I am about to embark on Janice’s new book, Doublethink, so now is a good time to cover her 1979 book Transsexual Empire and do a series on her work. The edition I am reading is her 1994 version which is available on her website here: 👇
The introduction to the 1994 edition outlines her thesis but also allows her to address her critics. I will do a full post on the introduction because a) she’s worth it and b) she provides many useful rebuttals to critiques of “gender critical” women. Here are the chapter headings.
Raymond opens with the closure of the “gender clinic” at John Hopkins University. The clinic was shut down after the publication of Transsexual Empire and some people, at the time, attributed the book as a catalyst for the closure. Indeed some people still do this today. Raymond rejects that and also calls into question the public reason for the closure, suggesting it was not the whole story.
In public this was the reason given: Simple lack of efficacy in the surgical/hormonal treatment of “transsexuals”.
Raymond suspects another motive related to John Money.
These views were not restricted to Money but were, Raymond notes, quite prevalent in academic circles.
Aside on Peter Tatchell
Many of us have noticed a resurgence of the defence of paedophilia now being normalised, in some circles, as “minor attracted people”. It is notable that Peter Tatchell is still revered despite this public letter. 👇
Lest you think this is an aberration from his past you can this on his website even today. A whole section dedicated to lowering the age of consent plus a rather disturbing post about a fourteen year old.
The piece is hedged with caveats opposing paedophilia but Tatchell takes at face value Lee’s account of having sex from age eight.
Back to Transsexual Empire.
Raymond references The Lancet expressing concern about “transsexual surgeries” as late as 1991. How soon we forget!
Worth remembering that the inverted sex ratios (now 75% female referrals at the Tavistock) is a very recent phenomenon.
She goes on to suggest a number of reasons for the predominantly male “transsexuals”. One of the reasons is that females were sold alternatives. We were already profitable trying to live up to female beauty standards. 👇
The complexities of the surgeries, for females was another factor.
Phallioplasty remains a surgery with a high rate of complications such that I call it failioplasty. The results come at significant cost in terms of harvested flesh from their arms.
The results vary in terms of appearance, and require additional technical aids to sustain anything approximating an erection. The complication rates are very high as per this paper based on 1212 patients.
Raymond quotes a writer questioning why “transssexualism” is not views in the same light as identifying out of your age or race. This is one theory. 👇
Even in 1979 Raymond identified the targeting of children. How much worse this is in 2022 when we are grooming children?
Swapping “gender roles” is inherently conservative because sex stereotypes must exist in order that the “transsexual” has a template against which to role play.
Good rebuttal to those who call us “biological essentialists” 👇
Remember when David Lammy MP (U.K) called us dinosaurs?
What do “male lesbians” want?
Raymond reframes the wording in the original edition and writes that males want entry into all female environments but especially Lesbians because they wish to be part of these spaces because of their envy of Lesbian solidarity. The only form of “cultural appropriation” that is acceptable to modern day, social justice warriors.
Raymond also responds to those who accused her of wishing to strip those that claim “transsexual” identity of their human rights. I won’t reproduce it here but basically she thinks they should bet as men, not as women. She also addresses those who accused her of being a conspiracy theorists because of the title. Will be interesting to see if she still thinks this now we are seeing all the money behind “transgenderism”.
She also adds a note about the rise of “transgenderism” and the ever expanding alphabet soup. Ultimately she concludes that, even with those identifying out of the “binary” they are not “transgressing” but conforming.
She also does not miss the integral role of the “sex industry” and how many of the trans-identified males spend time in prostitution. We have all noted that SWIW and TWAW go hand in hand. (Sex Work is Work and Trans Women Are Women).
Female fetishists? I don’t think so.
Martine Rothblatt tried this trick; pretending women wearing trousers are the same as men in fishnet stockings. Nope, not going to fly!
There is some discussion of KD Laing and the cover she did with Cindy Crawford. For Raymond it was not a radical stance. (I have a vague memory that Laing was a disappointment on the “trans” issue but I can’t recall why). That section was an interesting discussion.
Stone Butch Blues was also covered. Tells the story of growing up a Butch, working class, Lesbian in the 1950’s and 60’s. Ultimately a sad story with one character taking hormones and having a double mastectomy and posing as a man, only to find she belongs nowhere.
I will leave this post there and return to look at Chapter one.
If you can support my work here is one way. 👇 I do this full-time and am not salaried. If you can help me keep my content open and free support is very welcome. Thanks, if you can, I know times are hard.
This forum is hosted by Amnesty International and referenced by the Council of Europe, below. I watched it to see how it supported the claims COE made about physical attacks.
The link for note 51 goes to a long Youtube video which I watched to see the physical attacks referenced. The discussion is in two parts. The first part is a panel talking about freedom of speech, cancel culture, J.K. Rowling and the backlash against trans people. Women resisting Gender Identity ideology are referenced as ”so called feminists” or “Terfs”. It was quite interesting to see different views on cancel culture and no-platforming and one panellist even said something skeptical about accusations of transphobia. (#cancelled). There was quite an interesting discussion about algorithms on social media. The example they give of hate on social media is about a Drag Queen who got “hate” on their TikTok. Oh, and they were very upset that only fans was going to regulate on-line porn, which they were concerned would negatively impact sex workers.
The second panel comprised of various trans organisations, representing trans adults and one representative from Finland’s equivalent of Mermaids. One of the panellists describes women opposing males in our spaces as privileged and white and says they need to educate the younger teens to keep TERFs in a minority. They also say that nobody can be educated about a trans persons life if they have not lived it, this by a a male denying women’s experiences by the way. A blue-haired, they/them says TERFs just want to retain our status as rulers. A questioner from the U.K asks how to defeat the tactics of Women’s Place U.K (WPUK) which they claim as a target victims of sexual assault, as part of a recruitment drive. A trans-id female criticises this tactic as suggesting women are weak and argues that this is an anti-feminist position. They also claim there is no evidence women are afraid as we are often really aggressive. They also say women, fighting for sex based rights, collaborate with the far right, or at least the right. As always there is scant evidence to back this up. WPUK is led by women out of the left and trade union tradition.
This panellist tells the audience that Norway allows gender recognition for children as young as six and also talks about the historic position that required trans-identified people to be sterilised. Says they still have not won compensation for this, all while demanding access to medical solutuons for “trans kids” which will, in effect, sterilise those children.
Next up a they/them female updates the panel on the position in Sweden and expresses concern that some feminists are raising concerns about the impact on women. Deidre finds it a bit disconcerting that some women still centre women in their feminism.
Next up is a female who is a blue-haired non-binary type, pronouns ”them/theirs and comes under the trans umbrella. She also raises the issue of Finnish requirements for ”sterilisation” to access legal recognition. This is a common tactic which avoids saying they want legal recognition for penis-havers to be women and instead argues against it by calling it forced sterilisation.
Final panel member is a She/Hers who echoes the concerns of the panelists but also wants to focus on the particular challenges faced by “trans people” of colour, asylum seekers and especially those engaged in what is referred to as ”sex work”. Paulie is also concerned about access to hormones for non-binary people.
You can watch the whole thing below but I just want to leave you with these thoughts. The panel are disgusted with women standing up for sex based rights. They oppose sterilisation for adult males but defend medical interventions which will make children sterile. They consistently defend prostitution as ”sex work” despite the horrendous statistics coming out of the trans-murder monitoring project.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
I have also transcribed (most of it and will add it here when I have finished Part 2.
After a potted history of her career (Baroness) Hunt made attempt at levity re the zoom times and engaging an on-line. She tells us she enjoys a live audience and, in the absence of one, she is going to get out her lego figures and pretend her Jodie Whittaker figure is here to appreciate her words of wisdom. As this is Ruth Hunt I fact checked this and there is indeed a lego figure for Whittaker.
I found it a rather painful introduction but I am not the target audience and it may have gone over quite well with “da yoof”. Ruth explains that she wishes she could see the faces of her audience. Trust me, she doesn’t want to see mine as I watch her pontificate on social justice issues.
She first provides some personal background information and we learn that her mother is a trained Nurse, midwife and a retired Professor of women’s health and midwifery. I wonder if her mum agrees with terms such as “bleeder”, “birthing person” and the attempts to pretend women’s historic position in our society has nothing to do with the fact we are of the reproductive sex class? She also shares a very personal revelation about the death of her young aunt, in childbirth. For both these reasons I find it hard to understand why she has allowed herself to be persuaded that biological sex is no more than an “identity”. Hunt also explains her Christian faith and realise she was a Lesbian. She talks about the books she read and which she doesn’t recommend, and that Lesbian kiss in Brookside.
Another revelation was that Hunt began writing for “Diva” magazine at age 16. She describes herself, at this stage as very much “Cock of the Walk”.
Diva magazine, as you may be aware, was started by Linda Riley who has an interesting background. Private Eye cover some of her chequered financial history and also her notorious involvement with the Jack the Ripper Museum; which claimed to be a Women’s history museum on it’s planning application. 😳
Ruth then treats us to a potted history of her progress through Oxford University where she became the first Lesbian to become the President of the Student Union following her grammar school education and being Head Girl. She relates how she was subsequently head hunted by prominent companies and how she was attracted to the idea of joining the Army. In the end she rejected all of these options because “they won’t want me, they want someone prettier, with longer hair and swishy head, brooch wearing and ears pierced and loveliestness (sic)” So, instead she took a job at Stonewall (U.K.) .
Ruth gives us a whistle stop tour of the achievements of Stonewall up to 2010 and how she felt they were “banking” success during this period. She also deliberately uses the phrase “Gay Rights” and explains, to her audience, that Stonewall was, in those days, campaigning for Lesbian and Gay rights and had not yet included the bisexual and trans groups in their advocacy. All that was about to change when Hunt became CEO, in 2014. Hunt’s appointment coincided with the legislation to introduce the right for Gay marriage so a cynic might say Stonewall was casting around for a new remit. Hunt describes this in a somewhat different way and seems to think her projective was all about collectivism and a move away from individualism. I find this deeply disingenuous. The neoliberalism on cross sex hormones, that is Gender Identity Ideology, is deeply individualist with a strong streak of narcissism.
Hunt contextualises the environment in which Stonewall pivoted to campaign for trans rights and makes an interesting slip in this clip. She begins to describe legislation about “Gender” and then corrects herself to acknowledge the legislation was actually to do with Sex discrimination. She makes a similar slip when she takes about the Trade Union movement being led by White male misogy…but she stops herself from acknowledging misogyny.
Ruth then talks about opposition to “trans-inclusion” which is really an opposition to the sex denialism of Stonewall’s position with the concomitant impact on Women’s (sex based) rights and Gay rights. Like many commentators she situates this conflict of rights in the context of the advent of social media and the rise of Donald Trump. Indeed Trump which may explain some backlash, in the United States, but has zero to do with the Left–wing and TradeUnion women who established, for example, Women’sPlaceU.K. This is how she characterises the debate on social media:
Ruth Hunt clearly found the responses very challenging. She is keen to point out that she has many times sat in rooms with people who disagreed with her stance on a range of issues. It is, by now, abundantly clear it is in back rooms in which Stonewall has been operating. The people who were not around this ever inclusive table, which Ruth likes to refer to, were the female people with a secondwave feminist analysis. Ruth prefers to lament a lack of social cohesion and a decline of acceptance to the Brexit vote and the rise of Trump. That serves her narrative better than the truth which is the opposition of simple, grass roots, women’s rights campaigners and Gay rights activists. Never let truth get in the way of a good story, eh, Ruth?
This next clip takes some chutzpah. Ruth thinks we don’t have FACTS! Ruth has deleted her twitter account ostensibly because it was an unproductive and agrees i’ve medium. I think she has deleted it so she can avoid scrutiny and accountability for the damage she has done to Women, especially Lesbians and our Gay youth of both sexes.
She characterises the opposition to Stonewall version of “trans rights” as “cruel” and “mean” . Yet not one word does she say about the violent threats, often sexual in nature, which accompany attacks on “Terfs”. It also doesn’t seem to occur to Hunt that is precisely the awareness campaigns, pushed by Stonewall, that have informed more and more people about Gender Identity Ideology.
In all this Hunt looks to the United States for inspiration and remind us that President Biden has his pronouns in his bio and appointed a trans person to a senior position in his administration. The trans-identified male, appointed to policy-making positions around health issues, is a heterosexual, late transitioner who publicly refused to oppose puberty blockers for children. Where Hunt feels hope there is only despair. She is right that there is a danger in our need to trade with the United States, especially post Brexit.
So where does Ruth stand on the bridge building? She concedes that there is a need to speak to the “enemy” but then goes on to say this:
So it seems Ruth Hunt has declared WAR and yet she seems in utter ignorance about why so many people, within the Lesbian and Gay community, are also at odds with the Stonewall agenda. It also seems the Lady is not for turning. There is no golden bridge for those of us who are not won over by her arguments. So how does Baroness Hunt propose to win the war?
She will be using her position in the House of Lords and also her new initiative Deeds not Words. She will be withdrawing from those talks to more backroom discussions with government departments. What is becoming clear is that this agenda doesn’t have widespread public support and Hunt likes to operate in stealth. Using the precise tactics advocated for by the Dentons Document which I cover here:
The article explains that you only need 25% of committed activists to reach a tipping point and, ironically, the hypothesis was first tested on eradicating sexist behaviour in the workplace. The authors do however identify a danger in this type of activism. It can also be used by “organisations trying to control people”
All of which brings to mind the many articles that abound in the demonic power of self-righteousness. Maybe Ruth needs to consider the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. I am not in possession of religious faith but I get a strong sense of Messianic zeal from the Baroness. Pride comes before a fall.
Ruth then expounds on her theories of declining power of our politicians and presents a theory about different kids of activism and how to use your power for good. One of the ways Ruth intends to use her power in the house of Lords is to effect legislative change to help “trans people” or to destroy women’s sex based rights, depending on your perspective. She also claims it is important to be unafraid of uncertainty which is something she may also wish to reflect upon.
Next up Ruth shares her views on forgiveness. She recounts a tale about a good friend of hers being confused about the important of pronouns. Saint Ruth realists, she tells us, the temptation to lecture her friend by, er, lecturing him on any pronouns are important t until he adds pronouns to his email.
Who exactly is writing policy for the Ministry of Justice?
This blog is going to focus on what Rothblatt had to say about prisons. Rothblatt has a lot to say about a range of issues; as a late-transitioning transsexual with an interest in Trans Humanism. I will do a series looking at Rothblatt’s ideas across a range of topics impacting women. Women are a SEX CLASS not an “identity” for men to claim whether it is done as an act of dominance or as a refuge. We can support males who reject their masculinity but no ally would claim to be the same as a woman; especially now the damage, to women, from Gender Identity Ideology, has become apparent.
Martine lays out his vision in his manifesto for a new“sexual revolution”. I find that an interesting choice of title because, from my vantage point, this is the perfect description. This a Men’s Sexual Rights movement masquerading as the civil rights issue of our time.
In this book he argues that the categories of male and female lead to a sort of apartheid, which is how he categorises sex segregated spaces. Martine argues his proposals have emerged from feminist thinking. When a man like Rothblatt starts, approvingly, quoting feminism, he is either going distort it beyond recognition, or he is quoting Dick pandering, doormat, ”Feminism”
I did a long thread, over on twitter, about Martine Rothblatt which you can find here:
What does this Martine’s vision have in store for women in prison? Martine argues that the justifications for sex segregated prisons are postulated on the basis of women’s “frailty”. He argues that these claims are suspect.
Before I continue here are some facts about the U.K Prison estate. 👇These were published in 2020 and represent the data as of November 2019. Please be aware that, stark as the sex differences are, some of these offenders are males allowed to blame their crimes on women. Despite this, state-sanctioned, gaslighting, the male-inclusive, category of women is still a tiny proportion of the prison population. Women are less likely to be imprisoned for crimes against the person and only 2% are recorded as imprisoned for sex offending. Note that some of those “female” crimes are actually committed by males. Thanks to a recent court case we now know that there is an over-representation of male “women” incarcerated for sex offences. With such small numbers even one male added to this category of criminal offences can make a huge difference. Hence we have an entire programme on the BBC expressing horror at an 84% rise in female paedophiles. Are they female? Really? Shamefully the BBC chose not to question the data, Fairplay For Women did, see link below.
He goes on to argue for his own solution to prison accommodation in a novel version of carceral feminism. Unbelievably he argues sex segregated, prisons have done nothing to stop rape in prisons. What he fails to mention is he is talking about male on male rape! (See below). Of course the Prison Industrial Complex, especially after the introduction of the profit motive, keeps costs low by providing low staff to prisoner ratios. I don’t disagree that the prison system fails to protect vulnerable, male, prisoners in the male estate. Prison reform campaigners have long argued single occupancy cells would reduce the numbers of men raped and murdered. Yet the solution selected has been to place, actual, and so called, “vulnerable” males, claiming a female identity, in the women’s estate. This has resulted in male sex offenders being housed with women, illustrating the naivete, or worse, nefariousness, of the architects of the policy. A system which denies women’s need for sex segregation and prioritises the needs of males, is a blatant example of institutional sexism.
Even worse is that final sentence. Men are to be allowed to mix with women because it may help with their rehabilitation. This is woman, as support human, territory.
FARMER V BRENNAN
Here Martine quotes a court case from 1994 where a be-penised inmate, who Rothblatt calls “her”, sued the government to be moved out of the prison where he was held. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was also involved in that case, but didn’t act for the prisoner.
I took a little detour to look at the Farmer case. Dee Farmer had a twenty year sentence for credit card fraud. They appear to have been moved to a higher security prison following further offences in the prison estate. They were a pre-operative “transsexual” in terms of being penis-intact. They had been transferred to the higher security prison because of a continued pattern of criminal offences. (No violent ones were reported or sex offences against women).
Dee was moved to administrative (segregated) detention due to engaging in consensual sex, whilst HIV positive. Farmer was seeking a move to a lower security prison with less violent offenders. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg drew attention to other groups of vulnerable male offenders in the oral arguments. In my darkest (or more realistic?) moments I think the madness may end when other (Gay?) males claim discrimination because they are being treated less favourably. Maybe men will be listened to and effect some change? Policy makers and politicians are clearly comfortable with ignoring the negative impact on women.
They were not asking to be moved to the female estate having dropped an earlier petition as detailed below. Undoubtedly, were this case to be brought today, the claimant would have targetted a move to the female estate.
BACK TO ROTHBLATT.
Now we come to some of the practicalities of this new utopia. Here Martine has to deal with the fact that women exist, as a sex class, and the fact it is the female people who get pregnant. How does he propose to get around this? We will forcibly implant contraceptives in the women and suppress sperm production in the men. The risk of pregnancy, he argues, can be remedied by a pharmaceutical solution which he is quite happy to be “mandatory”.
Here he avoids the use of woman but reduces the inmates to their “genitalia”. The use of “accidental pregnancy” also avoids having to confront whether these pregnancies would be the result of rapes; a distinct possibility when female prisoners are confined with men. Nowhere does he address the fact that 99% of prison convictions for sexual offences are committed by the male sex or the fact the female population will be vastly outnumbered by the men.
In summary, Martine constructs an argument which ignores the significance of biological sex in determining likely predators and prey. He leverages the clear vulnerabilities of a pre-op transsexuals. He conveniently ignores likely vulnerability of other young males; who may be gay and also deviate from accepted performances of masculinity. Worst of all he is prepared to expose women to serious risk because he cannot bear any division between his imaginary female identity and actual women. This is the misogyny peculiar to autogynephiles.
He then proposes the barbaric, and likely illegal, mandatory contraception for women. He shows little concern this is necessitated by the higher risk of rape. As an aside he claims that mixing the sexes may encourage lower rates of recidivism, a spurious claim given that you are providing sex offenders with captive prey. These men are not known for their restraint.
This book is from 1994. Had I encountered it at the time I would have dismissed this as merely the work of a deranged mind. Never could I have imagined it as a blueprint for the future. In 2021 it is eerily reminiscient of official Ministry of Justice policy and that should enrage us all.
You can support my work here. Only do so if you have surplus cash I know many people are struggling.
In order to contextualise the exporting of Gender Identity Ideology to the African continent it is necessary to look at the current legal position in respect of Lesbian and Gay rights. In many countries it remains illegal to be homosexual and , even where it is legal, this is relatively recent. Furthermore where laws have been enacted it doesn’t necessarily correlate with social attitudes within countries. It is possible that laws favoured by metropolitan elites do not necessarily translate transform prejudice overnight. It is also important that any data looks at the treatment of Lesbians and Gay males separately. As you can see they are not always treated equally.
Furthermore where laws have been enacted it doesn’t necessarily correlate with social attitudes within countries. Passing laws, favoured by metropolitan elites, do not necessarily transform prejudice overnight. A point made by an organisation (ILGA) who are one of the main drivers for the propagation of Gender Identity Ideology which, from one perspective, is increasingly at odds with Lesbian and Gay rights.
he same site also tracks Trans rights across the same geographic area. Note the number of countries that allow legal recognition, on the basis of “gender” with no requirement for any level of commitment re bodily modification.
Thus there are large swathes of territory in Africa who have approved, effectively, introduced a form of Self-Identified “gender” as well as areas where there is a degree of ambiguity or, at least, no prohibition. One can only fear the consequences in a country which outlaws homosexuality but allows a form of “transition”.
A case in point would be Iran: Homosexuality is illegal and subject to extreme punishment.
This article, from 2014, shows the unintended (or intended?) consequences of that disparity in treatment between the LGB & The T. In this article a Lesbian talks about how she was subject to discrimination for failing to conform to sex stereotypical modes of dress and expression. Her route out was seven years of cross sex hormones until she finally accepted that she was simply a Lesbian.
It seems astonishing to me that more campaigners for Gay Rights do not see the inherent danger of promulgating Gender Identity Ideology in countries with a fragile, or no, acceptance of homosexuality. However, lest we feel smug at the enlightened nations of the West, see this blog on our own version.
Posting this to document the situation on the African Continent in preparation for part two of my piece on a U.K. Foundation promoting Gender Identity Ideology, across Africa, under the badge of funding for International Development.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a legal case or a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News.
Owen Jones talks to Judith Butler the Queen of Queer Theory. Full transcript attached. It was almost impossible to work out where the punctuation was intended. Apologies in advance to the Grammar police, I may have lost the will to live at some point. Transcription errors are mine. Failures of logic are Butler’s.
OJ seems very keen to draw Butler into his public disagreement with Suzanne Moore. The piece starts, quite abruptly, with Butler criticising an unnamed woman who, we learn later, is Suzanne Moore. I would call this a response but it bears little resemblance to Moore’s actual writing on this topic. JK Rowling also comes under attack, as do feminists Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffries.All women. When a man seeks to draw women, oops Non-binary persons, into criticising their fellow women, I am a tad suspicious of the driving motivation.
Plenty of men have expressed skepticism about Gender Identity Ideology, including DouglasMurray (Gay Man) and PiersMorgan. He could have also targeted Simon Fanshawe (Stonewall founder and Gay man) who gave his support to LGB Alliance. Why did Jones pass up an opportunity to skewer his, male, political opponents? Instead he has his sights trained on a bunch of left-wing, trade union, women. Could it be that Owen knows what biological sex is when it matters….to him?
Transphobia and Islamophobia.
Owen asks Butler for her opionon on what is happening with British transphobia. Butler hesitates, for about a millisecond, to be the kind of American who comments on other countries. In her reply Butler hands Owen the answer he wants about British feminists, and simultaneously demonstrates her their complete ignorance about the U.K context. Butler is another U.S “feminist” who would be better concentrating on fighting for maternity leave and reproductive autonomy in their own country. U.K women will continue to fight for the sex-based rights these silly women are giving away. (Butler refers to UK women as silly and our arguments ridiculous so I make no apology for replying in kind).
If you are looking for dazzling insights, into feminism, prepare to be disappointed. If you seek incitement to hate on women, you came to the right place: It’s full of bitchwhistles. Owen, “I am not a misogynist” Jones runs through the usual slurs.
Dismissal of “Older” women. ✅
Owen deliberately ignores the impact of Gender Identity Supremacy on Gay Rights. What happens to SEXual orientation if men can claim to be Lesbians? Nowhere does he mention that many of us are parents of Gay Males. Some of us find it hard to see why calling our sons “girl”in the playground is “bullying” but when the Tavistock and Queer Theorists do it it’s “affirmation”. Why let the truth get in the way of a bit of performative misogyny?
In Butler Land sex, is of course, assigned at birth. The way Butler talks about the inside of the delivery room is reminiscient of the bonkers group Action for Trans Health. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this group, let me remind you, they argued that identifying biological sex was a violent act of State coercion. Butler continues in this vein with the inevitable guff about chromosomes making sex so, so, complicated to determine. Butler’s ham fisted attempt to deny biological reality echoes an average day, playing intersex bingo, with the Queer Theory twitterati.
I expected she would have enough in her arsenal to make me second guess myself. Nope. Turns out What the Butler Saw was not much.
The Trans person’s burden.
The idea that “transphobic” feminists are responsible for the deaths of “trans” people is how Owen chooses to frame the interview. The reference to suicide, at the outset, is grossly irresponsible. To promulgate the False suicide narrative, knowing people who identify as “trans” are among his most devoted acolytes, shows a reckless disregards for the dangers of fostering suicide ideation. Not only is this contrary to Samaritan’s guidance, on media coverage, it is cheap, emotional blackmail. This is Butler’s response to Suzanne Moore’s purported stance.
This is quickly followed by more transperbole. Women. Look what you made me do! Failure to recognise the preferred name/ identity of trans-identifying people means they will be unable to eat and breathe!
Later Butler depict’s Moore defending of women’s rights as based on a deep, subjective feeling that women wish to deny others.
You have just spent ages saying there is no right way to be a woman. Yet, here you are, saying being a woman is defined by this inner, subjective, feeling that we are woman. I don’t have this “genderfeelz” thing. I just am a woman. On the basis of this argument I will have to kick myself out of my own sex class… and see Butler in the non-binary section.
After the diatribe on Moore’s failure to understand trans peope etc Butler makes an astonishing attack:
Now, when someone like Suzanne Moore says “Oh transwomen just think they’re women because of a feeling they have”, That’s a deeply dismissive, transphobic… I’m sure she would be proud to be transphobic I don’t think it’s a falsehood to call her transphobic. I think she values transphobia. She wants more of it in the world.
No wonder Jones felt obliged to insert this slide..
Next up Butler bastardises feminist thought. They/Them repurposes centuries of work questioning the social construction of “femininity”, to better serve our Trans overlords. UK feminists have long argued that Gender Identity appears to be based on regressive, sex stereotypes. Butler bollox twists this to lend credence to the foolish notion that we have no idea what a man or woman is! Queer Theory does not, in fact, deconstruct “femininity”, or “masculinity” , it merely reassigns the sex of anyone who doesn’t successfully perform sex stereotypes. Queer Theorists also throw in a veritable smorgasboard of other identities like a post-modern pick and mix. Butler has, we later learn, opted for Non-binary, something inbetween. Sigh.
What is a woman?
This might fool a neophyte, like Jones, it ought not to have fooled so many others. Of course we should deconstruct societal expectations, of both femininity and masculinity. That should not mean reifying sexist stereotypes to assign flamboyant males, or butch women a new sex designation! Note the failure to conform to uber pornified “femme” presentation covers many more of us than Butch lesbians. It’s the stereotypes. Stupid!
More on the same theme. Who are these Women who do a thing and then immediately think, the doing of the thing, means they are “not really a woman”. When I was the person paying the mortgage one of the banks we applied to only had the option for MAN:Yes or MAN:No. This was twenty years ago, in England, not Afghanistan! Who exactly was telling me this was not something a woman should do? Could it be that the computer system was designed by a bloke still shocked that women had their own bank accounts? Why would this make me question my sex, rather than note the sexism?
What is “gender”?
The current trend for asserting the primacy of “Gender Identity”, over biological sex, is doing the EXACT same thing as rigid enforcement of sex appropriate roles. Are you are girl who likes short hair, trains, playing with boys, computer games? Are you really a “boy”? Same for boys who are bakers not fighters. It’s so utterly regressive. Before all this Queer Theory bollocks we were making some headway fighing to liberate females and males from these constraints. NOW? Oops I seem to be a great scientist and I fancy women: I must really be a man.
Butler’s arguments are so full of hesitation, deviation and repetition. They are also hard to follow. We are informed that, after Butler publishing her book,Gender Trouble, she had some negative feedback from the Trans community and how she learned to listen to trans people. They were were at pains to dispute the idea their Gender Identity was not innate. Butler offers up trans theorists who claim an innate Gender Identity and advises this is an area of much debate within “trans-studies”. She is abject in her desire to learn at the feet of the great trans theorists and scold’s transphobic feminists for not reading her recommended gurus. (We have, Judith. We just thought it was regressive claptrap, but, hey, maybe if it were not for my #LadyBrain I could grasp how this is meant to be progressive).
Butler concedes that there is a vast difference in expections of 1950’s women to modern day expectations. She understands the formation of “Gender Identity” varies according to historical context but still claims “Gender” is so deeply seated it is not really a choice.
So it’s not chosen. It’s not innate. It’s historically changeable but also deep seated. These are the kind of intellectual acrobatics required to include Bearded Lesbians, like Alex Drummond, under the trans umbrella.
Butler also takes issue with the misunderstandings about Gender which she patiently explains, obfuscates. Gender is performative but not a performance, its deep-seated but not innate, it is performative but it’s not artificial, it’s a powerful social and historical reality but it isn’t just based on sex stereotypes. Keep up on the back benches. Are you really going to legislate based on this nebulous concept?
Here is how Butler experiences their “gender”. Seeing so many drag queens in gay bars helped Butler understand that some men could out perform her in “femininity”. Yep. People. This is what passes for progressive thinking. Women who don’t perform in the s expected way are somehow failing at being women and therefore must be non-binary? Men? #NobodyDoesItBetter apparently.
Stonewall and Historical Revisionism
Below Owen reminds us that Stonewall only added campaigning for the T in 2015. It has taken just five years to destroy an organisation once remarkable for it’s work defending gay rights. As we can see from this clip they justified this by the historical revisionism which claims Transwomen were key players in the Stonewall Riots. This is an egregious lie. In fact the Stonewall Riots were started by a Lesbian and supported by Gay men. Transsexuals /Transwomen played a minor, to non-existent, role. To see OJ cravenly thanking trans people for their liberation, as a gay man, is cringe-making. Later in the piece both Butler and Jones criticise historical revisionism and completely overlook this example of their own. In the same section Butler claims that post-modernists are not in the business, as far as she knows, of denying facts. Pull the other one.
(Ruth Hunt now has a seat in the House of Lords. For swelling the Stonewall coffers with Trans Lobby cash and, in doing so, destroying the reputation of a once venerable organisation. Interview with Ruth Hunt , below, on Hard Talk makes it clear she measured success by revenue. Looking forward to how Ruth Hunt revises her history when the damage to young lesbians becomes clear. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy97p)
Next up. This is how Butler characterises writers like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffries and women who are campaigning for penis free spaces. This argument would not be out of place on a Men’s Rights Forum, because this is exactly what this movement is. Butler below doing the classic #NotAllMen so beloved by MRAs and TRAs.
Once again. We exclude ALL men to safeguard women and girls from the FEW. We exclude ALL men not just for safety but for privacy and dignity. It is perfectly reasonable for women and girls to wish to undress, shower and acccess the toilets in FEMALE ONLY spaces.
Here she is on JK Rowling. Women talking about a history of domestic abuse are leveraging their trauma in order to persecute others!
Here are JK Rowling’s actual words. Trigger warning. They are PERFECTLY REASONABLE!
To end. Well worth watching this snippet to see Owen spluttering an apology after making a capital error and failing to respect Mx Butler’s identity! OJ decides to ask a question from one of his viewers and …
He, of course, blames the questioner..another woman and Butler makes her their feelings perfectly clear.
I didn’t disagree with Butler on everything. She gives a creditable account of why the work of Kimberle Crensaw is important. Not withstanding the reputation of intersectional feminism is now utterly ruined by the parasitic leeching of Gender Identity Ideology. It is certainly true that women could have made common cause with refugees from masculinity IF they had not turned out to be neo-colonialists. Certainly those of us who are not willing to give up our sex based rights are not, as Butler mischaracterises us, unconcerned with structural racism. Once again the hijacking of #BlackLivesMatter by the obsession with trans issues has haomorrhaged respectability for that campaign, but the initial aims were laudable.
I also wholly endorse this statement though for rather different reasons than Butler
If you can support my work your contribution would be deeply appreciated. I am able to speak up because I have no employer, and therefore no income. If you have the latter but are not able to speak up this is a way you can help.
Transgender Guidance, for schools, draws support for its interpretation of the law from the Department of Education (DFE). This document illustrates how they have been cognitively captured by many of the prominent Trans Lobby groups. Many references to GIRES and Stonewall. None to women’s groups. Not a single one. The DFE also reference the Cornwall guidance which was the subject of my previous blog.
This is the document which advised schools how trans-identified pupils are covered by the, legally protected, characteristic of Gender Reassignment.
It is important to remember that sexual reassignment surgery is prohibited for under 18 year olds, on the NHS. Granting permission to male pupils, to use facilities in accordance with their “gender”, is mandating girls to accept penis in their intimate spaces. Gender reassignment was not intended to cover the modern idea of what it means to be trans.We did not consent to this.
The DFE briefing relies on advice from Stonewall and the Gender Identity and Research Education Society. (GIRES). A brief look at their supporters and trustees shows a heavy presence from trans-identified males. Below is a quick look at attitudes to sexual harassment from prominent transgender activists some of them associated with GIRES.
Anyone remember #MeToo? Is this the backlash?
Carlotta is not the only trans-identifying male who thinks women over react to men’s sense of entitlement to our bodies. There is a marked difference between a male and female perspective on sexual harassment. Paris Lees is advertised as a GIRES supporter on their website. Here Paris celebrates being objectified and arrogantly dismisses female fears about how transgender rights are being used to attack women’s right to single sex spaces. Ironically statistically escalators are more of a risk than Paris appreciated. There were, in fact, more people killed in escalator accidents than trans people were unlawfully killed, by all causes, in the year of this tweet. I would not trust Paris Lees to risk assess women’s expose to harm when single sex spaces become uni-sex.
A cursory look at the hyper-sexualised, look at me, performances of “femininity” from prominent TransGender activists bears witness to the fact that Paris Lees is not an outlier. Here Carlotta illustrates that males look at sexual abuse in a different way to women? For transgender males their perception is skewed because they have an excessive need to be validated, as women, which predisposes them to welcome what we repudiate.
I bring this up because, it seems to me, policy around sex segregated spaces is being DICKtated by males. Yes they may wish to identify as women but they seem unable to identify with our experience. The lobby groups advising government are drawn from this same population. Is it any wonder they have absolutely no idea of what it was like to grow up as a teenage girl? A cursory glance at the trustees of GIRES and supporters is enough to illustrate their likely bias.
As a result of these lobby groups we are opening up single-sex spaces at a time of unprecedented rates of sexual assault in schools. Here are a couple of slides from a presentation by MaureenO’Hara.👇. Over 600 rapes in a three year period. I was staggered by that figure.
Here is your regular reminder De Facto Self-identity, of “Gender” has already been introduced in policy if not in law.
The DFE will end up with a future appearance at the Inquiry into child sexual abuse, the only questin is when. We do not want to wait thirty years. We need to hold people accountable, during their time in office, and not when they are deceased or honoured with a with a seat in the House of Lord and a massive pension.
The usual suspects.
A lot has changed in the six years since this guidance was written. I suspect even the most zealous of Transgender Rights Activists (TRAs) didn’t anticipate the explosion of trans identifying children. My school, of 1000 pupils, had at least three females and one male in one year group! This is no longer “rare”. Eventually one would hope that politicians would wake up to the obvious connection between proselytising Gender Identity Ideology and rising rates of children claiming to be transgender.
Here the DFE expand on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and why it is deemed to cover school children.
👇 Again they link to GIRES website.
This was surely not the intention of the original lawmakers. Exhibit A. John Bercow. Hansard. Once again the interchangeability of gender as a proxy for sex makes for bad law. Bercow may have intended to reassure over single sex spaces or to obfuscate.
I am starting to come out in a rash when I see the word “gender”. The word that needs to be used all the time is sex. This quote below is disingenuous because all the guidance that flows from this has, effectively, stopped treating sex as a protected characteristic. This is a major change and not simply a reduction in paperwork.
I was not aware that harassment only applies to disability, race and sex but not the other categories listed. I will defer to legal peeps on what this means in reality. One noted feature of this is that gender identity is covered by hate crime legislation, even though it is not a legally protected characteristic. Sex, which is a protected character, is not covered. I am no fan of hate crime legislation, especially the ridiculous hate crime incident category, but women can’t point to any statistics on the hatred we experience using this method. A man can report misgendering as a hate crime but women can’t report any sexist abuse.! Women can’t laugh at a man but he can abuse us with impunity.
The inevitable referral to the Stonewall website and more links to GIRES material. The guide quoted below was made possible by funding from the Home Office which you can find confirmed in their accounts for year ending December 2013. When the fashion for outsourcing took over the governments, of all political persuasions, I had not understood this included sub contracting their own critical thinking. Lobby groups have been allowed to corrupt policy, and law, in this area for far too long.
It is well worth having a look at the GIRES website and, in particular, their trustees. Populated by trans activists with a strong presence from late -transitioning males with backgrounds in hyper-masculine occupations. They also have a trustee who is steeped in Queer Theory and can be found quoting Judith Butler in what reads like a PhD level argument for men who want to retain their penis. Here is a quote from Reubs Walsh from their public writing and their YouTube channel.
Reubs can also be found opposing the Keira Bell judgement and arguing for the early medicalisation of children. Once again I am struck by the contrast between adult men constructing arguments against surgery, presumably for themselves, but advocating medical solutions for children.
Support for my work. paypal.me.STILLTish
If you are unable to speak out and can support me to continue to undertake research my details are below. I am not in receipt of any form of income so every little bit helps me continue to devote myself full-time. Only give if you are able.