…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.”
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.
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.