For Those Who Think A Dressed-Up, Toned-Down, Academic-y, Touchy-Feely Paper From a Crackpot Trans-Eliminationist Should Just Be Ignored…

…we have the one thing that trans-eliminationists hate most of all: history (don’t let the reference to “historical sex” fool you.)

  • “Is there any such enduring reality as biological maleness or femaleness?”
  • “Transsexualism as disease raises many deeper issues about the medical model in general and the ways in which transsexualism has come to the defined as legitimate medical territory.”
  • “Historical sex is a term that I would add to this already lengthy list of distinctions. History is important, in this context, because there is a certain constellation of events that attend the sex into which one is born. For example, menstruation for a girl is a biological happening, but it is also a historical event around which cluster a certain set of very different yet also very similar collective female experiences. Men do not have a history of menstruation nor the experiences which surround its onset, its monthly occurrence, or its demise.”
  • “[I]n the name of dealing with an individual crisis, itis important to note that this kind of therapy does not foster genuine individualism. Current transsexual therapy and surgery promote an individualism that serves a role-defined society. Thus, it is more accurate to say that these are solutions that promote the values of social conformity. To use another example: Many oppressed people use heroin to make life tolerable in intolerable conditions.”

The context:

What is important to remember when considering this scrubbed-of-blatant-lesbian-separatism document – as well as openly trans-exterminationistic versions that appeared in Chrysalis in 1977:

… and in The Transsexual Empire in 1979 – is that all of this is just the ejaculation.  The foreplay was the 1970s trans-exterminationists’ championing of – and demand for – employment discrimination against a transsexual woman.

And it had nothing to do with any bathroom.

Bear all of that in mind when you see one of the authors of the latest de facto call for trans-exterminationism claim:

I do not want anyone to face irrational discrimination…

Because, of course, the unintentionally illuminating caveat which follows it tells you that, like all exterminationists, she has her own lexicon and she’s not letting you see how she definies what her meanings and intentions are.

…that includes females as well as trans folx.

Janice Raymond’s fluffy 1980 version of her radical lesbian separatist, anti-heterosexuality, anti-society excretions of 1977-79 did not, of course, have its full intended effect: the full force and majesty of the United States did not exterminate transsexuals and eliminate all transition-related healthcare. 

However, it did permanently poison politico-legal discourse. 

The menage a transphobique (Raymond’s insanity together with the fraudulent ‘study’ perpetrated by Jon Meyer and Donna Reter and legitimized in the Archives of General Psychiatry) gave governmental organs thereafter the ability to say that there was a ‘debate’ about what was acceptable treatment for transsexuals (sound familiar?) - which almost always resulted in the strangely-on-all-fours-with-Raymond, anti-treatment views of christianism-addled bean-counters being inflicted on transsexuals who found themselves in a position of trying either to get aid directly from the government or to get courts to rationally interpret insurance contracts.

There is no denying it: at least some transsexuals died as a result of what Janice Raymond spewed during the late 70s and early 80s.

You know it.

I know it.

Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford know it.

The (anti-)civil rights vermin - straight and gay - who, in and out of the halls of government, have influenced policy from 1980 onward know it.

At the time of Raymond-Meyer-Reter menage, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a gay rights law – the city of Los Angeles – was tran-inclusive with its scope.

Ah yes…

Calling this definition sexist, activist Jeanne Cordova said, “I don’t recognize my self-image in that definition.”

And then when California enacted a gay rights law twenty years later, transexuals and all trans people were absent from its definition (as had been the case with Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Hawaii – and as would thereafter be the case with Nevada, Maryland, New York and Delaware.)

Even where law has evolved to formally prohibit sex-stereotyping; women continue to suffer from the lingering effects of sexist ideologies about female inferiority.  So although we support every individual’s right to freely express their gender identity, it is absolutely critical that law not confuse “feminine expression” with female reproductive capacity or female genital presentation.

In case you missed it, I’ll mention Maryland again.

Every turd that’s old gets smelly again.

58 Responses to For Those Who Think A Dressed-Up, Toned-Down, Academic-y, Touchy-Feely Paper From a Crackpot Trans-Eliminationist Should Just Be Ignored…

  1. “female genital presentation.”

    She really has her coalition down, doesn’t she? Just enough to get all the operative essentialists clamoring to be her pet trannswomentypesortathings.

    And yeah… another spot-on article.

  2. Kathleen says:

    Odd how many of these woman are the product of Jesuit indoctrination – ex nuns, Fordham alum. Their views on trans people are indistinguishable from Paul McHugh.

    We have no interest in wearing your celice – though you should be mortified by what you’ve done to others flesh.

  3. Null Prima Facie says:

    Now while I believe that transsexualism is not caused by any biological cause and is merely a product of men who don’t fit male gender roles (i.e. a mostly arbitrary social construct) wanting to be able to perform there female stereotypical behaviors with impunity instead of performing the more difficult act of deconstructing these arbitrary roles; I believe that they should not be discriminated against just as any other psychologically unwell person should not be discriminated against.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Double-talk of 1979 is the double-talk of 2011; double-talk of the christianist trans-exterminationists is the double-talk of the lesbian trans-exterminationists.

      Nice try.

      • Null Prima Facie says:

        Either way i hold nothing against these persons if this is what they must do to find some strange measure of joy/hope/whatever then that is the choice they can make. I personally don’t think it is a meaningful act but so be it.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        then that is the choice they can make

        You mean like a lesbian’s choice to give up her biological destiny of being nothing more than a sperm depository and baby oven?

        Nice try.

    • This beer-drinking tryke wonders if you consider serum estradiol to be a mostly arbitrary social construct, because I didn’t change my clothes, my cadence, or my preferred choice of partner to ‘perform female stereotypical behaviors.’

    • I’m in favour of full human rights for all females, and for butches too. I believe that they should not be discriminated against just as any other psychologically unwell person should not be discriminated against.

      I’m paraphrasing Cathy Brennan here, who is in favour of human rights for “both females and trans folx”. Then quoting you.

      Actually, I don’t believe homosexuality is any more a mental illness than being left-handed is – pr being Intersex or Transsexual for that matter – but I was trying to make a point by quoting your own words back at you.

      You’re engaging in classic Patriarchal condescension. You’re doing to other women what men did in the 19th century, with psychological diagnoses of “hysteria” and “mental illness” in any woman who didn’t know her place.

      The tragedy is that, like them, you’re not even aware you’re doing it, but are acting out of the highest motives, as oppressors often do.

      The best thing I can try to do is lay the facts and objective evidence before you, in the hope that you’ll look at them, critique them, question and test them, and eventually come to an informed conclusion, whatever that might be.

  4. Null Prima Facie says:

    when did i ever mention lesbians?

  5. Kathleen says:

    Transsexual men and women who appear to bigots to conform to what they deem gender stereotypical behavior prove their inauthenticity as men and women by that gender expression.

    Transsexual men and women who don’t appear to bigots to conform to what they deem gender stereotypical behavior prove their inauthenticity as men and women.

    All transsexual men and women’s gender expression is static and involves no insight into or experience of gender discrimination. Whatever it may be proves whatever views bigots have of them.

    Yawn. I have nothing but sympathy for the bigots, of course. And support their full civil rights, even given their depravity.

    • Glen says:

      Of course this assumes that the bigots are in the wrong hence their titling as bigots.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        Do the numbers 24, 242, 110 & 17 have any significance for you? If you don’t think that they do, check with Null Prima Facie, who I bet knows their significance (or maybe Null should check with you? Its tough to keep track with all of the disposal of mail going on.)

        Beep! Beep!

      • Kathleen says:

        Obvious comment is obvious.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        this assumes that the bigots are in the wrong

        No assumption necessary. It is self-proven by the bigot.

  6. Let’s look at the statements that sex is defined by chromosomes. XY is male, XX is female, and that chromosomes are unchangeable.

    A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis. — J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9

    CONCLUSION: Donor-derived cells are capable of composing endometrium in recipients, even those of the opposite sex. — Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients by Ikoma et al in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):608.e1-8

    That is, an XX woman can end up with an XY body, even her ovaries. Anatomy is everything, chromosomes irrelevant.

    Now one can define sex as purely chromosomal; or depending on height, as “men are taller than women” so everyone above average height is *by definition* male, or anything else. Hair colour. Length of fingers. Whatever. Some definitions make more sense than others. No single metric is accurate enough to be sufficiently useful. Base it on reproductive capacity, and many will be of neither sex, and a handful of both.

    Sex in that sense is socially constructed, though based on objective biological facts. Which facts are chosen though, that varies.

    This whole ideology is based on a false premise. “The Earth is Flat, therefore…..”

    As for the idea that Transsexuality is a social construct about gender performance, with no biological component:

    Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids. by Berglund et al Cerebral Cortex 2008 18(8):1900-1908;

    Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041

    A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.

    A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.

    And so on and so on. The facts don’t support this notion, no matter how ideologically comforting it may be. Again, no matter how strong your religious or ideological commitment, no matter how damaging you may think the notion is to your beliefs about what is right or just; no matter how much you may think that the notion, if widely held, would destroy society and cause misery and chaos – the evidence is that the Earth is not Flat.

    • Orres says:

      Of course XX is said to be female and XY male because in the VAST MAJORITY of cases that holds true well enough so that it can be codified and used as a standard metric.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        Therefore, no one else exists, right?

        You sound remarkably like Maggie Gallagher, et. al., when they claim that heterosexuals hold the patent on marriage…

        …and just as lacking in standing to enforce such a claim.

        Pathetic try.

        BTW – which side is your veil on today?

      • The VAST MAJORITY does not mean a Universal., and it’s Universality that’s being claimed. An Absolute, not a useful approximation.

        The VAST MAJORITY of people on the planet have black hair. This does not mean that everyone does, nor that those whose hair colour differs are really rebelling against society, making a political or fashion statement by dyeing their hair.

        I agree that XX is female is a useful approximation – only 1 in 650 women differ. That XY is male is less useful, 1 in 300 men are not. That’s half a million in the USA alone, 22 million on the planet. But still not unreasonable. 1 in 12 people are not right-handed, yet that’s also a “standard metric”.

        But no-one claims that everyone’s “really” right-handed, that being left-handed is a perversion, abnormal, or a mental illness just because they are a minority.

      • Well if the VAST MAJORITY of people don’t have a penicillin allergy, then I guess we can just assume that the assumption can be codified and used as a standard metric… unless, you know, when one is wrong, one is HEROICALLY wrong.

  7. Orres says:

    hehehe sockpuppets found out that’s what i get for being lazy :p

  8. Kathleen says:

    “Orres says:
    August 5, 2011 at 8:55 pm
    next time i guess i’ll be a little trickier :p”

    Please do – and try for a tad less tedious while you’re at it.

  9. Orres says:

    Will do m’lady i aim to please :p

  10. What a load of crap! I see the same garbage repeated over and over in this article and can spot the logical fallacies as if they are waving a red flag. The article fetishizes transsexualism and speaks to reinforce negative stereotypes which we have had to fight for decades to overcome. This article seeks to blame transgenders who have been victims, barely mentions the FTM side of transsexualism, and marginalizes us as being subhuman and unworthy of the same rights of other human beings. How about forcing sex changes upon babies born intersexed? Over half of the time the doctors “choose” the wrong gender for the baby. And comparing transsexualism to heroin addiction is stupid and does not make any sense whatsoever. Calling a medical procedure which drastically improves the quality of our lives “mutilation” – well if you want mutilation, look at what we do to our male babies – cut off half the end of their penis through circumcision, destroying 70% of the nerves, and leaving the person without the choice over how to control their own body? It’s sick and wrong and legal. This article screams transphobia while really, there are much more important issues which should be covered.

  11. and the radical lesbian separatists are the peeps the WWBT”s claim as ‘allies’

  12. From Dana Lane Taylor’s Bilerico Project comment about the Borg Brennan hate piece and the WWBT’s taking credit for it.

    Dana Lane | August 6, 2011 8:36 PM

    At least two women of transsexual history helped with some of the technical wording of this document. I was not one of them. This was not just some document that only lesbian feminists created. As far as I am concerned, this was a groundbreaking moment in our history. This is about WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS! Not transgender rights..

    Fool…trans women’s rights are HUMAN RiGHTS….but you WWBT’s are so hell bent on oppressing people you fail to see that and in the process you aided and abetted in screwing all of us.

  13. Katrina, Monica has been using violent rhetoric long before this latest incident and she has been called out on it numerous times yet still continues. Has anyone in the transgender community called her out on it? No, they haven’t.

  14. dentedbluemercedes says:

    Thank you for drawing attention to this issue. It puzzles me why people seemed indifferent, in the beginning.

  15. Dana…is that they best you ubermenschen can do?

    Go run along now and plot your next steps in suppressing the civil rights of transpeople who don’t look like you…

      • *reads the comments from the link*

        “Considering you’re one of the only TRANS [emphasis mine] to come out in support of Women’s Liberation, that doesn’t surprise me. Hang in there. History has a way of working these things out. And you are definitely on the right side of history.”

        Wow… Dana… you let them use your history as a noun… that’s just… kinda… wow. And yeah, you can disagree with Monica on lots of busted rhetoric type things. Goddess knows, I do… that doesn’t then become a justification for denying the womanhood of trans women. That doesn’t then make surgery the point at which that innate little driver of gender buried deep in your brain, the one that told you that the cissexually-constructed boy they were trying to make you was not who you were.

        But hey, enjoy your transexterminationist cookies, because if these people ever got into power, it’d be worse than the bad old days. They could easily take ‘Empire’ and codify it into law… that’s right, those little pills you and I have to take being actually considered rape, and punished like it… because that’s the logical conclusion, that’s where all the folk who hand out with GallusMag are headed…

        Kat’s right. This would KILL trans women. But hey, for those who’ve already been able to buy transition, I guess that’s okay.

        It’s like those that hate us say: Surgery, hormones, voice training, hair removal, they won’t make you a woman… that happened at birth, and your refusal to extend that bit of recognition to other women imperils your own rights and safety.

      • Helen says:

        What Valerie pointed out — I noticed it too. Dana, they refer to you as a TRANS, not a woman. Goes to show what they REALLY think of you. It’s just sad that you’re the only one who doesn’t see it.

  16. [...] See also: Kat’s Response to this propaganda [...]

  17. You never had a case Dana outside of the self hatred issues ou need to seek help for.

    Oh by the way, you need Jesus…..

    • Do you publicly denounce the violence your participated in against Cathy Brennan? Do you also denounce violent rhetoric used against those you don’t agree with (which likely caused this situation in the first place)?

      • Do you publicly denounce the violence against trans womyn you have legitimized Dana Lane Taylor?

        This is not to defend Monica Roberts, this is to point out that, in abstract at least, I don’t know if individually after I have called her out, she respects my right to exist and my womonhood, unlike you.

  18. Valerie, You say that without publicly denouncing Monica’s words, first. How fitting. Does anyone wonder why feminist of a radical nature are disgusted with transgender people? Forcing your way into acceptance? There is a difference in fighting for laws that we need and trying to force acceptance of those needs. Forcing women to do what is against their will is not what is good for women.

    Do I think feminist of a radical flavor think I am a woman? No, I do not. And I blame transgender, inc for that.

  19. “Valerie, You say that without publicly denouncing Monica’s words, first. How fitting.”

    Do you not fucking read my blog? It’s hot linked in every entry I make:

    http://valeriekeefe.livejournal.com/36753.html

    And no, promoting acceptance of the non-operative does not diminish your womanhood any more than promoting acceptance of those who treat their PCOS does.

  20. How do you make love as a woman with a penis? Instructional video, please.

    • Oh for fucks… in a very lesbian and mutual manner, though given the chance, maybe someday like Eva Angelina does when she’s with a woman.

      Most lesbians, like me, don’t rely on penetration as the key to sex… after you get over the ‘fill a hole’ hangup of the desperately hetero-normative, sex becomes a lot easier and more creative… I have all the same tissues, all the same nerve-endings… what on earth is different other than the latitudinal relationship to my pelvic bone of my walls or my clitoris or my labia?

    • More importantly: Not with you.

    • Dana, I don’t think you understand. I have no idea how to answer your question – I didn’t get issued with one of those, not in the usual sense.

      I suggest you ask a FAAB womyn-born-womyn with CAH, some of whom *were* issued with one, despite the birth certificate and upbringing. Some are fine with that. Many Intersex people are fine with having non-standard genitalia.

      I’ll also quote Bev Jo here, whose attitudes date from the 70′s at least, long before “Transgender” as we know it today had been formulated as a concept. When given the news that one day, Trans women may be given the ability to be functionally fertile, a true sex reassignment, this is what she said:

      “oh my god, Margaret and Fab — I can just imagine their gloating if they can get female body parts and reproduce (not to mention how reproduction is destroying the earth and the likelihood of birth defects and bad health from babies coming from such a place.) There are no words to describe them. There are tiny parasitic wasps who paralyse small animals (spiders, caterpillars, etc.) and lay their eggs on them, so the animal is alive while being slowing eaten by the growing baby. But the wasps aren’t deliberately cruel. These men remind me of a deliberately female-hating version of that. They’ve prove what I’ve been saying for decades — they are more female-hating than even many het men. The character in Silence of the Lambs who skinned women to wear really seems more accurate all the time.” — http://wewillnot.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/wtf-is-with-the-intersex-comments/#comment-1022

      “I knew those fuckers were disgusting, but really, they’re worse than I thought in how they don’t even pretend to care about females. To blame us for them being killed by other men? Their arrogance and oppressiveness is amazing. It is funny though that they are so used to Feminists immediately bowing before them that they don’t know how to deal with that we don’t care what happens to them. They expect we’ll be shocked to see statistics about them being killed, and don’t realize, some of us wish they would ALL be dead.” — http://wewillnot.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/wtf-is-with-the-intersex-comments/#comment-1020

      “Pseudo, you’re right — they’re the ones who kept taking about violence and murder. But really, they should be careful about giving some angry women those ideas. I can’t imagine that every one of them hasn’t raped or molested a female at some
      point. ” — http://wewillnot.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/wtf-is-with-the-intersex-comments/#comment-995

      The threat direct. That’s the company you’re keeping – while you’re useful to them.

  21. You WWBT’s publicly renounce your odious association with radical lesbian feminist who hate the entire trans community and contributing to a paper that will negatively impact the entire trans community first.

    You are the colluding oppressors here., Dana don’t forget that..

  22. [...] As brilliantly pointed out over at ENDAblog, Brennan and Hungerford represent the latest attempt to use political ideology to take away trans people’s civil rights.  This is what hate-monger Janice Raymond did to transsexuals when she wrote her junk-science paper to stop government-funding of life saving medical treatment for trans people.  Now she is dedicating all her time to hating on sex workers and their allies and working to organize against their civil and political rights.  Because us trannies and whores, we can’t live our own lives, make our own decisions, use our own agency, no, no, no!  We need “Big Sister” to decide these things for us.  In the classic tradition of white-supremacist colonizers and imperialists, people like this use their education and their political organizing acumen to further their political ideology at all costs.     With missionary zeal, THEY will decide what is right for others, while crowing about caring for the women and children, when in fact they care only for people who repeat their party line.  Feminist and lesbian fundamentalists, these racist, cis supremacist activists are so saddened by the utter demise of their 1970s movement, that they are now grasping at straws. [...]

  23. [...] As brilliantly pointed out over at ENDAblog, Brennan and Hungerford represent the latest attempt to use political ideology to take away trans people’s civil rights. This is what hate-monger Janice Raymond did to transsexuals when she wrote her junk-science paper to stop government-funding of life saving medical treatment for trans people. Now she is dedicating all her time to hating on sex workers and their allies and working to organize against their civil and political rights. Because us trannies and whores, we can’t live our own lives, make our own decisions, use our own agency, no, no, no! We need “Big Sister” to decide these things for us. In the classic tradition of white-supremacist colonizers and imperialists, people like this use their education and their political organizing acumen to further their political ideology at all costs. With missionary zeal, THEY will decide what is right for others, while crowing about caring for the women and children, when in fact they care only for people who repeat their party line. Feminist and lesbian fundamentalists, these racist, cis supremacist activists are so saddened by the utter demise of their 1970s movement, that they are now grasping at straws. [...]

  24. [...] pen of injustice is wielded once again by first world white female authors who have submitted an unjust paper that should the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women accept their specious [...]

  25. [...] Raymond was rampaging in Chrysalis and in her full-length exterminationism manifesto and in her deceptively toned-down distillation thereof for the National Center for Healthcare Technology, she didn’t have any of her intended victims fact-checking her in [...]

  26. [...] Center for Health Care Technology on the Social and Ethical Aspects of Transsexual Surgery. – (livelink) Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

  27. [...] have caused actual harm to countless trans folk by successfully putting an end to trans healthcare for both govt and private health plans. This has resulted in the very real suffering and death of [...]

  28. [...] have caused actual harm to countless trans folk by successfully putting an end to trans healthcare for both govt and private health plans. This has resulted in the very real suffering and death of [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers

%d bloggers like this: