Elizabeth Frantes #psycho #sexist feministcurrent.com

Feminism failed because most women are collaborators. They will set up sisters for rape, and sell their own daughters. I'm actually glad we're well on our way into the 6th mass extinction and there won't be any future. I saw this coming when it became 'empowering' for women to be in porn and prostitution, as well as being a SAHM, the very Feminine Mystique that destroyed my mother's generation growing back like kudzu.

Now it's rights for women&children, not women. This means women will continue to add to overpopulation, which is the only problem we have, it causes or exacerbates all of the problems we can't seem to figure out how to stop. We've known how to reduce breeding, but refuse to even discuss this.

Stern #transphobia feministcurrent.com

I've had this thought myself, too. I was wondering which side I would rather fight with in the long run - the party that wants to take my rights as a woman, or the party that will define the idea of 'woman' out of existence. The former is looking better and better the more the latter talks.

Never, EVER thought I'd say that. I'd rather elect a republican and fight for my right to abortion than fight with a democrat on the definition of woman. At least a republican knows what one is.

Misanthropia #sexist feministcurrent.com

There's no hope for women. I feel so sad and depressed to know the depth of the the atrocities that women have endured. At the same time I'm angry. I'm so angry that I can look at a bepenised creature(not worthy of being called man or even male) and not feel any love for him, even if he's family. I hate this stupid fucking patriarchal world and I want to burn it to the ground.

CÉCILIA LÉPINE #sexist feministcurrent.com

Cultures that have ‘third genders’ don’t prove transgenderism is either ubiquitous or progressive

When homophobic cultures are embracing transgenderism, we need to question its so-called “progressiveness.”

Last year, Pakistan started issuing passports with a third gender category marked by an “X”. In March, the country took things a step further and passed legislation allowing people to change their sex on legal documents, based on self-identification. Now, people can officially self-identify as male, female, or neither on government-issued ID documents, meaning an individual born male can now be issued a female passport. Al Jazeera reports:

“The law guarantees citizens the right to express their gender as they wish, and to a gender identity that is defined as ‘a person’s innermost and individual sense of self as male, female or a blend of both, or neither; that can correspond or not to the sex assigned at birth.'”

The law has been celebrated by many as a progressive victory. Amnesty International’s Pakistan researcher Rabia Mehmood told Al Jazeera that the implementation of the bill “is crucial to ensure [trans-identified people] can live their lives with dignity and respect.” While this might indeed seem like a step forward to some, an important detail brings up questions: despite Pakistan’s apparent embrace of trans-identified people, homosexuality remains criminalized in the country. What liberals and progressives who support this kind of legislation have failed to ask themselves is why transgender politics are being embraced by conservative and regressive regimes like those in Pakistan and Iran.

Trans activists claim that transgenderism has existed throughout history. To prove that “gender identity” is not a modern invention, they point to non-Western societies where, historically, more than two genders have been culturally accepted. This claim is rarely subjected to critical analysis. A feminist analysis is ignored in favour of a superficial analysis of race and colonialism that goes as follows: if a third gender exists in non-Western, non-white societies, the “sex binary” must be a colonialist Western concept that has been imposed on all of us.

But while a third gender really does exist in some societies, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these non-Western views of sex and gender roles are anti-sexist, nor does it mean the application of this idea to Western societies is automatically progressive.

If you compare India’s transgender population to Pakistan’s, you’ll notice an interesting similarity: an overwhelming majority are males. Hijra, as they are called in India, are men or boys pressured to become women on misogynistic grounds: these males love hanging out with women, help women with domestic work, have features that are considered “feminine,” or are suspected of being homosexual. They are often castrated and aren’t allowed to marry or own property. While they may be called upon to bless newborns and celebrate marriages, society generally shuns them and they are rejected by their ashamed families. Seen as accursed, they are given a ritual, religious purpose to counterbalance their ungodly condition. They often become dancers and prostitutes and, like in Pakistan, have to seek the guardianship of a guru (who essentially functions as their pimp) in order to avoid homelessness.

One Pakistani man named Zara tells The Guardian:

“I was born with a very small male organ. Inside, my feelings are female… I want to live like a woman, cook and do domestic work.”

The implication is that a small penis and a preference for “woman’s work” mean that Zara is not sufficiently masculine, and therefore not male.

A homosexual male born as Iman but calling himself Marie featured in a BBC documentary, Iran’s sex change solution, consulted several psychotherapists, some of whom “worked underground.” One suggested pills (of an unspecified nature), another electric shock treatment. Eventually, one doctor told Iman that he could “change [his] gender” and said he needed to start hormone therapy. After a while, another doctor encouraged him to take a step further and undergo surgery. “The doctor told me that with the surgery he could change the two per cent male features but he said he could not change the 98 per cent female features to be male,” Iman says. It is very probable that the surgery included removal of his genitals. As a boy, Iman was bullied for having soft features and was frequently told he looked “like a girl.” After being pressured to start hormones to emphasize his “feminine” features, Iman noticed that he started to grow breasts and that his body hair was thinning. There is little doubt as to what the doctor referred to when he mentioned his remaining “two per cent male features”… Iman says he felt “damaged,” physically. “What I saw was frightening and abnormal,” he adds.

Iran doesn’t traditionally have any concept of a third gender, but the arguments towards the acceptance of transgenderism are the same as in India or Pakistan: when men don’t conform to gender roles related to masculinity and heterosexuality, they are told they are not men at all. In countries like India or Pakistan, religious beliefs about the “balance” between male and female play a role in how women and men are treated. There are many stories about “hermaphrodites” or tales about eunuchs. Men who fail to conform are told they have a female soul and hold a special spiritual position. But in Iran, the religious explanation is non-existent: instead, men like Iman are told that they need medical treatment.

Those who claim transgenderism is universal will also bring up Indigenous societies to show that “male” and “female” are simply rigid inventions of Western, colonial culture, offering “third genders” and “two spirit” people as proof of this. “Native cultures” are glamourized as gender-fluid utopias that European, Christian, colonial conquest destroyed, imposing a rigid two-gender system instead. It is true that as part of the Christianization and colonization process, missionaries profoundly changed the social dynamics between men and women. Children were uprooted from their cultural and social spheres and sent to residential schools, where they were taught Victorian values and morality regarding men and women’s place in North American societies. Indigenous people were subjected to different social codes than those they’d grown up with. Their appearance, for instance, was refashioned: boys couldn’t have long hair because it was considered feminine — they had to wear suits, while girls needed to keep their hair tied at all times and wear dresses. But it would be false to presume that Indigenous societies — which are not at all homogenous — regarded gender (in its contemporary definition) as an instrument for self-expression. This assumes all of these cultures accepted the liberal notion of individual choice and freedom popularized in the aftermath of the American Revolution. But modern notions of individualism, self-expression, and self-realization were were not likely present in pre-colonial Indigenous societies.

The Navajo, for example, have a traditional third gender class called “nadleeh.” While, today, the term is applied to both trans-identified males and females, it originally referred exclusively to males. According to an essay by Wesley Thomas in the book, Two-Spirit People, “Navajo Cultural Constructions of Gender and Sexuality,” men who showed proclivities for traditionally female activities such as weaving, cooking, and raising children, became nadleeh.

Thomas writes, “From the Navajo view, until the turn of the century, males who demonstrated characteristics of the opposite gender were known to fulfill their roles as nadleeh.” He argues that the Navajo recognized “gender diversity” pre-colonization:

“Multiple genders were part of the norm in the Navajo culture before the 1890s. From the 1890s until the 1930s dramatic changes took place in the lives of Navajos because of exposure to, and constant pressures from, Western culture — not the least of which was the imposition of Christianity…

… Due to the influence of Western culture and Christianity, which attempt to eradicate gender diversity, the pressure still exists.”

However, he also points out that gender roles still existed in Navajo society:

“The traditional social gender system, although based initially on biological sex, divides people into categories based on several criteria: sex-linked occupation, behaviors, and roles. ‘Sex-linked occupation’ refers to expected work specializations associated with being female or male. ‘Sex-linked behaviors’ include body language, speech style and voice pitch, clothing and other adornment, and those aspects of ceremonial activities that are sex-linked (e.g., women wear shawls in dancing and men do not; men use gourd rattles during dances and women do not). Women’s sex-linked activities include those associated with childrearing, cooking and serving meals, making pottery and baskets, and doing or overseeing other work associated with everyday aspects of the domestic sphere. For men, getting wood, preparing cooking fires, building homes, hunting, planting and harvesting various vegetables, and doing or overseeing work associated with the ceremonial aspects of everyday life are appropriate. A nadleeh mixes various aspects of the behaviors, activities, and occupations of both females and males.”

Traditionally, the Navajo believed that the power of creation belonged to women. It is safe to say that they never believed that nadleeh — “feminine males” — were actually women, because they didn’t have the ability to bear children. They were regarded as feminine on the basis of social occupations but were not called women — azdaa — in the Navajo language. Society was organized on the principle of collective work divided by men and women on account of their physiological differences — women’s activities, for example, were based on their reproductive capacity and status as life-givers.

In this case, the concept of nadleeh cannot be understood as “gender identity” or gender/sex dysphoria, as it was related to social occupations and behaviors connected to sex. While the Navajo are one of the most documented Indigenous cultures, many others are not so well-documented and it therefore seems inappropriate to impose modern notions of “gender diversity,” “gender identity,” or, generally, our own concepts of gender, as we understand it today, in Western cultures.

It also is misguided to assume that non-Western, non-white “third genders” necessarily shatter the gender binary. The existence of other “gender” castes shouldn’t be assumed to challenge the “sex/gender binary” — they need to be examined within their own cultural and political contexts, from a feminist perspective.

The fact that those placed in this “third” gender category are usually males raises another red flag. It suggests that, while men can be downgraded to the status of females, women cannot rise up to the status of men. Being associated with femininity is such a disgrace that men are socially emasculated and physically mutilated. This is pure misogyny. The media remain blind to the evidence, claiming to be puzzled that these supposedly “progressive” gender identity politics are being adopted by otherwise conservative societies that are hostile and violent to women and gay people.

In The Guardian, Memphis Barker writes:

“One reason for the growing acceptance of the trans community springs from an unlikely source — Pakistan’s mullahs. The Council of Islamic Ideology, a government body that has deemed nine-year-old girls old enough to marry and approves the right of men to ‘lightly’ beat their wives, has offered some support to trans rights.”

Of course, in reality, this “support” is only for misogyny.

So blinded by our own Western views on transgender politics — certain we are on “the right side of history” — we can’t see how these ideas could be harmful. Our critical minds have been paralyzed, and fear of backlash has caused us to avoid asking questions. Despite what so many would like to believe, transgender ideology, no matter how and where it is promoted, has put women and gay people in danger all around the world.

Misanthropia #sexist feministcurrent.com

If women were in charge I could walk down the street at night, because males would behave themselves. But no, I can't. Males have stolen the night from us. If women were in charge I would not have to deal with male fuckery day in day out.

I would not have to worry about sexual coercion during sex. I would not have to worry about being harmed or killed if I reject male sexual advances. And technological progress would have happened if women would have been in charge too.

zbudapest #conspiracy feministcurrent.com

These are not witches. It is yet an other case of cultural appropriation. It is working towards getting the leadership away from the Movement and allow the males claim witchhood and replace the female High priestesses , and gain moral power over women. Merlin Stone has warned us about this. Now is the time to DISOBEY , SABOTAGE and PUSH BACK to these misguided sons.

Robert Gonzalez #sexist feministcurrent.com

You share my exact thoughts. Any justice system involving males in the currently existing Patriarchy will always benefit males. End of story.

No amount of "healing" will cure these offenders, especially rapists.

This current system excuses males in all ways. We won't have any working justice system until males are held truly accountable for their actions and that cannot happen in a Patriarchy.

Also, only a fucktard male would think anarchy is beneficial to society. I had to add that.

Hekate Jayne #sexist feministcurrent.com

This restorative justice bullshit is a male fix to a male created problem. Males do all manner of bullshit, bumbling around, like they are trying oh so fucking hard, straining their teeny man minds, trying just so, so hard to fix it! But they just can't hit on a solution, you see. Confused males are so confused.

As an example, rape is endlessly confusing for males. Is it legitimate rape? Forcible rape? What is consent, anyway? Gee whiz a roonie, it just seems like every interaction with female people is potential sexual harassment, we are trying so hard, but we just can't figure it out. Ladies, can you explain again? Won't you please help us out? Sexual assault hurts males, too, you know!!!!! Yet, they don't accidentally rape or molest each other, do they? So they aren't all that fucking confused.

Males know what rape is, they know how to stop it. But they use confusion as a smokescreen so that they can keep raping while hiding behind this bullshit of MALES SO CONFUSED BUT TRYING SUPER HARD, THO. It's fucking insulting to our intelligence. But they love violence and domination directed at us. They will never choose to stop it. They will have to be stopped.

fluffywhitedog fluffy #sexist feministcurrent.com

Absolutely right, Ashley. Mammal males are a natural defect. Eliminating them out of the reproductive process produced longer living mice in the Kaguya experiment. This is true even judging by fetal development, where the males fetuses suck more resources out of the mother, thus growing bigger and causing more difficult births and pregnancies + leaving bits of the Y chromosome in the mother's brain!! All this is AFTER the default female fetus get hijacked by male hormones several weeks into gestation. = This is the behaviour of a parasite.

I have yet to see proof of genuine humanity or connection with Life in men. It's like they only learn to wear a human mask by copying us. When you isolate them from women > they revert into their natural feral state. This happened in early Aussie colonies; & keeps happening in prisons, armies, sporting teams, excess male populations in China & India. Socialisation is supposed to make them bad, but it seems to be the opposite: it's the only thing keeping them above jungle level. Yet when women are isolated - they thrive!

I spent most of my life contemplating how maleness is a mental illness. It finally made sense when I read up on the pitiful state of the Y chromosome. Men are literal half-wits because they function on only 1 healthy chromosome.

Tobysgirl #sexist feministcurrent.com

I know this is not a popular viewpoint, but I have a real hard time with women who want to think they are men. I have sympathy for the terrible things young women go through, but to want to become a member of the oppressor class disgusts me. The "rights" of trans-identified females mean nothing to me. When they accept that they are biological females, their rights and needs are of paramount importance to me.

oneclickboedicea #conspiracy feministcurrent.com

I think left wing men hate women every bit as much as right wing men do, they just do it in a different way ie one stabs us, the other gasses us, either way we end up dead if we don't comply. Left wing men have found a way of inserting men into every female institution so that they can steer it towards gendered compliance. Cunning and the ultimate in gaslighting.

Alienigena #fundie feministcurrent.com

My response would be that women are not a sexual minority we are half the population of the planet (if nature is let to take its course) and femicide (e.g. sex selective abortion, differential treatment and female infanticide) is not part of the equation. So why should we be on the side of sexual minorities when their goals are not the same as ours. They want to use our numbers to legitimate their cause and co-opt our movements to pursue their own, very particular agendas.

The fight of trans-identified males is not our fight. The rights of biological females (lesbian, bisexual, trans-identified females (biological females)) is our fight. Women are not a marginal group in society. I have often felt like the odd person out given my lack of interest in conforming to the notion that women should centre their lives around men. Thing is, you can be heterosexual but not like the behaviour or entitlements of men and not want to spend your life pandering to them. You have a right to reject the company of men, doesn't make you an outlier. But people are intent on making you feel like a weirdo for finding the way society is organized pretty toxic.

ROBERT JENSEN #fundie feministcurrent.com

The art of avoiding definitions: A review of ‘Trans*: A Quick and Quirky Account of Gender Variability’

“Let me define the terms, and I’ll win any debate,” a friend told me years ago, an insight I’ve seen confirmed many times in intellectual and political arenas.

But after reading Jack Halberstam’s new book, Trans*: A Quick and Quirky Account of Gender Variability, I would amend that observation: Debates also can be won by making sure a term is never clearly defined. The transgender movement has yet to offer coherent explanations of the concepts on which its policy proposals are based, yet support is nearly universal in left/liberal circles. Whether or not it was the author’s intention, Trans* feels like an attempt at an outline of such explanation, but I’m sorry to report that the book offers neither clarity nor coherence.

I say sorry, because I came to the book hoping to gain greater understanding of the claims of the transgender movement, which I have not found elsewhere. Halberstam — a professor in Department of English and Comparative Literature and the Institute for Research on Women, Gender, and Sexuality at Columbia University — has been writing about this subject for more than two decades and is one of the most prominent U.S. trans* intellectuals. The table of contents looked promising, but the book only deepened my belief that a radical feminist and ecological critique of the transgender movement’s ideology is necessary.

Rather than be defensive about the ambiguity of the transgender argument, Halberstam celebrates the lack of definition as a strength of the movement, an indication that trans* offers deep insights for everyone. If we shift our focus from “the housing of the body” and embrace “perpetual transition” then “we can commit to a horizon of possibility where the future is not male or female but transgender,” he writes. Instead of “male-ish” and “female-ish” bodies we can realize “the body is always under construction” and “consider whether the foundational binary of male-female may possibly have run its course.”

The very act of naming and categorizing imposes limits that constrain the imagination, according to Halberstam, hence the use of the asterisk:

“I have selected the term ‘trans*’ for this book precisely to open the term up to unfolding categories of being organized around but not confined to forms of gender variance. As we will see, the asterisk modifies the meaning of transitivity by refusing to situate transition in relation to a destination, a final form, a specific shape, or an established configuration of desire and identity. The asterisk holds off the certainty of diagnosis; it keeps at bay any sense of knowing in advance what the meaning of this or that gender variant form may be, and perhaps most importantly, it makes trans* people the authors of their own categorizations. As this book will show, trans* can be a name for expansive forms of difference, haptic [relating to the sense of touch] relations to knowing, uncertain modes of being, and the disaggregation of identity politics predicated upon the separating out of many kinds of experience that actually blend together, intersect, and mix. This terminology, trans*, stands at odds with the history of gender variance, which has been collapsed into concise definitions, sure medical pronouncements, and fierce exclusions.”

I quote at length to demonstrate that in using shorter excerpts from the book I am not cherry-picking a few particularly abstruse phrases to poke fun at a certain form of postmodern academic writing. My concern is not stylistic but about the arguments being presented. After reading that passage a couple of times, I think I can figure out what Halberstam’s trying to say. The problem is that it doesn’t say anything very helpful.

To be fair, Halberstam is correct in pointing out that the instinct to categorize all the world’s life, human and otherwise — “the mania for the godlike function of naming” — went hand in hand with colonialism, part of the overreach of a certain mix of politics and science in attempting to control the world. But like it or not, humans make sense of the world by naming, which need not go forward with claims of imperial domination or divine insight. We define the terms we use in trying to explain the world so that we can meaningfully communicate about that world; when a term means nothing specific, or means everything, or means nothing and everything at the same time, it is of no value unless one wants to obfuscate.

But, if Halberstam is to be believed, this criticism is irrelevant, because transgenderism “has never been simply a new identity among many others competing for space under the rainbow umbrella. Rather, it constitutes radically new knowledge about the experience of being in a body and can be the basis for very different ways of seeing the world.” So, if I don’t get it, the problem apparently is the limits of my imagination — I don’t grasp the radically new knowledge — not because the explanation is lacking.

After reading the book, I continue to believe that the intellectual project of the transgender movement isn’t so much wrong as it is incoherent, and the political project is not liberatory but regressive. What this book “keeps at bay” is a reasonable, honest request: What does any of this mean?

In other writing — here in 2014 and again in 2016, along with a chapter in my 2017 book The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men — I’ve asked how we should understand transgenderism if the movement’s claim is that a male human can actually be female (or vice versa) in biological terms. If transgender signals a dissatisfaction with the culturally constructed gender norms of patriarchy — which are rigid, repressive, and reactionary — I’ve suggested it would be more effective to embrace the longstanding radical feminist critique of patriarchy.

Rather than repeat those arguments here, I want to try another approach, stating simply that I have good reason to believe I’m real, that the human species of which I am a member is real, and that the ecosphere of which we are a part is real. That is, there is a material reality to the world within which I, and all other carbon-based life forms, operate. I cannot know everything there is to know about that material world, of course, but I can trust that it is real.

The cultural/political/economic systems that shape human societies make living in the real world complex and confusing, and the ways those systems distribute wealth and power are often morally unacceptable. But to challenge that injustice, it’s necessary to understand that real world and communicate my understanding to others in clear fashion.

In left/liberal circles, especially on college campuses, “trans*” increasingly is where the action is for those concerned with social justice. It offers — for everyone, whether transgender-identified or not — the appearance of serious intellectual work and progressive politics. Endorsing the transgender project is a way to signal one is on the cutting edge, and work like Halberstam’s is embraced in these circles, where support for the transgender movement is required to be truly intersectional.

My challenge to those whose goal is liberation is simple: How does this help us understand the real world we are trying to change? How does it help us understand patriarchy, the system of institutionalized male dominance out of which so much injustice emerges?

Halberstam likely would put me in the category of “transphobic feminism” for “refusing to seriously engage” with transfeminism, but I am not transphobic (if, by that term, we mean one who is afraid of, or hateful toward, people who identify as transgender). Nor do I refuse to seriously engage other views (unless we describe a critique of another intellectual position as de facto evidence of a lack of serious engagement). I am rooted in radical feminism, one of those “versions of feminism that still insist on the centrality of female-bodied women,” according to Halberstam.

On that point, Halberstam is accurate: radical feminists argue that patriarchy is rooted in men’s claim to own or control women’s reproductive power and sexuality. Radical feminists distinguish between sex (male XY and female XX, a matter of biology) and gender (masculinity and femininity, a matter of culture and power), which means that there is no way to understand the rigid gender norms of patriarchy without recognizing the relevance of the category of “female-bodied women.” It’s hard to imagine how the binary of male-female could “run its course” given the reality of sexual reproduction.

This is where an ecological perspective, alongside and consistent with a radical feminist critique, reminds us that the world is real and we are living beings, not machines. In discussing his own top surgery (the removal of breasts), Halberstam speaks of working with the doctor:

“Together we were building something in flesh, changing the architecture of my body forever. The procedure was not about building maleness into my body; it was about editing some part of the femaleness that currently defined me. I did not think I would awake as a new self, only that some of my bodily contours would shift in ways that gave me a different bodily abode.”

We all have a right to understand ourselves as we please, and so here’s my response: My body is not a house that was constructed by an architect but rather — like all other life on the planet — is a product of evolution. I resist the suggestion I can “build” myself and recognize that a sustainable human presence on the planet is more likely if we accept that we are part of a larger living world, which has been profoundly damaged when humans treat it as our property to dominate and control.

This is the irony of Halberstam’s book and the transgender project more generally. After labeling the project of categorizing/defining as imperialist and critiquing the “mania for the godlike function of naming,” he has no problem endorsing the “godlike function” of reshaping bodies as if they were construction materials. There’s a deepening ecological sensibility in progressive politics, an awareness of what happens when humans convince ourselves that we can remake the world and ignore the biophysical limits of the ecosphere. While compassionately recognizing the reasons people who identify as transgender may seek surgery and hormone/drug treatments, we shouldn’t suppress concerns about the movement’s embrace of extreme high-tech intervention into the body, including the surgical destruction of healthy tissue and long-term health issues due to cross-sex hormones and hormone-like drugs.

I have long tried to observe what in rhetoric is sometimes called “the principle of charity,” a commitment in debate to formulating an opponent’s argument in the strongest possible version so that one’s critique is on firm footing. I have tried to do that in this review, though I concede that I’m not always sure what Halberstam is arguing, and so I may not be doing his arguments justice. But that is one of my central points: When I read this book — and many other arguments from transgender people and their allies — I routinely find myself confused, unable to understand just what is being proposed. So, again, I’ll quote at length in the hopes of being fair in my assessment, this time the book’s closing paragraph:

“Trans* bodies, in their fragmented, unfinished, broken-beyond-repair forms, remind all of us that the body is always under construction. Whether trans* bodies are policed in bathrooms or seen as killers and loners, as thwarted, lonely, violent, or tormented, they are also a site for invention, imagination, fabulous projection. Trans* bodies represent the art of becoming, the necessity of imagining, and the fleshy insistence of transitivity.”

Once again, after reading that passage a couple of times, I think I understand, sort of, the point. But, once again, I don’t see how it advances our understanding of sex and gender, of patriarchy and power. I am not alone in this assessment; people I know, including some who are sympathetic to the transgender movement’s political project, have shared similar concerns, though they often mute themselves in public to avoid being labeled transphobic.

I’m not asking of the transgender movement some grand theory to explain all the complexity of sex and gender. I just need a clear and coherent place to start. Asking questions is not transphobic, nor is observing that such clarity and coherence are lacking.

MEGHAN MURPHY #sexist feministcurrent.com

Trans activism is excusing & advocating violence against women, and it’s time to speak up

Threats of violence against women branded as “TERFs” are increasing — will liberals and progressives speak out before it’s too late?

In January, a woman was photographed holding a sign at the Vancouver Women’s March that included the words, “Trans ideology is misogyny.” This might be viewed as a hyperbolic message for those who consider themselves good, liberal people and who care about a group they have been informed are in extreme danger, and particularly marginalized. And perhaps, if you were unfamiliar with the way women and feminists are addressed by trans activists, you might wonder what statements like this are rooted in. A few years ago, I might have questioned this as well, thinking, “well that’s a bit much, isn’t it.” But as trans activism has gained ground and as I myself — as well as many other women — have begun questioning and speaking out about the aims, ideology, and policies supported in the name of “trans rights,” it has become impossible to deny what is being supported through trans activism: violence against women.

Last week, photographs of an exhibit currently on display at the San Fransisco Public Library emerged online, depicting bloody shirts with the words, “I punch TERFs,” alongside baseball bats and axes, painted pink and blue to reference the gender ideology being touted, some covered in barbed wire, in order to amplify the grotesqueness of the threatened beating. The exhibit was set up by “Scout Tran,” a trans-identified male and founding member of the Degenderettes, a group that now has chapters throughout the United States. The group attends queer and feminist events, including the Dyke March, the Pride parade, and the Women’s March, carrying these weapons, which they claim as defensible activism, but is undeniably a visible threat and incitement to violence against women.

The threats attached to slogans like “I punch TERFs” are not theoretical. Earlier this month, a trans-identified male who goes by the name “Tara Wolf” was convicted of assault after beating 60-year-old Maria MacLauchlan, who had gathered with other women in Hyde Park to attend a meeting discussing gender identity ideology and legislation. Wolf had posted on Facebook about his desire to attend this gathering in order to “fuck up some TERFs.” In what other circumstance would anyone — self-identified progressives, in particular — defend viable threats of violence against women? Sadly, lots.

Liberals and the left have broadly defended violence against women as “art” or “sex,” though perhaps in a less overt way than they have outright threats of violence to feminists who wish to question or discuss the notion of gender identity. Pornography, for example, is one area where violence and abuse is consistently defended on account of it being “sex,” “fantasy,” or “free speech.” The ability of men and their allies to avoid viewing a woman being choked, hit, or gang-raped as “real violence” because it is connected to men’s desire and masturbation is without bounds. Similarly, the notion that a man offering a women financial compensation in exchange for permission to abuse her is framed time and time again as “consent,” regardless of the impact on that woman and the broader message this practice sends to all men and women, everywhere.

What is unique about the approach we’ve seen in the trans movement is that it doesn’t attempt to disguise the incitements to violence against women with rhetoric around “consent” and “empowerment.” The claim is not that this is not “literal” violence, because women like it, or because they consented to it, or because it’s “just fantasy.” Rather the violence advocated for by trans activists is said to be justified on account of opinions, associations, language, or the sharing of articles or links determined to be “wrong” — all of which is dishonestly framed as “violence” (ironic considering where the literal threats and violence are evidenced to be coming from).

The threats of violence against women, on account of having been branded “TERFs,” are frightening not only because we must fear for our physical safety or because of the way these threats act as a silencing mechanism, but because this violence is not being condemned, by and large, by most. Being forced to defend ourselves, alone, with few resources, media platforms, or influential public allies, due to the blacklisting that has occurred en masse in relation to this debate, is challenging, because our voices, interests, and well-being have already been dismissed as we are the baddies who deserve to die.

And indeed, this is where the connection between liberals’ and the left’s treatment of pornography, prostitution, and trans activism coalesce. The way that “TERF” has served to dehumanize women (Bad Women — women who speak unsayable truths and ask questions one is not meant to ask) in order to justify the gruesome violence they are threatened with operates in the same way women are dehumanized in pornography in order to pretend as though they aren’t truly being hurt or abused and, of course, in the same way women were branded witches in order to claim their torture was deserved, on account of their being wicked and dangerous.

Disagreement is not violence. This should not have to be said, yet apparently we must. Violence is violence. And when a group of people are actively advocating for and defending violence against another group of people — particularly an oppressed group of people, like women — there is no defense. At this point, those who accommodate this movement, as it is currently operating, are culpable of something very dangerous indeed.

While the San Fransisco Public Library removed the bloody shirt, they did not remove the exhibit entirely, nor do we know why anyone imagined such a display would be appropriate in the first place. One wonders if they would display bloody shirts with the words, “Kill bitches” or “I beat Muslims” next to a display of baseball bats and axes.

Will liberals and progressives stand up before this gets worse? I fear not.

Zuzanna Smith #sexist feministcurrent.com

No one thinks males who identify as trans “girls” are female, they treat them as males, special and worthy of attention, no one treats female children as special. We are raised to be polite and to center males, I certainly don’t see TIMs being raised to cater to other males, they will certainly be raised expecting girls and women to pander to them, sorry not sorry, we don’t worship in the transcult.

Hanakai #sexist feministcurrent.com

Well, any population with an alleged suicide rate of 41% is definitely not composed of healthy organisms.

Insanity by definition involves mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.

Transsexuals are so divorced from reality that they do not know what sex they are and suffer from delusions that they are the other sex.

Transsexuals perfectly fit the definition of insanity.

Safa #sexist feministcurrent.com

I really don’t understand where all of this transgender bullshit is coming from. It seems as though men have completely lost their minds. Power certainly does corrupt and these lawmakers and their fem-men constituents are becoming more delusional everyday. Men are rarely forthcoming with their reasons behind anything they do, but they must provide some sort of explanation for this current fuckery. It is possible that this is all a move to legitimize male sexual fantasy of watching females urinate, defecate and change soiled tampons. One would think that with the wide variety and accessibility of porn and prostitution, men would have an abundance of opportunities to view female genitalia. Maybe the transgender phenomena has taken off because females are opting out of the feminine gender script and these fellows are filling the vacuum.

Whatever the reason, there are several issues facing humanity that are more important than the worldwide effort to further enable male orgasms. Our fragile profit-driven economies are teetering on the brink of collapse as they require infinite growth on a finite planet. The earth is reaching its carrying capacity for the human species. Global patriarchal cultures have contributed to this by constructing human systems which enslave females and force them to become sperm receptacles. Almost all of the upheaval in various countries can be attributed to population overshoot and resource plundering. Humanity is desperate to keep our industrialized civilization going. When nations are resorting to petroleum extraction through hydraulic fracking, tar sands and deep-water drilling, industrial society and current population levels are unsustainable.

The main tenets of patriarchy are feeding males and facilitating their orgasms. Someone once said “not all men have power, but everyone in power is male.” They control everything--the military, resource distribution and human reproduction. Women can do nothing to stop this. We are stalled in a state of inaction because we are birthing babies, caring and catering to males and trying to earn money in de-humanizing employment. Most women do not even value each other and some prefer the isolated familial cages of domestic slavery.

I don’t think patriarchal systems have always been so widespread. Humans have existed in their current evolutionary form for about 200,000 years. We are fragile creatures. We do not have sharp claws or teeth. We do not run or swim very fast when compared to other animals. Our survival as a species has been attributed to our ability to cooperate within social groups. But right now, no one is cooperating. Men only work together to destroy and women have long since abandoned our mother/daughter bonds. We don’t have to look far to see where these bonds still exist within other mammalian societies. Female elephants still follow the matriarch to sources of food and water. Female chimps and bonobos congregate together on the forrest floor with their young. I think we can trace the beginnings of this culture of death and exploitation called patriarchy back to the origins of monotheism around 5,000 years ago.

Allowing males even more access to gazing upon, raping and killing females is not going to move humanity forward. We are going backwards and I think we have passed the point of no return. Oh, and to all of those fem-men in the US maybe you need to stop trying to get into women’s spaces and put your energies toward forcing red-state medicaid programs to pay for transgender medical needs and enact laws to prevent LGBT discrimination.

Hanakai #sexist feministcurrent.com

No doubt because employers do not want to hire insane people who are delusional and out of touch with reality. Further, transsexual men pretending to be female have a very high rate of criminality generally and as sex offenders particularly, and these are not the sort of folks an employer wants to hire.

If transsexuals would, instead of seeking surgical mutilation and to twist reality to fit their delusional system, get therapy to put their delusions to rest and learn to love themselves and their wonderful bodies as they are, then they would get hired on the same basis as normal people.

Omzig Online #fundie feministcurrent.com

Damn. That's true. Then it's no wonder so many gay lesbian men and women support removing the "T" from the LGBT movement, since transgenderism isn't a sexuality.

And GLAAD could certainly threaten to sue any publication for reporting using accurate male and female pronouns for male and female people, respectively, but I think the first amendment pretty much protects the press's right to do that, whether GLAAD agrees with the content of an article or not. If they did sue, though, it would only continue to draw the public's attention toward the abusive behavior of TRA's. I don't think GLAAD would want that.

So GLAAD and "Trans Rights Activists" would be in the same boat: either object to the correct use of pronouns and attract the public's attention to TRA's abusive behavior, or keep quiet and let journalists provide fact-based, responsible journalism. The press has the upper hand in this one, really.

Julian Vigo #sexist feministcurrent.com

In an effort to move to a greener existence, I recently switched to an ecological toothbrush. As I have been living uniquely from solar panels for almost two years, I was forced to ditch my electric toothbrush. In choosing an ecological toothbrush, I studied materials, as well as the advantages of recycled plastic brushes versus those with replaceable heads. In the end, I had to eliminate every single option aside from the single one I chose. Yes, I had to exclude that which did not meet my personal standards and convenience.

I think a lot about exclusion these days. The #MeToo campaign which emerged in reaction to the sexually aggressive acts of Harvey Weinstein is clearly a female-centered campaign. But recently I’ve seen arguments that #MeToo should be extended to include males. While being “inclusive” of everyone might seem like a nice idea, the reality is that there are perfectly rational reasons for exclusivity in many situations. Our shared experiences with certain humans help us form bonds where and when we need them. These bonds can often make life bearable for those experiencing particularly painful moments in their lives. Commonalities help to create community. The truth is that all communities are exclusive, in one way or another, of individuals who don’t share certain experiences or requisites. While some might be tempted to argue exclusion equates to segregation, such arguments are very much apples and oranges, particularly in the context of women’s rights.

There are several key differences which should be underscored, when discussing “exclusion” in the women’s liberation movement, beginning with the myth that feminism must focus on males. Thanks to liberal feminists like Emma Watson, among others, many women have been made to believe that arguing for the inclusion of males in the women’s movement is a worthwhile cause. But any group in protest of its oppression by another group is within its rights to demand that the oppressor not be included in its organizing. For instance, when labour unions secured the legal right to represent employees in 1935, employers were excluded from the class of employees because it was understood that employers (as well as managers and supervisors) held power over workers. In terms of economic class, it seems that most people are on the same page when understanding which group holds power over another.

Similarly, civil rights advocacy began with the premise that there is social inequality between people of colour and white people, making a necessary distinction between who is being oppressed under white supremacy. Robbing a person of the right to distinguish the oppressor class means that she is barred from speaking about and identifying her oppression.

Nobody expected the Black Panthers to consider the marginalization of KKK members from their organization for good reason. Similarly, no such claim of exclusion was made about the Million Man March in Washington D.C. in 1995, when approximately 400,000 African American men converged en masse in the nation’s capital to engage in teach-ins, worship services, and community organizing. While there was a discussion over the fact that women were excluded, there was also recognition that black men had the right to gather without women to discuss their issues, and this action was largely supported by African American women. Two years later, the Million Woman March was held in D.C. to focus on issues specific to women.

This sort of exclusion is not based in hatred or a desire to do harm. Exclusion is how we decide, like me and my ecological toothbrush choices, what meets our needs. Exclusion is not necessarily about owning a card to an elite club — it is about setting a particular direction for an individual, group, activity, community, and so forth. All social groups exclude in some way. While I am a big believer in reaching over the aisle to dialogue with those responsible for our subordination, I also recognize the need of any group to make decisions within its group before reaching across that aisle.


Does the fact of breast cancer support groups for women mean that males cannot get breast cancer? Of course not. And there are breast cancer support groups for males. Why? Because males and females experience breast cancer differently. Commonalities between same-sexed bodies are part of the social intimacy that both males and females alike cherish across cultures. Be it in the hammam or the steam room, the hospital ward, or the changing room at the gym, there is intimacy between people of the same sex that provides a space of security and dignity. Females especially value these spaces because the public sphere is not safe for women. Being in a female-only changing room can offer women a needed reprieve from the daily sexualization of their bodies, and from unwanted male attention and judgment.

The issue of “exclusion” has become a touchpoint for the left in recent years. Most notably, we have seen exclusion being derided as bigotry in trans activist circles where women who say they would not feel comfortable with a male in their change rooms, their women’s shelters, or in a women’s prison are labelled transphobic. Yet both these examples come from real life paradigms. In 2007, Vancouver Rape Relief Society won a case against Kimberly Nixon, a trans-identified male who had attempted to join the training group for peer counsellors at the women’s shelter.

Nixon was asked to leave the group account of having been born male, and because the shelter operated on the basis that women could best counsel other women, having had the specific experience of growing up female under patriarchy. The B.C. Court of Appeals’ decided that Vancouver Rape Relief had the right to determine its own membership, as any oppressed group of people has the right to “discriminate” when organizing in their own interests, as a class. Currently pending in Texas is the case of three female inmates who are suing Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, claiming that, “They are living in a degrading and dangerous environment by being forced to share showers and bathrooms with the transgender inmates.” The truth is that, for most women, sex does matter. What is more remarkable is that males who claim to have an internal “female identity” have zero compassion for or comprehension of the reality women face in a male supremacist world, and would prefer women put aside their own material reality, comfort, and safety in order to validate men’s feelings.

Choosing a female gynecologist or desiring a female-only space for changing is not meant to incriminate all males as, to paraphrase George W. Bush, “evil doers.” Rather, a woman might choose a female gynecologist both because she feels a woman would better understand her body, but also because she feels safer in that vulnerable state with someone statistically unlikely to assault them. Women’s desire to change in a locker room without male-bodied persons would likely be based on something similar, as well as a desire to maintain healthy boundaries that too often go unrespected. In excluding males from female spaces, women are demanding that society accept the healthy boundaries of women, even if, in certain scenarios, males might wish to be on the other side of the line.

Last week, Bustle ran a story arguing that “some members of LGBTQ community feel that the [#MeToo] campaign focuses too strongly on the gender binary and seems to erase nonbinary or genderqueer people from the conversation.” But what this statement really conveys is that males feel excluded from a conversation lead by women speaking out about male violence. While I would not deny that males experience violence, it is overwhelmingly violence inflicted by other males. What makes #MeToo important is that violence against women and girls is coded into the structural social hierarchy. When women contribute their #MeToo stories, they are doing so as females who have, from childhood, been groomed as objects that exist for male use.

It cannot be overstated that females suffer disproportionate levels of sex-based discrimination and violence, including sexual harassment, domestic violence, rape, and trafficking. Women are quite aware that they are discriminated against and physically abused because of their sex, regardless of how they may feel, internally, about the gender roles imposed on them. It is entirely insignificant, for example, how the over 200 women who James Toback sexually harassed identified. To demand that #MeToo include non-binary people is to miss the point of the feminist movement: feminism has from its inception been explicitly about breaking the hierarchy and stereotypes reinforced through gender which demanded women not leave the house, not vote, and not work. It is not the “binary” that is the problem so much as it is gender itself, under patriarchy. Men who rape women don’t care whether their victims feel “binary” or not.

What Bustle would like is for women to use a language that is seemingly more neutral, less politically objectionable, and more inclusive… of males. Otherwise there would be no uproar with focusing specifically on women’s voices and experiences in this campaign. Males insisting on being “included” in women’s social protest against sexism is just more of the same sexism — women are being instructed to shut up about their oppression by males unless they include males. Beyond that, under patriarchy, women are always under pressure to be sexually available to men. This new language of “inclusion” that frames “exclusion” as inherently harmful has led to males who identify as transgender to insist that women include them not only in their groups and politics, but in their beds. That this is explicitly sexist is made clear through the fact that I have yet to see any male who identifies as trans pressure heterosexual men into sleeping with him.

A narrative that insists on coercing or goading women into including their oppressor is anything but progressive. Likewise, insisting that the language of gender neutrality is what matters in a conversation about sexual violence is far from revolutionary. Taking up the five-cent terms like “non-binary” and “queer” will have no impact on the facts of sex-based oppression for females. The challenge we face as a society is not to carpet bomb women’s movements with accusations of “exclusivity” and “bigotry” when women recognize that males and females are different and have different needs. Creating linguistic games might seem avant-garde to undergraduates, but the reality is that gender is what prescribes the behavioral cues engrained in females throughout their lives. Gender is what is hammered into females as a class, rendering them subjects of a discourse they have no power to respond to. The notion that gender can ever be neutral is patently absurd since gender is not the solution. It is the problem.

Changing language to be “be more inclusive” is counter-revolutionary and pretending that such language does anything other prevent women from effectively organizing towards their own liberation is delusory. The language of gender inclusivity does nothing to dismantle the social and political inequalities that females face. It does, however, create a lovely illusion (especially for men who want to seem progressive in their attempts to thwart our movement): that saying “genderqueer” makes one a “feminist.”

Safa #sexist feministcurrent.com

I have often wondered why trannies (MtF) haven’t yet co-opted that other bastion of womanhood---Mother. Most women are mothers. Many women do not have a choice in the matter therefore motherhood is forced upon them. I would think that if any male claims to “feel” like a woman, he needs to include taking on the role of being the default parent who must provide for the emotional, economical and physical well-being of a child.

Of course, allowing trannies to adopt or foster children would be a horrible mistake as they are men and cannot always be trusted around vulnerable people. Also, trannies don’t seem to be interested in partnering with heterosexual men and performing the dirty jobs that are the purview of women in setting up housekeeping. Just wearing the costume of heterosexual male fantasy is a very small part of being a woman, and some females, like myself, don’t bother to do even that. Womanhood under patriarchy is domestic slavery, it is not glamorous or exciting. There is a reason Jewish men thank their god every morning for not making them women.

Misanthropia #conspiracy feministcurrent.com

I am fully convinced that now transgenderism is a psy-op meant to infiltrate and undermine the feminist movement. Now a male can do anything he wants. He can not only incite horrific crimes against women, he can also steal the label woman from us and force us to accept his delusions that he is a woman, against all evidence of biology and science.

Whatever delusions that males create with regards to women is taken as the truth, while the truth of women's lives and what we truly are is taken to be lies and just paranoid imaginings on our part. Is it any coincidence that transgenderism is all the rage in countries where women are more privileged? No one would want to be a woman in the Middle East, or many Asian and African and even Latin American countries.

They only want to be what the male fantasy of what a woman is. It's also no surprise that countries that are persecuting homosexual people are also forcibly offering sex reassignment surgery to them because they would rather not have two people of the same sex in love with each other.

terri smith #sexist feministcurrent.com

Yes, I get especially angered when people refer to a man who has made himself "look" like a woman with surgery and drugs as a woman. He is definitely NOT.

Ever notice how these men seem to gravitate to the sexist portrayal of what a woman should look like, high heels, makeup and corsets?

Disgusting and definitely not a she, a female or a woman.

Lavender #sexist feministcurrent.com

"So what does it mean to feel like a woman? It means that if you are a woman, it’s whatever you are currently feeling." What?!?

I'm baffled that people think this passes for a reasonable statement. If any feeling at all can make you a woman, this means that womanhood has no meaning. If men can be woman, then womanhood is nothing more than a costume. Misogyny has reached its zenith: the erasure of females in the guise of progressive politics. Men who push this propaganda - that's no surprise.

But women who actively indulge in female erasure is always shocking to me and proof positive of just how powerful patriarchy is in convincing women to internalize their own subordination. Men will always use this as an excuse to say that those women who do challenge femininity and gender are just angry, bitter witches.

It's a brilliant system, it really is, and all it needs to perpetuate itself is a critical mass of people who don't care enough about women and girls to question statements that are so clearly nonsensical. If I spend the rest of my life arguing with men and women about this, so be it. Once you realize how insane all of this all is, you just can't keep quiet.

rips into labels #sexist feministcurrent.com

"The fantasy of the privileged is having the ability to wallow in this world.” More like this please.

I think connecting the delusions of men who throughout history have wanted the experience of the oppressed without the reality of it is a very good tactic for dealing with the trans phenomenon. Has anyone researched this kind of male behaviour? I'm sure it's existed in all kinds of ways and places.

susannunes #sexist feministcurrent.com

It is no surprise because these MEN have a mental disorder, a mental illness, and typically more than one in addition to their body delusions. They are NOT normal, not even for men. We need to quit pretending they operate in any kind of sane universe.

Women need to take their rights back and stop catering in any way to the trans movement including using their lingo like "trans woman," "trans man," "gender identity," and so on. The trans are the enemy like every other misogynist group. Transgenderism is woman-hating filth.

JingFei #sexist feministcurrent.com

I truly believe this is coming to a head. I've always had a theory that the true reason Trans activism has gotten as far as it has, it because the majority of everyday people on society are still clueless about it. Feminists know about all this stuff, but ask a generic, gardening neighbor over 35; "How do you identify? What are your pronouns? ", And they will think you're touched in the head.

This is why Trans orgs spend all day stalking, vilifying and shutting down all critical voices and events. They know the vast majority have no idea what is going on. And laws are passed without the public knowing wtf they are even about. If the people could openly hear a debate, they would become educated and start paying attention. That is bad for the Trans Lobby. They know it.

Canada also has a profoundly high immigrant population. I can tell you from personal experience that first generation immigrants would reject most of this garbage where biology isn't real, and males can shower beside their daughters. But they're in the dark. Some Trans ideology is so out there, you can't even wrap your head around it. But most of the crossdressing, spoiled, white Western straight males who aggressively head the Trans movement are psychologically unsound.

The crazy, the entitlement, the contempt they harbour for women cannot be kept contained forever. And like this incident, and others like it, they reveal themselves to the public. My only concern is how much violence do Trans males have to inflict on innocent women until it is too brazen for Leftist media to ignore? How bad does it have to get?

dandelionseed #sexist feministcurrent.com

This isn't a political movement, it's a massive acting-out by characterologically-disordered men. This new generation of straight TIMs are masochistic, narcissistic eternal puers: even the simplest question constitutes, for their psyches, a full-on attack, and for their sexual fetish, that full-on attack is as thrilling as it gets.

So they act more provocatively, demand more and more, to engender more questions they can regard as attacks and get more thrill from. IF "TERF"s didn't exist, they'd have to invent them. Well, actually -- they did. Because they need the Witch, precisely to define their Specialness against, and they need the Big Mean Mommy to create all their excuses for refusing to grow out of adolescence, and they need the orgasmic vision of themselves as The Most Punished of All to masturbate to.

Psychiatrists and therapists have a lot to answer for here, enabling these disordered men to regard their mental health issues as political oppression. Really, women diagnosed with BPD (often in fact Complex-PTSD) have far more grounds to regard their mental health issues politically, as do women with eating disorders. But they generally don't. I continue to think het dad, who'll eventually pay attention once genderism starts affecting more girls' athletics, will be the ones who shut this all down, because feminists aren't listened to (and because there are too many handmaidens who are) and because gay men, so far, can't be bothered.

I worry, though, that these het men will wield a broad brush that hits the LGB, because they don't always separate sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as feminism, because even though these het dads are invested at least in their daughters' athletic success, they don't generally connect that to the feminism they currently see in the media.

Most women I talk with about this, even as they'll agree that men don't become women, simply will not move beyond their own yanked heartstrings at the "most oppressed of all" hype. So I take every opportunity I can, with every het man who seems at least willing to listen, to explain the difference between the T and the LGB and to explain that the vast majority of TIMs are intact and straight, with no intention of ever making themselves otherwise. Whenever I say the words "sissy porn," I generally don't need to explain much more -- these men do know where the minds of men can go. The word "girl-dick" raises their eyebrows very high.

Still, politically and personally, it'd be most pleasing to me if feminists were the ones, and were seen to be the ones, taking genderist activism and ideology down. So I retain some hope the TIMs' increasing need to evoke reaction via outrageous demand will shove enough handmaidens toward sanity so that can happen.

kfwkfw #sexist feministcurrent.com

Yes yes yes. I grapple with this quite a bit as I have mental health issues going on. Never once have I thought it would be reasonable to make others/society do the work of self-acceptance FOR ME, because self-acceptance is MY WORK and I now take pride in this.

If these trans were treated as *women*, they'd have no choice but to examine their feelings and behavior in order to change once they met with a therapist. That's how regular human beings seeking help end up dealing with psychological trauma and dysfunction. But not these guys. Trans are actually treated super-human in this context...they are something so much more special than just a regular person. So special that their self-work is outsourced for the world at large to deal with.

It's MASCULINE to demand to be adjusted to, no matter how much it unsettles things. Masculine because it requires male power and privilege to execute. No woman wields that power. Nobody with a non-privileged lifestyle has this power, actually. It makes me sick to see their mental illness given such delusional, kids glove treatment VS. the burden that actual REAL women carry of shame and blame for their illness. They only get upset about THEIR suffering...no one suffers as much as them. That is grade-A fucking bullshit, but that is what most of their manipulation hinges on. They don't want help, they are above help.

Being honest and vulnerable with yourself is something I think we reject in this society and these men are exemplifying it. So are any therapists and doctors who do not criticize, only coddle...they are morally bankrupt. OR are they just being masterfully manipulated? There is added pressure by liberals to accept the unacceptable blindly. It must be stopped either way. Everyone must be honest with themselves sometime very soon.

lk #fundie feministcurrent.com

When is all this trans/I can be whatever sex I feel like/fluid/gender is not a binary/biology is a construct nonsense going to stop? How is all this stuff making its way into the legal system?

The other day I saw that California is now going to add a third gender option on drivers license. *rolling my eyes*

“I am proud to be a member of one of the most diverse parliaments in the world and of the long way we have come as a country on LGBT+ issues – from the Sexual Offences Act 50 years ago to the Same Sex Marriage Act"

Its odd to me how much gay rights is being linked to trans rights. I do not see transrights as an extension of gay rights. So much of trans ideology is anti gay (not to mention anti-woman) that I still don't really understand why so many people who claim to be pro-gay/anti-homophobia are pushing and supporting trans ideology.

In what way does denying biology actually help people who are LGB?

Missy #sexist feministcurrent.com

I like to listen to scary stories on YouTube in the background while working at the computer. I prefer the paranormal stuff with ghosts and the like even though I'm not really a believer. I just like the chills that some of those stories give me. Sadly most of the content I listen to is mixed with too many real life stories from the "Let's Not Meet" subreddit which mostly has to do with men harassing and hurting women and children.

All those kind of stories do for me is infuriate me and fuel my hatred for the male of the species. Unlike being spooked when listening to stories about ghostly apparitions, it's not at all pleasant or enjoyable to hear about all the ways real human males torment women. It's gotten to the point where I just fastforward through any story heading in that direction because I just couldn't stand the anger and often rage I felt hearing about these encounters and how women are targeted just for their sex, their biological reality, and only because some freakish male couldn't control his dick.

It pisses me off just thinking about what women go through because of men and how we're just expected to put up with it. I wish somehow all women became physically stronger than all men, just any kind of advantage that would put men in their place and put an end to rape permanently.

Hekate Jayne #sexist feministcurrent.com

I don't know a single woman that hasn't been harassed on at least one job. The only time I ever escaped harassment at a job was when I had a female boss.

And every dude that I have ever told about this responds with *shock*. They gasp, they express disbelief (of course they do). Every woman I have ever told has at least one story of her own, and usually many, many stories.

Women are never shocked when males are predatory and disgusting. Males aren't, either. But they feign distaste, surprise and anger as part of the ruse to keep their disgusting bullshit going. They love being predatory and pretending that they don't see it. It is part of insuring male supremacy.

Stroke_Your_Own_Ego #sexist feministcurrent.com

This says a lot right there.

Women are oppressed because we are systematically exploited, abused, and denied the right to own our own bodies. Trans women are oppressed because laws, people, and media don't always validate their self image.

When men kill trans women, they kill them for being gender-non-conforming men, the same reason they kill gay men, or otherwise "effeminate" men. Men don't kill trans people by misgendering them, they kill them the same way they kill anyone else, with horrible blind force.

It's been said many times in this comments section but I'll say it again: We're on the same side in wanting to end male violence. Stop fighting us and work with us to stop the people who are actually committing violence against trans people and women.

Omzig Online #sexist feministcurrent.com

You are on a feminist website to convince us women into believing that males are women, and that male violence against other males should be another problem that we need to fix for them. This is gaslighting, a form of abuse by your own definition.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: According to the CDC, our biggest killers and abusers are male, yet you're here on a feminist website claiming that males are the real victims. If you want to turn it into a yearbook superlative for "most murdered," or "most abused" status, go ahead. But the fact is that females are clearly not safe around males, even the ones that wear lipstick. This article, in which the author documents the violence and threats that she's experienced at the hands of transgender-identified males, is proof of that.

If you sincerely believe male sorrow over their internalized experience of gender could ever literally turn a male into a woman, then I'm afraid you may be too indoctrinated to be of much use to the feminist organizations that you say you work for. Try making females a priority in your feminist activism again, then we'll talk.

May Z #fundie feministcurrent.com

All I can say is that I cannot take neoliberal feminists, happy hookers, and trans activists seriously when they say they are "against capitalism", yet, they have an elementary understanding of socialism and communism.

Their whole movement is about consumerism and making more money by drawing insecure and confused kids to transition, buying useless shit to "match" their gender identities, and get botched surgeries.

Kris #fundie feministcurrent.com

Another thought I had about the disingenuous claim that “TERF” is merely a neutral description (or even that it started off as some innocent neutral description before a few bad apples started using it viciously): This term, by design, paints radical feminists as mean bullies at best, bigots at worst, because of the word “exclusive”. This word immediately triggers the patriarchally ingrained belief that women should never say no. To say no, to be exclusive of anything, to create and define boundaries, is a form of power. And women aren’t allowed to have power.

Second, it’s meant to derail and deflect from what radical feminists actually stand for. It’s like calling supporters of reproductive rights baby killers and calling yourself pro-life, immediately positioning outsiders as anti-life in general, even murderers. By calling us “trans-exclusive” every time they refer to us it sounds like our only purpose is to keep transpeople down and condone any harm or violence against them. As if we don’t have specific aims for females that we want to focus on that just doesn’t have anything to do with men having body dysphoria or men also having mental anguish with living in a society that enforces sex roles.

Why not call it “Female liberation centered feminism?” It may be redundant, but in this climate with its many waves and factions, it’s use makes the focus of radical feminism more clear. Or even any description that shows what we stand FOR as opposed to making us solely an “anti/exclusive” group? The reason is to paint us as bigots and entitled bullies from the get go. This is why the progression of using “TERF” as a slur and part of hateful rhetoric was always the logical conclusion.

FierceMild #fundie feministcurrent.com

It makes sense that transactivists and ‘sex worker’ rights activists would have an affinity for one another. Transactivists and pimps both blame women for men’s violence. Pimps say men wouldn’t enslave, rape, and brutalize prostituted women if feminists stopped criticizing them for it. Transactivists say that men would stop raping, brutalizing, and killing transwomen if feminists would stop criticizing them for it.

I’m 100% certain that decriminalizing pimps and brothel owners won’t stop Punters from raping and brutalizing prostituted women and children. Likewise I am 100% sure that feminists calling transwomen women wouldn stop men from killing them.

susannunes #sexist feministcurrent.com

The sexual revolution had nothing to do with feminism. It in fact is antithetical to feminism. Second-wave feminism, especially radical feminism, was born because of the lousy treatment women received by men in the antiwar and civil rights movements of the 1960s.

Kinsey, Ellis, Ginsburg, Money, Hefner, and the rest of them were to a man--and almost all of them were men--perverts and degenerates. It wasn't generally known at the time but years later what these guys were really all about. They were all about violating appropriate boundaries between the sexes and not just about overthrowing the 1950s "prudery." Queer theory/transgenderism are much more in line with the "sexual revolution" and are the end result of it than feminism ever was.

The best account of the sexual revolution of the 1960s is in Andrea Dworkin's book, Right-Wing Women, in the chapter "Abortion." She knew of what she spoke, and she was dead right.

fxduffy #sexist feministcurrent.com

The whole concept of the “Sexual Revolution” was demolished by radical feminists in the 1970s and in the later continuum works by Sheila Jeffreys.

Jeffreys has exposed the early and mid 20th century sexologists as being no more than front men for a broader and more uninhibited, male sexuality which in turn was to liberate women from both rote, limiting, disembodies sex. But, of course, even a very superficial glance into the works of any of these deSadean sexologists reveals their influential “revolution” to be a total sham.

For men it meant potential access to all women. For women it meant freedom to sleep with more men, and freedom to gratify their pleasure by learning more sexual postures, most of them debasing and pornographic. At multiple levels, it was anything but liberating, and often outright victimizing and destructive.

Heffner was just one of their wormy offspring who happened upon a little empire which he shakily offered up in tribute to his creepy sexist forefathers, never daring to cross them in any way.

Rita #sexist feministcurrent.com

First of all, I just wanted to say (slightly off-topic) that I LOVE this site. I am more than thrilled to finally have found some place where women are not sufficiently brainwashed to repeat the skewed misguided slogans, such as the great and fantastic enjoyment of giving blow jobs, putting out in "no-strings attached" relationships and "loving porn."

One doesn't have to be a rocket (or any kind of) scientist to figure that these acts obviously serve male interests. Even as a teenager 15 years ago, reading teen magazines, I was already asking myself in disbelief - "who the fuck is buying into this? Why would anyone with any self-respect, sense of self-preservation or basic logic be willingly eating this crap up." Not only that, but actually associating these acts against self interest with "freedom" or "forward thinking." Madness!

Thankully at least there are sites such as feminist current where people can still see the light, unlike the author of that misguided Teen Vouge article. So blow jobs, sexting and putting out for nothing at 13 years old - not enough now. Now the media are brainwashing young girls to willingly offer up their asshole for male satisfaction. It's implied that it is yet another step towards being a modern, liberated and *fun* woman. I call BS!

Why don't they teach these girls that to be truly liberated is to realistically think in terms of self interest.

Why is it that we never read articles encouraging men to be useful members of society being framed as some type of liberation, freedom and ultimate satisfaction. I would love to see some articles in Playboy such as "Guide to Childcare" - "Hello prostate owners, you don't have to read it, it's totally okay if you don't want to! But many *cooler than you* prostate owners are now into night waking and changing diapers. It can be uncomfortable at first but *many* find it a great source of enjoyment."

Even that attempt at irony is not comparable, because anything that we want men to do is actually good for them in the long run, whereas men just want to satisfy their shallow, selfish desires at the cost of everyone else.

fxduffy #sexist feministcurrent.com

Transgender not only renders true women’s colleges pointless, but also feminism, and women-as-women.

Transgender concludes that there is no women’s identity, and therefore no women’s culture, and no women’s history.

Yet, they insist on being women... because that’s the most effective way to destruct the identity. Their method is as old as empire, as old as patriarchy, as old as males... it’s called colonization, forced assimilation, and forced dissociation.

Women then must either get with the male supremacist program, or get displaced by their transgender superiors. Abstract culture trumps biology and lived reality.

Hanakai #fundie feministcurrent.com

There have always been crimes and perversions, but the crimes and perversions are far, far worse and more common today than they were thirty, fifty, eighty, a hundred years ago. Pornography has, to my mind and according to the data, been a HUGE factor in the proliferation

Anal sex, much less anal rape, was not something in the realm of our consciousnesses when I was in high school. Now, the boys coerce or pressure girls for anal. The Yale chant of "No means yes and yes means anal" is a creature of the Millennial demographic and Age of Porn.

Porn is not the only factor. Rapid technological change and the predations of late-stage capitalism lead to widespread anomie and the breakdown of community. The teaching of such idiocies as queer theory and transgender normalism, the cultural adoption of the homosexual male sexual practices and norms, a general loosening of standards of honor and decency and goodness, the failure so far of humans to adapt wise sexual mores to the new material reality of The Pill giving women and other humans the ability to control fertility for the first time in history --- these and many other factors play into the remarkable depravity of these times.

Having watched things for several decades, it seems that there has been a huge regression in women's consciousness as a whole. Looking at popular culture with its stripper feminism and its support of porn and prostitution, it seems that rights earlier feminists won are being eroded and the cultural pendulum has swung to a severe hatred of women.

The social media, computers, ubiquitous screens have made modern young stupider than older generation; attention spans are short; the ability to think rationally or critically is impaired; mental illness has become the norm; research shows today's young are 40% less empathetic than two decades ago. . Not good on the individual or species level.

Knowing the importance of naming and language, earlier feminists and our foremothers struggled to have adult women referred to as women, instead of as girls, broads, hens, b*tches, c*nts, whores, sluts, etc. These slurs are ugly, they help normalize misogyny and perpetuate sexism. Many of these words should be retired or fade from the language as our consciousness evolves.

But what do young women do? They call themselves sluts and start a campaign called Slutwalk in which they dress like bordello workers and parade around in their underwear, while hordes of male perverts show up to watch, film and photograph. Ugh.

When was the last time men protested or ran a campaign or movement in their underwear???

I would like to have more hope for the god-awful human species, but the objective signs are not positive. C'est la vie.

Omzig Online #fundie feministcurrent.com

There are lots of obvious parallels between the trans lobby and pedophiles. In both cases, the group came from the fringes of society and claimed that they were marginalized victims of discrimination and stigma. Both groups have attempted to ride the coat tails of the gay community into the mainstream by using the "born this way" template. Both groups make highly inappropriate demands of society to validate their mental illness. And, most importantly, both groups LOVE to point to the DSM's history of categorizing homosexuality as a mental illness as proof-positive that they're being stigmatized by the health care community.

I'm not necessarily saying that transgender people are attracted to children, mind you. But there's an easily recognizable pattern forming here. My main criticism is aimed instead at liberals, who are proving themselves to be dangerously easy to manipulate. They sincerely believe that they are sticking up for the underdogs, the most marginalized of the marginalized. A couple years ago, they were publishing articles in Salon magazine imploring the public to consider pedophiles as victims of their own impulses ( that article was taken down recently). Now, they're demanding that we accept cross dressers into our private spaces and our bedrooms. And they're apparently too obtuse to at least protect kids from this ideological mindfuckery.

To put it nicely, I believe that liberals are proving themselves to be incredibly gullible. I hope they end up just as embarrassed of their support for transgender males as they were of their support for pedophiles.

But for the life of me, I just don't understand why their bleeding-heart liberal sympathy stops short of showing an ounce of real concern for prosituted women and children. Not even for exploited little kids. It truly breaks what's left of my heart.

Hanakai #fundie feministcurrent.com

Women who say they chose prostitution and crow about it and the alleged wonderfulness of the choice to let men rent her vagina and pay for use of her bodily orifices are traitors to their sex, traitors to women.

By misdescribing prostitution as a choice, myths about prostitution are perpetuated: the myth that prostitution is empowering for women and necessary for men; that it is the oldest profession (Fact: Prostitution is not a profession, nor is it the oldest occupation); that it is beneficial for women and a fine normal way to make a living; that women are happy hookers; that all women are basically prostitutes who will exchange sex for material reward; the myth that prostitution causes no harm and the myth that prostitution can exist without contributing to sexism, misogyny and the oppression of women.

Everywhere on this planet, the majority of prostituted women are overwhelmingly suffering from poverty, a fact about which there is no disagreement. Urgent financial need is the most frequent reason mentioned by prostituted women for being in the sex trade. No one chooses to be poor when given other options. In countries where prostituted women have been studied in depth, sexual abuse in childhood prior to entry into prostitution is a significant precondition for entry into the sex trade. One rarely meets women in prostitution who were not sexually or physically abused beforehand. No one chooses to be abused.

In any sane, decent, just world where women were valued as full human beings, there would be no prostitution. It should not exist. Sex and women would not be commodities to be bought and sold and rented by any man with sufficient coin of the realm. Sex is the dynamic that creates life. Nature did not intend sex as a commercial transaction. In humans, sex is elevating to the body and being when it is an ecstatic bonding with real connection, caring and affection between partners who are seeking to give and receive pleasure and bring each other higher. In prostitution, sex coarsens the energy and erodes the ability to love. Those who know how to read the human energetic field can attest to this.

The reality that no woman in her right mind would choose to engage in an activity where she will be dead at age 34 (yes, that is the average lifespan for prostituted women), where she has a 90% chance of being raped on the job, where men will spit on her, ejaculate on her face, jam their dicks up her anus and claim the right to ATM (ass-to-mouth, meaning the trick sticks his dick up her anus, withdraws it and sticks it immediately in her mouth without cleaning off the feces), where she has a large chance of being beaten and brutalized, where she is the most vulnerable and likely victim of a serial killer. Who would chose that for themselves? For her sister? For her daughter? For her mother?

Horseshoe Award

susannunes #fundie feministcurrent.com

The ultimate goal of queer theory is allowing and legalizing pedophilia. Queer theory is a movement by and for degenerates and perverts. Might as well use those emotionally charged words.

Queer theory and postmodernism should be banned from college campuses as being no more valid than creationism and Holocaust denial. This is where this poison is coming from, and many millennials have been steeped in it.

pyrite00 #fundie feministcurrent.com

Another reason for some trans activists to keep prostitution is that some of the more deranged men who want to be women seem to think that medical science is almost ready to take organs out of real women and put those organs into male bodies.

Guess there will be pimps and slavers ready with trafficked women to kill or abuse for parts.

Hekate Jayne #sexist feministcurrent.com

This is how males keep rape available to themselves.

They want to appear as if they are carefully analyzing male behavior in the interest of fairness to males. It is a ruse.

If the male governments and systems really thought that rape is wrong, they would put a stop to it. But they protect it, and entertain each other's bullshit, and expect us to believe that they are just trying so super hard to stop it.

Omzig Online #sexist feministcurrent.com

According to the CDC, male violence is one of the leading causes of death for women and children, along with heart disease, cancer, and strokes. Limiting our interactions with men is not "segregation", it is controlling a known risk factor for death and injury. It is a pragmatic approach to maintaining our health, along with avoiding tobacco products, engaging in regular exercise, and drinking in moderation.

If you don't like that this limits your access to women, perhaps you should examine your own behavior and the behaviors of the men around you. Do your part to end male violence instead of leaving pointless comments on an anonymous internet.

Also, when you make arguments that involve words like “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., you are committing a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdom. This is rarely a good way to express reasonable talking points. In the future, you may want to avoid appealing to extremes if you want to make valid points.

M. Zoidberg #sexist feministcurrent.com

Segregation from men is different than segregation from a race or culture or religion.

It's unique in the fact that it is men who do almost all of the violence on women.

Being able to be somewhere where men cannot do their violence on us is necessary for our development and survival.

Hekate Jayne #sexist feministcurrent.com

Sisters. I am worn out.

I cannot escape males. A few days ago, I was at the store, bagging my groceries, only to have a white male let me know how entitled to my attention he was by telling me how "plastic bags are tricky". He said that plastic bags are tricky for him!

And he could help little, feminine, silly girl me with my groceries, because if *he* has trouble with plastic bags, then it is a given that inept ladies will, too! He even offered to follow me to my car! How helpful!

I literally cannot escape them. And NOPE, sorry dudes, you can't be a feminist. I don't care what Jordan grommet beaty tells you. It isn't up to him.