From Victoria Brownworth…
[I]f we take the book off the list we are indeed censoring it. It doesn’t matter what our reasons are.
…yes, that Victoria Brownworth, but not from the defense of the fraudulent Lambda nomination for the fraudulent ‘science’ of J. Michael Bailey; instead, via the Philadelphia Gay News…
…thirty summers (or so) ago – specifically, May 29, 1981:
On May 2, 1981 approximately 150 women met in West Philadelphia to vote in an emergency community meeting. The issue, which had been raised in March, was whether or not a post-operative transsexual, Leslie Phillips, could be a member of the leadership collective for the Lesbian Feminist Weekend (LFW) 1981. In a two-part vote it was decided that Phillips could neither be a member of the leadership collective nor could Phillips be a member of a committee for the LFW.
[I]f Phillips is truly interested in the concerns of women, was this person not willing to work in a less sensitive position within the ranks of Sisterspace or LFW? Why would only a leadership position be sufficient? Is it because Phillips is used – as a man – to being able to be in power? Does Phillips feel that only a leadership in a lesbian group will be the final qualifies of “her” as a “woman”?
If trans “feminists” are sooooooooo identified with “women”, why aren’t they attacking male supremacy? Why do they attack the smallest minority of other feminists?
That solitary individual who might happen to lie in wait for me, gun in hand, and, upon springing forth from whatever concealment that individial may have been able to spend an instant – or a lifetime – constructing, then demand that I hand over my valuables lest I lose my life is, in terms of numerosity, the smallest possible minority within all humanity.
Anyone who would have to ask why any person – or persons or identifiable class of persons – on the short end of such a demand would respond to such a demand with something that the issuer of said demand might, in the demander’s world view (distinguishable, of course, from what an objective, sane person would), consider to be an attack is either:
- in league with the criminal issuing the demand;
- insane; or
Neo-Raymondistic trans-exterminationists and the christianist theocratic right, no self-serving, eternally-fake victimhood daylight between them can I – or anyone with eyes – see.
From Raymond’s response to Elizabeth Rose (no relation) in Chrysalis in 1977:
To the psychotic nonsense that Rose had written in response to…
Round the bend to the transphobic gay male bullshit (for equal opportunity’s sake) of Paul Varnell and 1994…
[Transsexualism is either] a parasitic allusion to conventional differences [or] an economic device that abjectly accedes to the most conventional of a client’s sexual and gender preconceptions.
…and back again to Norah Vincent in 2000…
[W]hy, as adults, do transsexuals mutilate their bodies in order to make them conform to the fashionable version of the opposite sex and gender? That only reinforces oppressive stereotypes every bit as much as liposuction or a bimbo’s boob job. If you’re a man in a woman’s body, then live androgynously if you’re such a revolutionary.
…which is indistinguishable from 2001 or 2011 or anything before, after or in between.