You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2017.
“I am about to be interviewed about the oppressive nature of gender by a male reporter who called me a “cis woman.” Here is my (slightly edited) written response to him before agreeing to the interview:
“When I see the unquestioning use of the word “cis” I assume I am dealing with someone who adheres to gender ideology. This word is degrading and designed to enforce the idea that sex-role stereotypes are innate. “Cis woman” implies a woman who naturally performs femininity, the set of ritualized submission gestures taught to female-sexed people from birth. You do not seem to understand that there is a difference between sex and gender or that the millenia old system of patriarchy oppresses female sexed people because of our reproductive capacity. When male authority figures like Rick Santorum (who supports transgenderism btw) get on the airways every election cycle and announce that women should be forced by the state to birth rapists’ babies, these men are not participating in gender oppression; they are oppressing women on the basis of sex. Transwomen have never worried about being forced to give birth, going to jail for a suspicious miscarriage, or giving birth at home in a state where that act is illegal. Transwomen’s bodies are not and have never been church and state regulated breeding units. I fight for the class of people oppressed on the basis of biological sex. I call these people female, girls, and women.
If transwomen would like to join this fight in a way that does not eliminate this group of people from having concise words for ourselves and the ability to name what is happening to us (sex-based oppression; males oppressing females), I welcome that help. Instead, many transwomen are upset that female people are not using our resources and energy to fight for the rights of males who declare themselves female. Your questions imply that those of us who fight against global sex-based oppression are doing wrong by the people who say there is no such thing as sex, that female is just a feeling that a person with a penis can have, and the most important women are the women who are actually men.
Are you asking gender activists questions about how it may be harmful to the class of people who are oppressed on the basis of sex to no longer have a word for ourselves? Are you asking transwomen how girls and women (who live under a constant threat of rape by people with penises) might feel about being forced to have people with penises in our locker rooms, changing rooms, DV shelters, jail cells, etc? Are you asking why men like Rick Santorum and the religious authorities of Iran support transgenderism? Why will the government of Iran kill someone for being gay but happily pay for “sex-change” surgery? Could it be because being gay actually challenges the sexist behavioral caste system called gender while being transgender does not? And on the subject of Iran, are you asking how the women of Iran feel now that half of their national women’s soccer team consists of biological males?
As a female person, I am very aware of what would have been my fate had I been born elsewhere in the world. I agonize every day over what my sisters are enduring globally. No transwoman would have been at risk of being aborted in the womb when a vulva showed up on an ultrasound or being smothered to death for not having a penis or being fed less than bepenised siblings. Transwomen would not have been at risk of being sold to an old man as a rape and breeding slave while the world called it “child marriage.” Transwomen would not have been abducted from school by Boko Haram, raped and impregnated then shunned by the whole village upon returning from that hell. Transwomen would not have been denied education provided only to male children. Transwomen would not be the ward of male relatives, unable to leave the house without being covered head to toe and accompanied by a male over the age of 13. If transwomen would like to join the fight against these and other sex-based atrocities, I would welcome that. Instead, trans activists are more interested in forcing women to adhere to the linguistic demands of males who assert they are female and forcing women to pretend to agree that penises can be female organs.
I support all trans people in their right to perform gender and to believe whatever they believe about themselves and the world. I believe trans people should have freedom of expression and be free of discrimination in housing, healthcare, and employment. I condemn physical violence against trans people. I do not believe transwomen have a right to insist that I capitulate to gender ideology or to compel me to use words I do not believe are true.
Radical feminsm is the global movement to end sex-based oppression. We cannot end sex-based oppression without ending gender. Females are not oppressed because of their gender. Gender itself oppresses females.”
-Mary Lou Singleton
The RPOJ comes for thee.
Greetings fellow blog travellers, today we have a special treat as we get to look through the looking glass of the misogyny that masquerades as queer theory. Hypocritical, obtuse, with a generous side of bloviation make for a prime field day for the RPOJ. Let’s watch how attempting to justify violence against women, the rewriting of gay history, and making the case for having men in feminism come together in one extruded steaming mass of horseshit.
Let’s begin, shall we?
—–
“There is not a writer from The Queerness who would disagree on how wrong it is to make threats of violence, to use violent words and violent actions. We do not condone those on the Twittersphere who participate in violent words or actions aimed at anyone, and particularly women, who are often the target.”
The higher the goal, the further to fall. I would just like my careful readers to keep this point in mind as we go through this particular RPOJ, because the hypocrisy quickly ramps up to 11 and then manages to increase from there.
“We don’t however believe that the acronym ‘T.E.R.F’ in itself is a violent term. “
Well dayum! See! I told you! It didn’t take long for the hypocritical bullshit to start oozing. Fun fact: ‘terf’ like the term harridan, witch, slut, cunt, whore (et cetera) are all terms used to describe females who have the audacity to stand up against males and defy the patriarchal stereotypes society has mandated for them.
- Just a small window into how the term ‘Terf’ is used – https://terfisaslur.com
- Elizabeth Hungerford remarks on TERF – “Make no mistake, this is a slur. TERF is not meant to be explanatory, but insulting. These characterizations are hyperbolic, misleading, and ultimately defamatory. They do nothing but escalate the vitriol and fail to advance the conversation in any way.”
- TERF is used as a label for ‘uppity women’ who do not accept the patriarchal male narrative and normative attitudes.
So, the usage of the term ‘TERF’ is almost always accompanied by insults and threats of violence (see #1). Yet we have this statement:
“‘TigTog’, a blogger coined the term during discussions on a blog post, which if you think about it, really isn’t outside the realm of possibility, “
I could care less about who coined the term. It is being used to target and harass females on the internet and in the real world. Said targeted group – feminists – would prefer not to have to deal with the term. You know, common decency mutual respect that sort of thing. But rather than acknowledge female linguistic preferences – Annette, the author of this hackneyed literary drive-by, would rather attempt to justify the usage of the term.
(skipping prolix and shitty ‘justifications’)
“She’s right, any group identifying word can and will be used against that group as a slur. For example: ‘queers’, ‘gays’, ‘lesbos’, ‘dykes’, we’ve all heard them, we all know what they sound like. “
Precisely. So should we make the case for normalizing a derogatory term? Or perhaps, maybe, just maybe, use the terminology the particular group would like employed. But nah, let’s continue to use slurs for these despicable TERF’s, the faster we can ‘other’ them, the easier it is to hate them.
“Imagine if Katlyn had said “I continue to hate these fucking lesbians what else is new”, or Antonio saying “kill every fucking queer”. It’s not new is it, we hear this all the time. I’ve been subject to a few death threats, and we can see, absolutely, how it can be upsetting.”
Yes. Violence and death threats are bad. Maybe not attempting to justify their usage would be a good thing.
“Without getting into an academic discussion about how violent words are used to silence women and how this is misogyny, lets remember that men aren’t the only perpetrators of this.”
Because the male epidemic of violence against women is sooooo fuuuucking booooring. I mean really, do we have to go over the fact again that the class of males overwhelmingly commit the majority of acts of violence toward the other class of people females the world over, pretty much since forever?
Like fuck, this little tidbit seems to be at the root of most radical feminist analysis of the problems our society faces – maybe one shouldn’t gloss it over and skip directly to personal anecdotes about how mean those evil terfs…err females are.
“In my time as a trans ally I’ve been subject to horrific abuse from cis-het women on twitter, even some cis-lesbians laid into me for standing up for my trans friend’s appearance in Diva Magazine. I’m a cis-lesbian and I’ve been called a ‘misogynist’ and a ‘homophobe’.”
Make no mistake, transactivism is misogynistic and homophobic by nature. Sorry about your luck.
“We at the Queerness firmly distance ourselves from this type of violent language, and we have no time for trolls like this on the internet.”
See, I’m not too sure what you’re referring to, the accurate description of what transactivism is or the use of violent language, of course which terf is a part of. I’m guessing though, it seems like it is only violence when applied to *you*.
“Yet it’s those like this that make it harder for those who are trans positive to defend their trans friends and colleagues, and end up getting lumped in with this group of trolls, because they use one acronym in a more appropriate way than these trolls,”
Discourse with transactivists is almost always fraught with threats and violence. Male resort to violent behaviour when their arguments and ideas are shown to fall short. Nothing new under the sun here.
“So let’s discuss trans exclusionary radical feminists without using the term itself. “
So after 500 hundred feckless words of abysmal pseudo-justification now let’s not use the word that I’m trying so hard to prove is OKAY and JUST FINE for radical feminists.
The term ‘terf’ is either problematic, or it isn’t.
Clearly, for a large segment of the radical feminist population, the usage of terf -whether it is intended to or not (oooooooh, intent isn’t magic is it?)- isn’t cool. Respectful people, interested in furthering rational argument would acknowledge this and move on.
The Our Queerness author quotes Rebecca Reily-Cooper it is one of the few breaths of fresh air in this piece so for interests of my sanity I choose to quote it.
“From writers such as Rebecca Reily-Cooper who states the definition of radical feminism as:
“an approach to analysing the oppression and exploitation of the class of female people by the class of male people. It seeks to uncover and challenge the root causes and origins of that system of oppression, which it labels patriarchy.” RRC’s blog
That’s fine, I can get on board with that.
She states that the term ‘T.E.R.F’ is ‘not a meaningful description of feminist politics’. But different people clearly have a different view of feminist politics.”
Ahhh…thank you RRC. So at least we have a viable definition of what radical feminism is, and what its goals are.
“There were several cis-het radical feminists who sent a flurry of abuse at one of my trans members this year. “
One statement contains the kernel of radical feminist theory, and thus the basis of radical feminist praxis, the other statement contains no refutation or counter-argument – rather mere anecadata – essentially saying those bad feminists were mean to one of my friends – how dare they?!?
This suggests a lack of a reasonable counter argument and no, your feelings are not an argument.
“And there were plenty of LGBTQ+ and cis-het allies who, having read the screen shots from that discourse, would NOT have described those comments and views as ‘feminism‘. They’d have described them as ‘hate speech’.”
Me and my good buddies were offended! Still not an argument. This is the meat of transactivism, right here folks: Accept my personal subjective reality or else!
Sorry (not sorry)! Material reality takes precedence over subjective personal feelings and respecting material reality (biological sex) is not a crime and is certainly not ‘phobic’ in any reasonable way.
“So are both sides as bad as each other ?”
Well no actually, as transactivists online and in person threaten and physically attack women who speak against their particular delusion (see terfisalur link above). Transactivists support deplatforming radical feminists from speaking at public engagements. Transactivists illegally occupy and deface female only spaces.
Yeah, and the radical feminist side…. *crickets*. So no, both sides are not as bad as the other, stop with false equivalencies (side note: attempting to equivocate this male violence with radical feminist’s *CRITICISM* of transactivism is really quite beyond the pale).
” Or can we simply not ever agree ?”
Fuck no. Feminism is the struggle to liberate females from patriarchal structures and normative attitudes in society. Gender – a hierarchical patriarchal concept – exists to oppress members of the female class and must be dismantled, not celebrated.
Why are gender and gender roles a good thing, and how do women benefit from the preservation of traditional gender roles? What exactly does trasnactivism have to say about that?
*Crickets* because transactivsm isn’t a feminist project, it seeks only to promulgate the status quo and continue with the oppressive gender hiearchy that benefits the class of males in society.
“When you appear on a website that lists your twitter handle and allows a single user to block all 800+ of those names simultaneously to avoid abuse, it suggests you belong to a ‘hate group’. “
Because Transactivists (FETA’s – Female Exclusionary Trans Activists, if we like the snappy four letter acronyms) don’t allow criticism of their ideology and have a block list to stop interactions with those who would question it is much more a reflection of the insular, cultish nature of the trans community. You can’t argue with radial feminists because your arguments are shit, so plugging your ears and labelling people ‘terfs’ or ‘transphobic’ are the only plays you have.
No ideology or movement can be free from criticism.
“If you purposefully and deliberately target trans activists and question the validity of trans people’s existence, it suggests you have some prejudice.”
Textbook play here. Questioning transactivism is not debating over their existence. Trans people have the capacity to hold shitty ideas their ideas and those ideas should, rightly, be subject to criticism and rebuttal – especially if they impact other classes of people in society (see members of the female class).
“If you imply that somehow trans women are predators; that there is some hypothetical risk to cis-women from trans women, or simply that you can’t accept them as they are because you: ‘just can’t agree’, and when you dress it up as ‘gender critical’, rather than transphobia, then you probably are trans exclusionary.”
Transwomen – MEN – behave like men. It is not a particularly shocking fact when one adheres to analysis based on objective, material fact.
“If you simply ask polite questions this is different. But lets be clear, the questions: “why do I have to accept them in my bathrooms ?”, and “Are they are taking something away from my definition of womenhood?”, are not very polite, and are entirely dehumanising.”
Men, do not belong in female spaces. Female spaces provide some small margin of protection from the male violence that permeates our society. Natal sex should be the determinant of which bathroom you use.
Why don’t transwomen use the male washroom? Most of them still have the plumbing for it. Let me answer that for you – the very real threat of male violence. Now why should females be forced to put up with that very same threat? Why is the issue of female safety from violence even a debatable issue?
What an opportunity for the trans and feminist communities to come together and name the root of the problem – violent male behaviour (enforcement of patriarchal gender norms)- and make that an issue.
But that choice was not made.
Rather, the choice via dubious legislative attempts, was to make female only spaces accessible to men based on often nothing more than their deeply subjective personal feelings. And that, is a crock of shit, and is rightly being fought against by radical feminists.
The definition of woman is adult human female, the gender-feels of entitled males does not change the original definition one iota.
“Trans women have been at the centre of the LGBTQ+ civil rights movement from the beginning, “
Demonstrably wrong, if you happen to be talking about StoneWall. Trans historical revisionism (the “T” was added in the 1990’s) is poor form and a dubious practice at best.
“[…]even the LGBTQ+ community needs to recognise that, and feminism is a good thing as long as it doesn’t trample on human beings on its’ way.”
Feminism, by effective definition, is the female struggle for liberation from patriarchy. The misogyny rife in the transactivst movement qualifies it as a force to be struggled against in the fight for female liberation.
“but trans women are right there with you in that fight. Don’t shut them out because of a word, or an acronym.”
Yes, I look to the tranwomen for their bold positions on female infanticide, female genital mutilation, female sex trafficking, prostitution, and abortion. I see page after page of poignant prose and argumentation for the advancement of female rights by transwomen….
Oh wait. I don’t.
I see females threatened with verbal and physical violence for not complying with the gendered delusions of men in dresses. I see feminist speakers deplatformed for having a contrary opinion to the trans-cult. I see women only events and spaces subverted because people who have problems with material reality some how think that because they belong there – they should belong there (white male privilege and entitlement at its best).
If your feminism is not working toward female liberation, then it ain’t feminism. Full stop.
Please (*please*), feel free to form your own movements and organizations – but stop co-opting feminist movements and female only spaces.
“When people feel marginalised they fight back, they get angry, if you knew trans people personally, you’d get it. “
Fighting back in tranactivism means harassing, threatening, and hurting females. In other words, standard male behaviour. Feminists know quite well about the capacities of angry men, this has happened before and it will happen again. The tide eventually will be turned in this arena as the struggle for female liberation continues.
“You’d realise that tilting at windmills in this debate is allowing those cis-gender men who are the real culprits, off the hook.”
Something we can agree on, of course my version is without the gender-newspeak because male violence is male violence in whatever guise they happen to present to society.
“Why not educate them to be better men, because predatory cis-gender men don’t need a change in the law to enter a woman only space.”
So we should make it easier (self declaration), not harder for males to enter female spaces gotcha. This simple phrase highlights the vast differences between queer (male-centric) and feminist (female-centric) theory.
Have your queer theory, but know that it mostly represents yet another attempt to keep the female class oppressed in society and that effective feminism is in opposition to it.
And so endeth the RPOJ. :)
Organized religion and patriarchy, like BFF’s forever. (*puke*)
“Imagine this: after a blistering hot day marching up and down mud slicked hills, or tramping wide open fields, or steamy jungle, imagine setting out booby traps on enemy trails, laying in wait, then ever so carefully, breaking them down.
At dusk, after planting trips and claymores round the NDP, after finding a spot for your pack and gear, after eating tinned c-rations of beans and franks, imagine curling up on the cold wet ground.
Now, fast asleep, being woken twice in the night by a man gently tapping your resting arm. “Your guard,” he whispers, for the first of two one hour shifts.
Leaving that foxhole the second time, grenades, machine gun, claymore detonators all in place, imagine two hours sleep, rising at dawn, shrugging off bugs and wet bamboo, rubbing rheumy eyes, brushing sticky teeth.
Before the grueling day begins, there is the welcoming taste of GI coffee. Here is how to make it:
Seated crossed legged, take a chunk of C4 the size of a thumbnail, shape it into a ball, set it carefully down.
Tear open the packet of instant coffee saved from last nights c-ration meal. Pour it into a canteen cup half filled with water.
Tap the brown powder over the cup, stir with a c-ration white plastic spoon.
Strike a GI match and light the C4. Do not breathe in the white smoke; the fumes, it is said, are harmful.
Hold the canteen cup over the burning explosive until the water boils, about thirty seconds.
Remove the cup from the bright yellow flames. Let the C4 burn itself out. Those who step on it risk losing a foot.
Tear open and pour in one or two packets of non dairy creamer. Repeat with sugar. Use the white plastic spoon to mix and stir. With eyes closed, inhale the savory vapours; cup to your lips, feel the hot inky brew flood your mouth, scourge your tongue, roll down your willing gullet. The taste is awful, but it will do.
Grunts savor this quiet time, before every inch of our bodies are salty with sweat. This quiet time before seething mosquitoes, snapping ants, creeping leeches bite or sting or drink our blood.
This quiet time before sudden shots fill us with dread that is always new. This quiet time before the shrieking air sings of the wounded, smells of the dead.
It is the all too fleeting quiet time, which ends with the softly echoed ‘zero two,’ followed by the dim rustling of one hundred packs, helmets, weapons reluctantly lifted, slung, shifted to place.
See how the flock of helmeted cranes slouch against their rifles, feel how the sweat drips down narrow cheeks, collects at the chin, free falls, forming small dark spots on half bent knees.
Listen, as moments after the hushed command, one hundred grudging soldiers, one by one, reluctantly trudge forward, into the grim unwinnable jaws of Vietnam.”
I value my quiet time, I think everyone does. Because silence time can mean peace and stillness, a time to be away from the thoughts that drive us.
Well. That happened.
(Never fear folks, yours truly and the rest of the DWR crew were nowhere near the downtown where this incident took place.)
I’m used to commenting on and reporting on these types of events when they happen not where I live. The events that happened on Saturday (September 30th) changed that. Let’s consult the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which has, so far, provided the best coverage of what happened and what is happening in Edmonton as a result of the recent attacks.
“A 30-year-old man is in custody following a high-speed chase just before midnight through streets filled with bar patrons and football fans. A man stabbed a police officer with a knife and deliberately plowed into pedestrians on Edmonton’s busiest downtown strip, police say.
Abdulahi Hasan Sharif is the man accused in the attacks, multiple sources tell CBC News.
The chase ended after a white U-Haul van the man was driving struck four pedestrians and flipped on its side. Cst. Mike Chernyk was the officer injured in the violent altercation, sources tell CBC News.
Edmonton police Chief Rod Knecht confirmed that a black ISIS flag was seized from a car where the police officer was attacked. The officer was not critically injured. The condition of the four pedestrians is not known [two still in hospital, two have been released, officer released home as well].
“Based on evidence at the scenes and the actions of the suspect … it was determined that these incidents are being investigated as acts of terrorism,” Knecht said.”
I’m so very glad the global news media has repeatedly highlighted how effective vehicular homicide is for visiting death, chaos, and mayhem to innocent bystanders. Go team sensational media…because ratings ( and bully to the larger picture and consequences).
The would-be murderous dude didn’t seem quite right as reported by his co-worker:
“A former co-worker of the Somali refugee CBC News has identified as the man arrested in a weekend attack in Edmonton says Abdulahi Hasan Sharif was an ISIS sympathizer years before Saturday’s violent events, and that he had reported him to police.
Terrorism charges are pending against the suspect, who is in custody. Police haven’t identified Sharif by name, but multiple sources have identified him to CBC.
Sharif’s former co-worker, who didn’t want to be identified out of concern for his safety, said: “He would rant.
“It was very incoherent. He would just bounce from idea to idea, tangent to tangent, just about what he believed in and he definitely had genocidal beliefs, you could say.
“He had major issues with polytheists. He said they need to die. That sort of thing. I only had a handful of conversations with him about it; those only occurred when there were just two of us in the work room.”
Ah, there we go. We all have problems with the damn polytheists, they ruin everything. Sharif was mad as hell and wasn’t going to take any more of their bullshit(?).
There are larger issues colouring the events involved here. The most obvious, of course, is religion. So once again here we sit cleaning up after an episode of violence fuelled by delusional belief in a particular sky fairy mixed in, of course, with ideology that glorifies martyrdom and reward in the ‘afterlife’. So much violence can be traced back to the super-neato fact that basically all religions are essential giant ‘othering’ machines. Religion allows for easy distinctions to be drawn between those who believe the bullshit, and those who do not. And of course, as soon as one can make in-group and out-group distinction, the process of changing ones thinking about other human beings (people like oneself) into heretics and unwashed heathens (less human and worthy of killing) can begin. So, many thanks Religion (and religious belief) for the handy-dandy vehicle for reducing empathy and increasing violence between people in the world.
The other factor involved here (and sadly in Las Vegas), of course, is the way we teach males in our society to deal with problems. The plague of male violence (and let’s not forget delusional religious thinking/belief) that we suffer through must be brought to an end, we must change the way we socialize the males in our society to not see violence as a viable option for solving their problems.
It is the only way forward.
I saw this posted on social media and decided after reading that it was too good not to share. It demonstrates what the actual Radical Feminist position on the trans-narrative is, as opposed to the hyperbolic stew of lies that we’re usually exposed to . Also, highlighted is the radical feminist notion that one must be able to name the problem to be able to properly address, and hopefully correct it.
Problems with the piece? I challenge people who reside on the other side of the spectrum to argue against the points being made, however if your argument is simply name calling (this is transphobic!!!) or some sort of rights based objection ( I have the right to determine how you should think about my deeply personal subjective gender delusion), know you won’t get very far. Discussing the trans narrative isn’t violence, but then again females are never supposed to question what males say and males often react violently when challenged on their bullshit, no matter what guise they happen to be in at the time (see the men dressed as women use violence against ‘uppity females’ at hyde park in the UK, or see our violent transactivists in action here in Vancouver, Canada).
“Thought experiment: a transwoman, a very effeminate gay man and a drag queen walk down a road at night, perhaps a minute or two apart. Their presentation is similar; they are noticeably male but dressed in very feminine ways.
A group of hyper-masculine young men are gathered drinking on a street corner. They attack one of the three, shouting insults like ‘fag’ and ‘tranny’, and batter him badly.
1) Which one do they pick?
2) Why?The answer to 1) is: anyone’s guess. Which one provokes their ire probably depends on what they look like, what the young men are talking about at the time, what levels of aggression are going on in their group. In other words,it’s random.
The answer to 2) is that a feminine-presenting male threatens their view of what men are allowed to be, of what is appropriate for men. They are enforcing male gender, because seeing femininity in men threatens something in them, perhaps feminine or homo-erotic impulses they have never allowed to surface. Is it homophobia? Is it transphobia? Is it drag-queen-phobia? Do any of those terms make sense?
They make sense, sort of, when we try to define hate crimes against a marginalised group. But they don’t tell us very much about the true problem, the true cause of the atrocity, which is toxic masculinity and male violence. (And perhaps if we named crimes by the perpetrator’s state of mind instead of – or at least as well as – the group the victim belongs to, we would get a much clearer and more frightening insight into the real driver of crime and violence in this world.)
Certainly it’s not really that informative to call it transphobia if the transwoman is targeted, and homophobia if the gay male is targeted, when the perpetrator’s motive is identical: violent enforcement of male gender roles. Not if we want to address the real problem, anyway. Does it make sense to separate the terms, apart from statistical tracking?
What we can say with some certainty is that how the transwoman identifies is pretty much irrelevant to the crime. If their gender presentation is feminine, they will be a target, whereas if it’s masculine, they probably won’t be. It is how they are read externally by violent males that puts a target on their backs.
This is not to suggest in any way that the transwoman is responsible, simply to point out that an internal identity is invisible to the attacker.
Contrast this to race crimes or misogynist crimes, where the victim visibly belongs to a marginalised group; they are black, or female. The crime is still almost always male violence, but the trigger may be objectively different.
(It’s interesting and frightening to note that our society colludes, by using the passive voice in most reporting and by making perpetrator data hard to obtain, in concealing the real common factor: male violence. Because if we truly named the problem and its scale, society would collapse.)
Analogously, although not criminally, women demanding sex-segregated facilities such as toilets, changing rooms, shelters and prisons are not transphobic. We’re male-phobic, and with very good reason. Radical feminists are routinely accused by transactivists and leftist men, in very lofty tones, of reducing women to their vaginas; but a vagina is usually the site of a rape. And rapes are perpetrated with penises, not gender identities, as I’ve said before. Women are not defined by our reproductive systems, but we are certainly oppressed on the basis of them, and our vulnerability in spaces like toilets and changing rooms is physical and material, not psychological.
Telling us that we shouldn’t be ‘genital fundamentalists’ (as I was accused of being on a comment thread the other day) is in fact high misogyny. When men do so much harm to us physically, sexually and reproductively, to then turn round and tell us to focus on higher things than our bodies is to demand that we obliterate the history of violence they have perpetrated against us, and that we are bigots not to do so. Rape, battery, forced pregnancy and birth, sexual assault, sexual harassment; voyeurism, murder: these are all crimes against our bodies.
So our position is that from across the chasm of biological sex, men and transwomen don’t look that different, and they don’t behave that differently. Certainly the violence and bullying that comes from the trans community is pretty much indistinguishable from that of the MRA community, or for that matter of the lefty dudebro community.
Even friendly and pro-woman transwomen often betray unconscious male bias and male thinking, clearly without being aware of it. I saw someone explaining on a thread the other day that the differences between male and female were becoming blurrier all the time because they might be able to get a womb implant in the not-too-distant future. That that womb would mean that a woman had given up either her life or her fertility didn’t occur to this person; that it would have to come from a woman’s body, probably a poor woman exploited by organ traffickers, wasn’t on their radar. I would stand with the woman in the third world whose womb was being harvested for money, against the transwoman who starts out with a fertile male body, wanting an unnecessary implant to prop up an inner mental state. Does that make me transphobic? I think it makes me a feminist. We are women, not a mix-and-match assortment of body parts.
So transwomen, we can understand that retrieving the feminine, finding a feminine identity, perhaps even identifying as a woman may be important to you in your struggles against the gender police. But you’re demanding that we pretend that your inner state of mind makes you more like us than like a man, and that we put our safety, our privacy and all the tiny gains of feminism at risk to do so.
Sorry. We can’t do that. Quacks like a drake…”\
I’ve highlighted some bits that were not emphasized in the original text.
Awkward.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…