I’ll criticise, as will many Feminists. The most effective way is simply to amplify what you say. Things like these words, to illustrate the inherent arrogance of privilege:

      you’ve got a lot of nerve even showing your stupid face here.

      As long as Radical Feminism defines itself in these terms, then any of the good it does will be overlooked. As the author of this article wrote:

      If the sites people come across when looking for information on radical feminism revolve chiefly around esoteric denunciations infused with snotty, juvenile insults, how can we expect anyone to get on board with the cause?

      If any critique or attempt to improve communication, to point out counterproductive hatred and behaviour, is labelled as “bashing”, then the cause is lost. Something new must arise to salvage all that is good, because we – by that I mean all humanity – can’t afford to lose those ideals.

  215. Sugarpuss February 25, 2013 at 11:16 AM #

    Two words: Cotton Ceiling.

    Go FUCK yourself, Zoe Brainless.

  216. Sugarpuss February 25, 2013 at 11:21 AM #

    PS I would bother myself with quoting all of the violent threats made towards RadFems by men in dresses, but then I’d be sitting here All. Fucking. Day.

  217. Andrea K. April 27, 2014 at 12:38 PM #

    I don’t know what else to tell you except that you’re a trans appeaser and by definition you are hurting women and you are hurting feminism. Trans is the most serious threat to women and girls right now, and no, we’re not going idly sit the fuck by while they keep gaining ground and infiltrating women’s spaces. Transes are twisted fucking rapists and we should have the right to mock them on that basis and go after them until they fucking listen and stop being trans. Full stop.

    The very existence of “trans persons” is a crisis level event that needs to be addressed. By the full use of the state, if necessary. I and many others completely support measures which would stop the male supremacist medical establishment from continuing to fucking mutilate perfectly functional endocrine systems and bodies for the sake of some disgusting fetish. It is a travesty that needs to be addressed by the united nations and should be recognized for what it is, a violation of the fundamental human right to live as a whole human being.

    We need to abolish not just the institution of trans but the individuals promoting it. Trans has absolutely no historical basis before the 20th century invented it. It exists without contextual support or a sound ideological basis. It is both counter-revolutionary and dangerous. You can sit here and make excuses for them all day or you can help out your sisters who desperately need you. Just don’t come crying to us for help when they prove us right, because you’ve already taken a side. There are those of us out here who absolutely will not stop and will keep pursuing this issue by any means necessary, both to stamp trans out as a class and as an idea.

    • Nine Deuce April 27, 2014 at 9:50 PM #

      Agent provocateur.

      • zoebrain April 27, 2014 at 11:31 PM #

        Agent Provocateur? I wish!
        Please read Janice Raymond’s book “The Transsexual Empire”.

        “All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, and appropriating this body for themselves. ”
        The transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist feeds off woman’s true energy source, i.e. her woman-identified self. It is he who recognises that if female spirit, mind, creativity and sexuality exist anywhere in a powerful way it is here, among lesbian-feminists
        I contend that the problem with transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence

        It is an article of faith amongst Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists that Transwomen are rapists by definition.
        It is also an article of faith that they should not exist. How that is to be accomplished is another matter, but Andrea K’s views are held by many, and they make no secret of that.
        Andrea K and her ilk are a fringe group – now. That wasn’t always the case,and these are still mainstream views within that group. If you ask Gallus Mag, Bev Jo, Heart, etc etc if they’d disagree with anything in her post, I think you’d get silence.
        Or, closer to home, ask Sugarpuss.

        • Sugarpuss April 28, 2014 at 7:57 PM #

          Or, closer to home, ask Sugarpuss.

          Don’t bother asking me anything because I speak the inconvenient truths.
          FACT: You were born with a COCK. FACT: You have male privilege. FACT: Being a woman has nothing to do with wearing makeup and looking peeeerty, mmkay?
          Your mere fetish is a biological reality for female-bodied people.
          PS Go fuck yourself, troll.

      • zoebrain April 27, 2014 at 11:41 PM #

        Andrea K’s post is a fair summary of this document:
        Paper Prepared for the National Center for Health Care Technology on the Social and Ethical Aspects of Transsexual Surgery
        By Janice G. Raymond
        Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics and Women’s Studies
        Hampshire College/University of Massachusetts
        Amherst, Massachusetts
        June, 1980

        While there are many who feel that morality must be built into law, I believe that the elimination of transsexualism is not best achieved by legislation prohibiting transsexual treatment and surgery but rather by legislation that limits it

        As the result of this paper, existing governmental policy was changed so that it

        effectively eliminated federal and some states aid for indigent and imprisoned transsexuals. It had a further impact on private health insurance which followed the federal government’s lead in disallowing services to transsexual patients for any treatment remotely related to being transsexual, including breast cancer or genital cancer, as that was deemed to be a consequence of treatment for transsexuality.

      • Andrea K. April 28, 2014 at 8:12 AM #

        Call me whatever you want. I’m calling your feminism watered-down and uncritical. Women absolutely have the right to criticize men, whatever their form. We oppose trans ideology because it is a male supremacist doctrine intent on stopping _actual_ women from having the right to exist. It is rape culture pure and simple.
        Is it the analysis or our delivery that ruffles your feathers? Because the latter is tone policing and patronizing to women who are suffering because of trans ideology and because we are not having feminist and lesbian issues taken seriously in what are supposed to be safe spaces for women. We have no obligation to coddle the twanzs’ precious jendar feefees. I’ve heard it all before. They think I don’t get them, I think they’re lying. Or lying. Probably both/ What they need is real immediate professional help for their mental illness.
        Its not even clear that trans are oppressed. To which class do they belong? If they have none, how can they be oppressed? And underprivileged? Hardly. Better than half of these are degree toting middle class, middle aged, white men who have the _privilege_ of throwing down 50 grand to get their precious mutilated fuckhole. Oppressed? What a joke. Having someone throw an occasional prejudice statement your way is nothing like the kind of suffering born women face every single day.
        At best this is the worst case of vagina envy, at worst a malicious attempt to subjugate women by destroying us from within.
        But yeah, WE’RE the problems for not being nice enough. It’s not like they don’t come onto our pages and into our physical spaces demanding their demands be heard. Like all men, its always about “me, me me”. And when they don’t get their way they assert themselves like men, using misogynist language to threaten us.

    • ashley April 28, 2014 at 7:21 AM #

      @ andrea
      that is the most psychotic and offensive thing i have read this month. when you said trans people are the most serious threat to women and girls right now, i could have spit out my coffee. trans people don’t even REGISTER ON THE FUCKING LIST of threats to women and girls. barely anybody is trans, and barely ANY trans people attack women or girls. maybe one in a hundred million girls are attacked by a trans person, and you seriously thing that is a bigger issue than the 1 in 6 girls getting raped by MAABs? SERIOUSLY?!! this right here is why radfems are dying out, because morons like you are less concerned with solving actual women’s problems and more about shitting on a group of people with zero institutional power over you. i can barely even find any radfem blogs anymore that have anything to say besides their ridiculous obsession with trans people in every goddamn post and i am SICK of it. the movement has turned into a fucking joke.

      • ashley April 28, 2014 at 7:25 AM #

        i meant MAAB men* in the above. you know, the ones who are the actual problem, not the make-believe problem some psycho radfems like andrea seem to be doing their damn level best to divert women’s attention away from.

        • Sugarpuss April 28, 2014 at 8:01 PM #

          Oh, clueless one. Please DO try to keep up with what is going on in the LGBT community. You sound like an ignorant liberal FunFem who has never been forced to share a bed with some dude in a dress, who refers to his cock as a “ladystick”. I’m a non-practicing heterosexual, but I actually CARE about what my lesbian sisters are going through.
          PS Fuck you too, in addition to Zoe Braindead.

      • Andrea K. April 28, 2014 at 8:22 AM #

        The existence of trans people reinforces gender and womens’ oppression within society. It reinforces compulsory heterosexuality, the male gaze (transwomens’ idea of woman is male supremacist and based on patriarchal ideas of acceptable beauty, which makes it both sexist _and_ racist) and reduces women to mere vessels capable of receiving mens’ dicks. A neo “vagina” is not an organ like a liver or a brain, its a hole for sticking dicks into. This is not what being a woman means.
        Women right now are having their breasts and endocrine systems destroyed because they’re too lesbian, too tomboyish and too outspoken. The male medical machine is turning out sick parodies of male and female rather than addressing gender dysphoria for what it is, a mental problem. It is pure, unfiltered capitalism and it serves both as a means for profiteering and means for patriarchy to assert itself from within womens’ liberation.

        • ashley April 29, 2014 at 5:52 AM #

          oh for chrissake. trans people do not reinforce gender and women’s oppression. and obviously transwomen’s ideas of woman is male supremacist and patriarchalist because SO IS EVERYBODY FUCKING ELSE’S. did you hear that? EVERYBODY’S. and psychotically focussing on one tiny group of people and demonizing them for the same sins as everybody else is pure hate filled bigotry and everybody in the feminist community can smell your stink from a mile away.

          • Sugarpuss April 29, 2014 at 11:29 AM #

            Personally, the only stench I smell isn’t coming from Andrea…. it’s the stench of your ignorance and naivety.
            It’s obvious that you are probably about 14 years old and are completely unaware of what MRAs are doing to infiltrate the lesbian communities. Posing as “trans” would be one of those tactics.

            • Sugarpuss April 29, 2014 at 12:14 PM #

              Oh, and uh, since when is a female-bodied person, attempting to defend their right to female-only spaces, classified as a “bigot”. Only a fool, throws that word around so lightly. The female sex makes up more than 50% of the human population, yet we are treated as if we are 1%. Is that not bigotry?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Sometimes, Feminism is Out of Touch with Being Human « Healing Thru Words - June 22, 2012

    [...] Reading through ND’s blog and thought-provoking commentary in Part 2 of the trans thread (esp. bout men/trans who violate women & children’s safety) as my wife plays youtube [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 494 other followers