Women Don’t Need Your Permission

Suppose a group of women decided to start an endometriosis support group.

Endometriosis, if you don’t know, is a disorder affecting the lining of the uterus.

Suppose the members of this group wanted the group to exclude men. “Cis men,” if you prefer. Wouldn’t that make sense? First of all, men don’t have uteruses, so they can’t have endometriosis, so they don’t need support for it. Second, it could be potentially embarrassing to discuss the symptoms of endometriosis in front of men.

And since the definition of “woman” has become contentious, suppose the group, if explicitly asked, would like to deny entrance to trans women as well. After all, trans women don’t have uteruses. So the above concerns apply.

And if a trans woman is trying to get into an endometriosis support group, without having any need whatsoever for such support, that’s suspicious and boundary-crossing behavior. I mean, what does that person want, to be nosy? So denying that request might be especially prudent.

I hope that all reasonable people would understand and support such a decision. Any other response is insensitive, and well, just kind of batshit, to be honest.

And if some issues, like endometriosis, affect natal women and not trans women, then some other issues probably affect natal women and not trans women, too. And those other issues might justify gatherings that exclude those who are not affected by them.

We could talk ad nauseam about what those gatherings might look like. Wiccan menstruation rituals? Abortion counseling? Lesbian dating clubs? High school girls’ swim meet dressing rooms? Survivors of female genital mutilation? Second-wave feminist book clubs? Getting ahead in STEM?

We could hash out every tiny nuance of these and a thousand other issues.

But how about we do this instead. How about we decide not to subject every potential gathering of females to a committee of males for approval before the gathering is allowed to proceed?

If a group of African-Americans wants to hold a civil rights discussion, does it need a panel of white people to evaluate it first?

If a group of Christians wants to hold a religious service, shall the area’s atheists be invited to approve their plans?

If some gay men want to start a sex club, shall straight women take ownership of the membership roster?

Or can people be trusted to evaluate their own interests and assemble with those who share them?

In a Forbes article about the Pussy Church of Modern Witchcraft, author Peter J. Reilly, who happens to be a man, characterizes the women-only church as one that holds as a core value the exclusion of trans people.

Actually, it’s a church about women.

He permits Antonia Elle D’orsay, who also happens to be a man, to describe the church as one “in which the gospel is aversion, anxiety, and animus towards trans people.”

Actually, it’s a church about women.

It’s almost as if men, even those who have appointed themselves as spokespersons for women, don’t really understand the interests of women.

It’s almost as if some women understand and cherish opportunities to attend to their interests without this distraction.

It’s time to stop framing this issue as one that is “fair” or “unfair” to trans women, or any other flavor of male. Gatherings of women need not be about men. Not whether to accept them. Not whether to reject them. Not whether to consult them.

Not everything is about males.


Bottom Line.

My ex-husband is a straight white man who enjoys “tranny porn” (not a theory, I was there, watching it with him). He is using his privilege and common sense to opt out of bottom surgery. He and people like him are leading the conversation on transgender “treatment,” including for women and children.

This is what that conversation is doing to the arms, thighs, breasts and genitals of young, gender-nonconforming lesbians and other girls, often pre-pubescent and understandably disgusted by porn culture, the one my ex enjoys, the one that defines the gender role they’re “deviating” from. To the tune of 4000% more today than a few years ago.

But I’m the asshole, because I care.

Open Letter to Radfem Trans Guy

Dear Radfem Trans Guy:

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I will not repost the comment I am responding to because I don’t think it’s necessary for my objectives.

The first and most important thing I want to say is that I am not here to fight with female people, however they identify.

My reason for living right now is more or less to send one message into the world: that female people are oppressed and traumatized by gender roles and stereotypes.

You have experienced this trauma and it’s obvious in your story. I have the utmost compassion for that. Your story does not challenge my message. It’s an example of it. Like many women, you don’t want penetrative sex or pregnancy, and you’re outraged by the constant pressure put on women to submit to these things. You’re a human being, not an incubator, and you have every right to reject sexist messages and to use or not use your body as you see fit.

Because of that, my first impulse was to approve your comment and not respond to it all. To just let it sit there in its illustrative glory and speak its truth, without my commentary. Certainly, I don’t want to add any commentary that distracts from what you have gone through or obscures it under esoteric theory.

But I guess the whole reason I have a blog is because I run my mouth. I like to think I run my mouth constructively. You may let me know if that’s not the case.

You say that for people like you, “there really is no other option nowadays than transition.” This is the part I want to respond to, for the sake of other females, if not for yours.

I live in a world that tells women they don’t have options. I’m opposed to this state of affairs. I can’t live with myself if I don’t become one small voice for women’s autonomy, one small drop in an ocean of voices that continue to tell you and others that we must change.

I want to be that voice not because I want to tell those who transition they are wrong, but because I wish and have hope for wholeness of mind and body for women.

The options “nowadays” are the same as they always were, however imperfect. They are limitless, but perhaps they can be said to include dating women, being celibate, becoming a nun, joining a female separatist community, telling everyone to fuck off and defying their demands, and/or going to a mountaintop and healing until you value your own voice above that of men.

I fully understand and acknowledge that those did not seem like options for you. It is not you who is at fault for that.

Much love to you, comrade.

What it Means to Be Gay and How Transgender Activism Undermines That

To be gay is to be exclusively same-sex attracted. This has been known for decades and has always been the basis for the fight for gay rights. That any other definition has arisen is, in itself, absurd. But it has, and that alternative definition has taken over mainstream LGBT reporting.

And that definition, as we will see, makes it literally impossible for anyone to assert that they are innately gay or lesbian. That’s a problem for gay rights.

Make no mistake. Everyone knows that gay people are same-sex attracted, especially gay people. Some gay people admit it, like this guy. Others pretend to accept the new definition even as they reject it. (There is hell to pay for admitting it, after all, and some aren’t ready.)

I know a gold-star, older lesbian couple who wouldn’t date my ex-husband if he was the last “woman” on earth. This isn’t because they are mean. This is because their sexual orientation is real. Yet, because they are gay-married, white, middle-class icons in their local LGBT community, because of some prominent activism they did for gay rights, they are neck-deep in kissing the asses of the male-dominated gay and trans rights movement. One of them was quick to yell at me for not properly keeping up the pretense.

Patriarchy has been good enough to them that they’d rather throw younger lesbians under the bus than say out loud that they aren’t interested in my ex-husband’s dick. And that they still won’t be interested in it if he gets it surgically inverted, swallows a boatload of hormones and wears the prettiest frock at the mall.

And yes, they are throwing younger lesbians under the bus. I personally know a young lesbian in real life who was coerced into sexual activity with “trans women” on two separate occasions because her young “queer” community, aided and abetted by the complacency of my comfy suburban gold-star ex-friends, laid a massive guilt trip on her for her intuition that males aren’t lesbians and for her rejection of their poor, oppressed, alternative-fact-female bodies. She left these experiences feeling molested, by both the males and by the allies who pressured her. She’s in therapy over it and has broken down in tears about it several times in my presence.

Good job, M.L.

But hey, you’ve got yours, and that’s what’s important. Maybe you’d like to talk to her about why it was worth it to you. I’ll get you a coffee date with her.

And my millennial friend is not the only one. Those young lesbians who pressured her may have to sexually betray themselves a few times before they relearn what their forebears fought for and largely won nearly fifty years ago: that same-sex attraction is real. And ok. And does not need to be repaired.

Corrective rape of lesbians is real and it’s wearing a new dress.

Here are some of the explicit ways modern transgender activism undermines gay rights and indeed, the very definition of homosexuality.

Straight People are Gay, and Gay People Are Straight

Thanks to the mantra “trans women are women” and the social punishment doled out to those who don’t repeat it, a whole host of absurd and harmful corollaries have ridden in on its coattails.

One of these is that male-born “trans women” who date men are straight and those who date women are gay.

Think about this. It means that if Ru Paul decided to transition, he’d suddenly become straight. And if Arnold Schwarzenegger transitioned, and continued to date his trophy girlfriend Heather who is half his age, he’d suddenly become gay. A lesbian, to be precise.

But which of these men likely felt the wrath of homophobic bullies as a child? Which had the crisis of conscience and self-esteem that comes from hearing, by the church and society at large, that your very being is aberrant and sinful? Which came out to his parents at a young age, with all the family drama that entails? Which had to sneak around to go on a date, and didn’t dare hold hands in public? Which spent decades going to gay bars and participating in gay rights activism?

And what does being gay even mean politically, when every experience associated with it is to be discarded and forgotten when gay men transition? Or when it can be appropriated by straight dudes who’ve never endured the struggle?

It’s Impossible to Be Gay without External Permission

The new definition of gay and lesbian, thanks to transgender activism, has become “same-gender attraction.” That means that gay men are people who like suits and ties, whatever their sex, and lesbians are people who like lipstick, whatever their sex. (Those who assert an interest in a particular sex are disparaged as “genital fetishists” now, even though the definition of fetish explicitly excludes genital interest. Because genital interest is how normal sexuality works.)

Actually, it’s worse than that. Since everyone is the “gender” they say they are, lesbians are people who like other people who announce that they are women, whether they wear lipstick or not.

Remember: “trans women are women.” And the definition of “woman” is now “anyone who says they’re a woman.”

That means pre-op people. Non-op people. People who dress a variety of ways, both consistent and inconsistent with their sex and even their professed “gender.” Danielle Muscato is one of these “women.” Riley J. Dennis is one of these “women.” Alok Vaid Menon is one of these “women” (at least on some days.)

And, it is bigotry to reject transgender people as romantic partners.

But at the same time, we can’t recognize transgender people until they tell us they are transgender.

So by current transgender ideology, attraction is not automatic and innate. Attraction is something you’re allowed to experience only after the people you meet announce their gender to you. At that point, you should desire or reject them accordingly or your sexual orientation must be called into question.

So if you’re a lesbian, you shouldn’t have been attracted to Alok in 1990. But today, you should be. And if, tomorrow, Alok aligns himself with the male “gender,” you should stop again. You may have thought you knew your sexual orientation, and that it was an integral and innate part of you, but it turns out you’re wrong. The nature of your sexual desires depend entirely upon the whims of what other people say about themselves. Unless you’re a bigot, of course.

Likewise, if you happen to have a crush on Ellen or Rachel Maddow, and they become one of the many lesbians who decides to transition, you’ll have to turn in your lesbian card. Because poof! At that moment you’ll become attracted to men.

Gay and Straight and Bi are Interchangeable Terms

The implication of gay and lesbian being defined as “same-gender” attraction, in practice, is that gays and lesbians must practice bisexuality. After all, at any moment someone could identify himself into your preferred gender and you’d become an instant bigot if you didn’t consider being attracted to him.

At the same time, a woman who calls herself “bisexual” or “pansexual” could, in practice, date only men, if that meant dating both men who identify as men and men who identify as something else. Why shouldn’t straight people get themselves some of that sweet queer cred? Oppression is so “in.”

Only Gays and Lesbians Need Corrected

Your straight, single dad doesn’t want to go on a date with my ex-husband any more than my suburban lesbian friend does. Funny how, when it comes to heterosexuality, everyone knows exactly what it is. Only when we talk about gays and lesbians do we become confused about who they are, who they should be, and whether their boundaries need evaluated or broken down.

You can’t support gay rights while tearing down gay rights at every turn. Let gay people be gay. Let trans people find their validation within themselves instead of by forcing gays, lesbians and their allies to lie to and betray themselves and each other.

Sudden Bigots?


We Have a Right to the Language to Describe Our Reality

“But the thing is… they’re not crazy, are they? All the people who espouse the ideology of ‘gender identity’, which that holds that male and female are a feeling-state, rather than a physical fact.

Gender-critical feminists often describe such people as ‘delusional’, but this is ascribing a level of good faith to them that is undeserved. People who are willing to state outright that a male person can be female if he says so aren’t delusional. THEY ARE LIARS. They are lying when they say that sex is a social construct, and no one can tell the difference between male and female human beings, and they need to be called on this lie, not indulged with esoteric arguments about linguistics, metaphysics and (inevitably) intersex conditions.

…So even arguing the point with them is attributing a weird legitimacy to this lie, by assuming that the people repeating it are making a good-faith argument.

Let me reiterate: nobody actually believes this. Every politician and high-profile person who smugly intones: ‘Trans women are women’ is perfectly aware that male human beings aren’t female human beings. No one is truly confused about the difference between the class of persons who have the potential to impregnate, and the class of persons who have the potential to get pregnant. Nobody has lost their ability to tell the two sexes apart, and there is no way anyone can cognitively trick themselves into perceiving an obviously male-looking person as a woman.

So the disagreement about whether ‘trans women are women’ isn’t a real disagreement. It’s a cover for a different argument altogether.

This isn’t a dispute between people who believe that male human beings are really female if they say so, and people who don’t believe it. Because NOBODY believes that. What we are actually arguing about is whether female human beings should be permitted to define ourselves separately from males.

When people say ‘trans women are women’, they are not expressing a sincere belief that adult human males can become adult human females. They are asserting men’s right to claim membership of the same ontological category as women, on their terms whenever they so wish. Conversely, and just as importantly, they are also denying the right of human females to have a separate ontological category to ourselves.

Feminists should not be reduced to arguing that women and girls exist as a real material thing in the world. Everyone already knows this. We need to stop arguing about whether ‘trans women are women’ and move the argument onto its true ground, by putting the case that women have the right to define ourselves – in language and in law – separately from males. Female human beings have the right to an ontological category to ourselves, a name to ourselves and the language to define our physical and social reality.”

From “Are We Arguing About the Wrong Thing” via Mumsnet

[emphasis mine]