You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Queer/Trans Activism’ tag.
Following up on my post from September 30, which includes a press release and detailed explanation about the reason for the October 1 protest being held by LGB Alliance’s Vermont chapter against Outright Vermont (including the assault of gay rights icon Fred Sargeant):
Here are links to the Disaffected Podcast livestream of today’s protest against Outright Vermont: YouTube link, Rumble link.
Here is an episode of Disaffected including an exclusive interview with Fred Sargeant, the gay rights pioneer assaulted and robbed at a recent Burlington pride event.
Here is a recent episode of Disaffected that includes exclusive video from the event and Josh’s in-depth coverage of the dynamics involved.
Here is a fantastic statement from Fred Sargeant:
Most here don’t know me. I’m from Addison County. I was the person who came to Burlington two weeks ago to protest what Pride has become – a misogynistic, homophobic, exclusionary event.
My name is Fred Sargeant. I have been a lifelong gay rights advocate and activist. I joined the gay rights movement before the Stonewall Riots. I was the first manager of the first lesbian and gay bookshop in the world, where I worked alongside my partner, gay rights pioneer, Craig Rodwell. We were at the Stonewall riots together when they began. We remained through all the nights of rioting – leafleting, organizing, and demonstrating.
In the fall of 1969, four of us went on to propose and then organize the very first Pride march, which was not a parade. No floats, no corporations and no massed contingents of drag queens and other fetishists, which is precisely what Burlington Pride has become. Burlington Pride is no longer even held in June, as it traditionally has been to commemorate the riots that started on June 28.
Burlington Pride has now become a platform for misogyny, exclusion and hate. “Gay” is now defined by the Pride Center of Vermont as a term of erasure; no member of their team or board identifies as gay, just as queer. Queer theory seeks not only to erase societal norms and values, it seeks to erase LGB people from the movement that they created.
Three years ago, through the LGB Alliance in the UK, I met people like myself, longtime same-sex rights activists who, like me, had become dismayed at the direction that the movement that we had created had taken. Since then, it’s been my honor to help found a USA chapter of the LGB Alliance and to facilitate the creation of LGB Alliance VT. In three short years, LGB Alliance UK has grown to more than a score of affiliated chapters, spanning 4 continents.
Our purpose as members of LGB Alliance is to ensure that lesbians, gay men and bisexuals can live free from discrimination or disadvantage, based on their sexual orientation.
We are not anti-trans … but will not take a backseat to anyone in the movement that we created.
I have likened the present LGBTQ+ movement to a marriage gone terribly bad. The TQ+ part has become irreversibly domineering and abusive. And like all such chronically abusive relationships, beyond repair. Our interests are too different.
At the LGB Alliance, we achieve our goals and purpose by advancing lesbian, gay and bisexual rights.
We will ensure that the voices of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are heard in all public and political discussions affecting our lives.
By amplifying lesbian voices, we highlight the dual discrimination faced by lesbians in a male-dominated society.
We protect children who may grow up to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual from harmful, unscientific ideologies that may lead them to believe that either their personality or their body is in need of changing. Any child growing up to be lesbian, gay or bisexual has the right to be happy and confident about their sexuality and who they are.
We promote free speech on lesbian, gay and bisexual issues.
We promote freedom of speech and informed dialogue on issues concerning the rights of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. We assert that different opinions, even those we may disagree with, should be heard as part of the public debate.
We discuss, propose, and oppose ideas; we do not attack individuals. Disagreement does not equal hate. We do not condone, endorse, or encourage any abusive or discriminatory behaviour toward any group or individual.
As John Adams said, facts matter. Our approach is to consider the evidence to make informed decisions and communicate in a factual and honest way. Legislation, policy, guidance, and decisions that affect lesbians, gay men and bisexuals must also be based on evidence.
We uphold the legal and scientific definition of homosexuality as sexual orientation toward people of the same sex, and of bisexuality as sexual orientation toward people of either sex.
We recognize that sex is binary, female and male, and that (for the vast majority of people) sex is determined at conception, observed at birth (or in utero), and recorded. We reject the co-opting of rare medical Differences in Sexual Development (DSDs/intersex conditions) in order to cast doubt on the binary nature of sex.
We support women’s rights and bodily autonomy. We stand with lesbians in rejecting pressure to accept as sexual partners, or admit into lesbian spaces, males who define themselves as women. We stand with gay men in rejecting pressure to accept as sexual partners, or admit into gay men’s spaces, females who define themselves as men.
We are not a political entity. We are non-partisan. Our membership holds diverse political views.
Again … we are not anti-transgender. My first interview after this event is with a West Coast trans male influencer who shares my concerns.
The Pride Center of Vermont is an organization that has advocated for public disruption in the past.
At the parade, the first person to attack me and steal my signs was from the Outright Vermont unit. Others in that group, and from other groups, joined his attack. Repeated attempts were made by the Burlington Pride gangs to steal my signs and to undemocratically end my silent protest. I was assault by a number of people, and when it was clear that I would not leave and end my protest, I was knocked to the ground by the gang.
I call on Outright Vermont to denounce the violence that originated within their group, commit to educating their membership on respect for civil rights and their elders, and to cooperate fully with the police investigation now underway.
Earlier this week, a British group called Mermaids – that shares objectives in common with Outright Vermont – was placed under investigation by the Charity Commission for offering unsafe and medically unnecessary “chest binders” to children without parental consent or knowledge, in just the same way that Outright Vermont makes these dangerous devices available to Vermont children and also without parental consent and knowledge.
I also call on the Pride Center of Vermont to denounce and condemn the violence at their parade.
Given their failure to conduct a safe Pride event, I call on the Pride Center to relinquish control of the event to a community-wide group of stakeholders, and to commit to restoring the event to June, as it was always meant to be.
I call on Mayor Weinberger to finally issue an unequivocal condemnation of the unwarranted violence by members of Outright Vermont and other Burlington Pride participants … and without the BUT that he seemed to want to add at his September 21 morning meeting. The world is watching, Mayor Weinberger. When a friend, JK Rowling, saw what gender fascists did to the women in Brighton, England, and to me here in Burlington, VT, she said — the violence is not a bug, it’s a feature of this authoritarian gender movement.
See you next year.
It would be wise to be aware of the social dynamics at play. There is no uproar, no impassioned pleas, no frakking government legislation when women (adult human females) get categorized against their preferences. Nope nope nope. It’s a flying-shit-in-a-can emergency when it happens to dude in heels though. Funny how that works, almost like the class of people who get to be fully human in society still expect to be treated as fully human after ‘transitioning’ into the class that doesn’t get that particular benefit.
“I’ve never assaulted anyone over it [‘misgendering’], and I’ve certainly never committed premeditated assault in a group over it. Why? Because I know who and what I am. I don’t need constant validation or else.” – Praise the wisdom of this particular butch lesbian.
Ryan T. Anderson discussing what he sees as some of the contradictions in the methodology of Transactivists. Read the full piece here. (Note – Not particularly fond of the source – The Daily Signal (via the Heritage Foundation) in the US – but the arguments presented are worth examining.)
“On the one hand, they claim that the real self is something other than the physical body, in a new form of Gnostic dualism, yet at the same time they embrace a materialist philosophy in which only the material world exists. They say that gender is purely a social construct, while asserting that a person can be “trapped” in the wrong gender.
They say there are no meaningful differences between man and woman, yet they rely on rigid sex stereotypes to argue that “gender identity” is real, while human embodiment is not. They claim that truth is whatever a person says it is, yet they believe there’s a real self to be discovered inside that person.
They promote a radical expressive individualism in which people are free to do whatever they want and define the truth however they wish, yet they try ruthlessly to enforce acceptance of transgender ideology.
It’s hard to see how these contradictory positions can be combined. If you pull too hard on any one thread of transgender ideology, the whole tapestry comes unraveled. But here are some questions we can pose:
If gender is a social construct, how can gender identity be innate and immutable? How can one’s identity with respect to a social construct be determined by biology in the womb? How can one’s identity be unchangeable (immutable) with respect to an ever-changing social construct? And if gender identity is innate, how can it be “fluid”?
The challenge for activists is to offer a plausible definition of gender and gender identity that is independent of bodily sex.
Is there a gender binary or not? Somehow, it both does and does not exist, according to transgender activists. If the categories of “man” and “woman” are objective enough that people can identify as, and be, men and women, how can gender also be a spectrum, where people can identify as, and be, both, or neither, or somewhere in between?
What does it even mean to have an internal sense of gender? What does gender feel like? What meaning can we give to the concept of sex or gender—and thus what internal “sense” can we have of gender—apart from having a body of a particular sex?
Apart from having a male body, what does it “feel like” to be a man? Apart from having a female body, what does it “feel like” to be a woman? What does it feel like to be both a man and a woman, or to be neither?
The challenge for the transgender activist is to explain what these feelings are like, and how someone could know if he or she “feels like” the opposite sex, or neither, or both.
Even if trans activists could answer these questions about feelings, that still wouldn’t address the matter of reality. Why should feeling like a man—whatever that means—make someone a man? Why do our feelings determine reality on the question of sex, but on little else? Our feelings don’t determine our age or our height. And few people buy into Rachel Dolezal’s claim to identify as a black woman, since she is clearly not.
If those who identify as transgender are the sex with which they identify, why doesn’t that apply to other attributes or categories of being? What about people who identify as animals, or able-bodied people who identify as disabled? Do all of these self-professed identities determine reality? If not, why not?
And should these people receive medical treatment to transform their bodies to accord with their minds? Why accept transgender “reality,” but not trans-racial, trans-species, and trans-abled reality?
The challenge for activists is to explain why a person’s “real” sex is determined by an inner “gender identity,” but age and height and race and species are not determined by an inner sense of identity.
Of course, a transgender activist could reply that an “identity” is, by definition, just an inner sense of self. But if that’s the case, gender identity is merely a disclosure of how one feels. Saying that someone is transgender, then, says only that the person has feelings that he or she is the opposite sex.
Gender identity, so understood, has no bearing at all on the meaning of “sex” or anything else. But transgender activists claim that a person’s self-professed “gender identity” is that person’s “sex.”
The challenge for activists is to explain why the mere feeling of being male or female (or both or neither) makes someone male or female (or both or neither).
Gender identity can sound a lot like religious identity, which is determined by beliefs. But those beliefs don’t determine reality. Someone who identifies as a Christian believes that Jesus is the Christ. Someone who identifies as a Muslim believes that Muhammad is the final prophet. But Jesus either is or is not the Christ, and Muhammad either is or is not the final prophet, regardless of what anyone happens to believe.
So, too, a person either is or is not a man, regardless of what anyone—including that person—happens to believe. The challenge for transgender activists is to present an argument for why transgender beliefs determine reality.”
I have yet to see a TRA answer any of these objections.
Yep. Women got 99 problems and worrying about pronoun use shouldn’t be one of them.
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. :)
Just so we don’t have to play the “no true scotsman” game on the individual level, lets look at the response of Action for Trans Health London has to say regarding the incident where four male transactivists beat up a 60 year old woman.
Notice the nice transition from condemning violence against women, to “WHEN THE TERFS ATTACK, WE FIGHT BACK”. Almost feels like what happens to females when they reject a so called ‘nice guy’s’ advance – the niceness evaporates and is replaced by violence or the threat of violence. Thanks dudes for showing your true colours.
This was to be a debate, with speakers from both sides to discussing concept of gender identity; the fucking peak of what (so-called) civilized societies do when faced with contentious issues.
But it wasn’t it be. The queer regressive left scuttled the event. (screen cap from the New Statesman article)
Fuck your hypocritical queer activism. If radial feminist arguments are shit, then let them say them in safety and security and rebut them and demonstrate why they are faulty, as what we do (or have airs toward) in civilized society. But no, you won’t tolerate debate and move to violence (of the male variety) and your actions speak tellingly of the strength of your position. Your cowardice has been on full display during the September 13th Hyde park incident.
There is no going back now, people are seeing the violence that is transactivism as the cloak of queer respectability has been torn away. Male violence is the language that you spoke on the 13th, as it has always been, but now it is an undercurrent no more.
Females see you, and I hope to christ-on-a-pogo-stick that women who somehow think that including men in feminism is workable, will see you for what you are. (hint:Violent MEN)
It is time for women to reject the queer/trans agenda and the subversion of feminist theory that goes part and parcel with them. Rather, it is time to reform Feminism proper around the notion that Feminism exists for the liberation of females from patriarchy – full fucking stop.
Oh hey, and a recap of all the events in case you missed it.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…