Dear transactivists: stop no-platforming feminists

One of the key, stated motivations driving liberal transactivists is to end unjust violence and discrimination inflicted on a marginalised group: violence that should never be condoned. Many transactivists I know are community-minded liberals who want to make life easier for a minority group suffering discrimination – and that is fair enough.

I would be on board with this campaign, too, if it was not in actual fact so clearly focussed on attacking women; and if it did not pose such a huge, persistent and aggressive threat to women. Transactivism has to date been so effective in its silencing and bullying of women too, at taking down feminists whatever their public profile, that it also reveals itself as something much bigger and more sinister than a grassroots movement based on solidarity.

It also makes no sense to attack women, and feminists, if your ultimate concern is with gender-based violence. Feminists have been speaking out about rape, child marriage, sex trafficking, domestic abuse, witch hunting, female genital mutilation and gynocide; discrimination in education, politics, the workplace and the legal system; pathologisation, conversion therapy and abuse through the medical establishment; forced surrogacy, the criminalisation of abortion, miscarriage and self defense; the promotion of violence through objectification in media, eating disorders, self-harm and dysphoria, and more, for a very long time. To shut down feminists who have analyses about how these forms of oppression co-exist is counter-productive to any effort to end gender-based violence. It is also pure misogyny.

As Jonah Mix points out,

Women commit perhaps one-tenth of all murders, and less than one tenth of one percent of all mass shootings. When one removes from the pool of killers all women who struck back against abusive strangers and partners alike, only to be punished for their self-defense, the number drops further. To deny the specifically male nature of atrocity is to fool oneself.

So it seems highly suspect that a movement claiming to want an end to gender-based violence should train its eye so consistently on the very people who have been victim to it, and speaking out against it, for so long. This would also seem to be contrary to the aims many activists claim to have.

The no-platforming of feminists taking place internationally at the moment is vicious, unrelenting and not to mention – embarrassing and vacuous, and we need to stop imitating it in New Zealand. Here, I wish to introduce some of the people who have been victim to this no-platforming craze. Recognising who these people are should make us ask ourselves some questions about who really benefits from their silencing; how grassroots and community-minded transactivism really is, internationally; and what our personal relationship is to it.

Julie Bindel is a staunch lesbian feminist to whom we all owe a debt for her incredible work as a writer, activist and organiser, begun in the 1970s. She has also spent countless hours on helplines since then, as part of her work supporting lesbians to come out in the anti-gay climate of the Thatcher era. She also founded the organisation Justice for Women, which advocates for women in the face of self defense criminalisation. She is scheduled to talk about her life on February 4 this year, at the Working Class Movement Library in Salford. She is being shut down by a mob of transactivists hurling abuse and insults she is courageous to withstand.

planned-parenthood-menstruators
Singleton objects to reproductive health organisations calling women “menstruators”.

I met MaryLou Singleton last September. Singleton has been a midwife for over two decades and a reproductive rights advocate for as long, and she also served on the board of directors for the Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA). Singleton opened my eyes to a practice that the second wave feminists used, called menstrual extraction. It’s a skill that women can cultivate in groups to ensure that sisters will always have access to early term abortions, even when clinics are shut down left, right and centre. Singleton also is the first person I’ve heard speak powerfully on home birth from a feminist perspective. She is a herbalist who believes in women’s health in women’s hands – a stauncher, braver sister is not to be found.

Singleton has been abandoned by her midwives’ association, since she objected to MANA buckling under pressure placed on them by the trans lobby, and removing all references to “women” from their advocacy and documentation. Transactivists often emphasise the dehumanising potential of language. Yet women are expected to accept being referred to as “menstruators”, with “front holes” instead of vaginas. Because Singleton rejects this and can also contextualise this pressure within a history of witch hunting and abuse through a male dominated practice of gynecology, she has been no-platformed and bullied incessantly.

So far, we have a hard-working herbalist midwife, and a journalist who founded a Justice for Women organisation who has spent her life answering calls on helplines. At what other “violent” feminists should we all be throwing stones?

Thistle Pettersen is another woman I met last year. She is a feminist singer-songwriter, environmentalist and radio broadcaster who used to volunteer for WORT 89.9FM, a radio station in Wisconsin. In late 2015, Pettersen did a live interview with feminist Sheila Jeffreys, and later aired a 58 minute radio documentary about the last MichFest (MichFest was an annual women-only festival that has now been shut down). Transactivists complained at the station and Pettersen was banned from the premises. As is typical, this no-platforming came with its share of abuse: Pettersen received death threats, and she also received an anonymous package in the mail containing human faeces.

Pettersen now runs her own online radio station, called Women’s Liberation Radio News: unique in its all-female production team and coverage of a range of women’s issues, it comes highly recommended.

Last year, I was personally banned from the Wellington Zinefest because I am a feminist blogger. The Zinefest has not responded to my, or any other letters asking them for more information, or expressing upset, about the ban. This hit-and-run style maneuvre is also characteristic: transactivists often do not feel their no-platforming of women requires any explanation or accountability. My job was targeted following the Zinefest ban, while one transactivist who is also “community liaison” for the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective (NZPC) launched an online bullying pact against me. I was forced to resign from my job in the midst of this.

ahi-threatens-pala
Ahi Wi-Hongi threatens ni-Vanuatu academic and activist Pala Molisa with job loss and legal action.

This transactivist, Ahi Wi-Hongi, then moved on to another target: ni-Vanuatu activist and academic Pala Molisa. Molisa’s work involves continuing the legacy of his late mother, Grace. Her and Molisa’s father Sela were instrumental in Vanuatu’s independence struggle throughout the 1970s. Grace’s feminism was shaped from very early on, as she grew up in the matrilineal society and culture of Ambae.

Molisa has worked tirelessly to rebuild links between Maori and Pasifika; raise awareness of genocide in West Papua, and support feminist struggle for several years. He also works with a Naenae College rugby league team regularly, helping them to imbue their school life and training with a spirit and awareness of Pacific resistance struggle.

Molisa has barely spoken about gender identity politics, at all. Yet attacks are now being made on his job (see the image adjacent) as well as speaking engagements, on the basis of critiques he has shared on social media.

To attack Molisa is to attack a voice continuing an intergenerational legacy to make huge strides in discussions on indigenous rights and colonisation in New Zealand and the Pacific.

Who else is being targeted by this lobby? There is an extensive list here, but another recent example is Meghan Murphy. Murphy is a writer who runs Feminist Current, perhaps the only online news source that is fully run and funded by women, for women, and has no sponsorship that can compromise its feminist objectives and critiques. It too, was shut down on Thursday 12 January by transactivists, doing the patriarchy’s work for it, with absolutely nothing articulate to say about their objectives.

As George Orwell wrote in the novel 1984: “Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

memeThese transactivists seem to operate on the completely unthinking notion that feminist critiques of identity politics motivate male violence. As if male perpetrators of violence learn to be abusive by listening to herbalist midwives, or feminist community radio, or by reading Meghan Murphy or Julie Bindel or feminist zines, or studying with a Pacific academic whose critiques of colonisation are inspired by his mother, a woman raised on the island of Ambae.

Feminist writing and midwifery are not the kinds of activities that motivate male violence, as if that needs explaining.

This no-platforming is frightening, the reason why should be clear from my description of what these feminists contribute to women’s movement. One thing all of these feminists do is create and contribute to feminist media in a world where most media is totally male owned and controlled. In a Trump-era where women and women’s rights are increasingly under attack. Anyone who tries to shut them down is not a feminist, by any stretch.

I’d like us in New Zealand to be more concerned about these movements. I’d love groups like Ace Lady Network to show some concern about this kind of thing. The attacks made on Julie Bindel, MaryLou Singleton, on Thistle Pettersen, Meghan Murphy, Pala Molisa, myself and countless others, are a threat to all women’s media, to women’s rights and to all women. We need to be concerned, and transactivists here in New Zealand should take a long, hard look at what is going on, who is behind it, and what they’re really aligning themselves to.

By its rapid growth, government and corporate funding, increasing presence in schools and media; influence on policy on issues from bathroom laws (which Donald Trump supports) to birth certificates, from sports participation to media reporting, reproductive health advocacy and access to women’s spaces – it’s clear that transactivism is not grassroots. That is one reason it needs to be considered critically, rather than advocated unthinkingly.

gender-revolution
Neither of these images contain females. Bear in mind that Rupert Murdoch now owns National Geographic.

If you are a genuinely community-driven transactivist, please consider whether the wider movement and its targeting of women truly represents your own aims.

Do you celebrate when people born male can be recognised as women, and celebrate their womanhood in its full glory? Right – do you also celebrate when women are referred to as “menstruators” by the very reproductive health organisations they fought to establish? When Trump and Caitlyn Jenner pat one another on the back? Do you celebrate at the thought of nurses referring to a woman’s “front bottom” while she is giving birth? How about when lesbians are called bigots for not wanting penile penetration? It is progress when male violence is reported in the media as having been committed by females – for instance in this case of a recent axe attack in Sydney? Is it not of concern that this distorts the discussion of male violence that women need to have? Is it only right to you, when young girls – the very girls we are trying to teach about “consent” – are demonised for expressing concern about seeing male genitalia in their own changing rooms? Do you cheer watching the hard-won feminist struggle for safe female only spaces put into reverse? And first pump when males who identify as women dominate in women’s sports, which are still under- represented, supported and funded in preference of men’s? Is it fine that the transactivist movement tends to ignore critiques of the medical establishment practices it advocates, from detransitioners who’ve been there? Doesn’t this movement pride itself on amplifying marginalised voices?

If you celebrate all of these “triumphs”, you may want to consider calling yourself a men’s rights activist.  If you can see why these things might be problematic – then please, stand up for free speech when lobbyists who do not care about women – attack and no-platform feminists. This craze is embarrassing to watch unfold in the U.K. and the States – we do not need it in our midst as well.

We need to talk about gender-based violence – and for that we need feminist voices.

If you liked this article feel free to leave a tip.

$
Personal Info

Donation Total: $2.00

32 thoughts on “Dear transactivists: stop no-platforming feminists”

  1. Reblogged this on k p m © and commented:
    This is a bloody interesting article that should make you think critically with regards to feminism, the gender revolution and transactivism.

  2. Right, going to reply to each of the points raised at the bottom:

    1. No, I do not celebrate women being referred to as menstruators – I celebrate that reproductive health organizations are acknowledging that trans men, nonbinary individuals, and some intersex individuals, none of whom identify as women, might still be menstruating, and also deserve inclusion. This isn’t about reducing womanhood to menstruation, but rather defining a service by the very action it is for (and the fact that said action does not apply only to women!!!) and it only appears that way if you believe, from the getgo, that trans activism is intrinsically about objectifying women.

    2. Trump and Caitlyn Jenner patting each other on the back is a matter of two rich white people enjoying each other’s rich, white company. Nothing more, nothing less. She is an embarrassment to the transgender activist community and not representative of our views or of our agenda. Your article mentions corporate sponsorship, but I hope you don’t think Caitlyn is behind that, because (as far as I know, anyway) her transgender politics do not align with the activists.

    3. I don’t know any transgender activists who are pushing for the language “front bottom,” I think in general we just want people to respect how we choose to define our own parts, and I think even that can go too far sometimes. If that is a common or aggressive part of transgender activism from your perspective I would appreciate a clear link to it, and I will take a closer look.

    4. Lesbians being called bigots for not wanting penetration from a penis is definitely a problem in our community, I’ll agree with you on this one. That said, the sword cuts both ways; many people, including cis women, who identify as lesbians truly DO believe that “women loving women” means gender loving gender, not genital loving genital, and much of the rejection of trans women as potential partners is centered in the rejection not of the genitals themselves (particularly since many trans women don’t have a penis anyway), but of the perceived spectre of “male.” And to be clear, yes, many trans women have residual men-supporting beliefs and attitudes – just like many cis women do, including lesbians. It’s a feature of growing up in patriarchy. Those of us who are actually feminist work to buck it just like you do. I will concede, again, though, that there is certainly a space in transgender activism for people who are NOT feminist at all but still aggressively pro-trans, and I do agree that those two things cannot peacefully co-exist at all. That space needs to be closed.

    5. The article you linked to about an axe attack – am I supposed to understand that the attacker was a trans woman? Can you provide a source for that? The article just says she’s a woman and doesn’t specify what kind…? Even if she is a trans woman though, it is certainly the case that women occasionally commit violent crimes. I agree that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men, but I don’t think characterizing trans women as “male” and therefore in the same category as men is helpful, no. You article mentions how the vast majority of atrocity is “male,” but only insofar as for most of the world and most of history, “male” and “men” have been considered synonymous. We have to realize now that those words aren’t synonymous. I am more than willing to talk about men’s violence, but I don’t see much utility in lumping a disturbed member of my community in with them, and I find it kind of upsetting how you suppose that it is so obvious that I should want that. I don’t think mischaracterizing one anomalous trans woman as “male” helps make the point that men’s violence is serious, nor do I think that one lone instance of women’s violence undercuts the severity of men’s violence in any serious way. If anything, I feel like violence committed by trans women deserves its own category of consideration, at the intersections of all the various shaping forces behind it. That said, I would hope anyone willing to take on such consideration would be equally willing to look at violence committed by cis women, which, while it cannot be compared to the global stage of violence committed by men, is still certainly extant and particularly within lesbian and queer communities! But mention that and you get accused of “autogenocide.”

    6. The bathroom issue is complicated, and I certainly don’t cheer the demonization of girls expressing heartfelt concern. That said, I absolutely DO cheer the creation of regulations and suggestions and in some places even laws which expressly allow transgender children to be included in the rooms where they rightfully belong. Consider the following – you talk about young girls being terrified of the prospect of seeing male genitals in the locker room. How do you think a young /trans/ girl feels when feminists are clamoring for her to be forced into a men’s locker room, where she will be the only girl, and will be /surrounded/ by male genitals, instead of running the risk of seeing perhaps one entirely by accident while surrounded by others like her? I understand the bathroom issue is complicated and difficult, but it has already been that for trans girls and will continue to be no matter what. I know because I remember – I remember being a young trans girl, /hating/ my genitals and anyone else’s whose looked like mine – but ESPECIALLY being terrified of men, regardless of the shape of their genitals – and being daily full of dread at the prospect of having to go into the locker room. Personally, I think all locker rooms and bathrooms should be made to include changing partitions so that no one has to risk seeing anyone’s genitals, regardless of whether they be the same or different. But even in lieu of that, as difficult as it is, yes, I do cheer trans girls being able to access girls’ locker rooms, because it’s a step in the right direction – away from trans girls being forced to be completely isolated and alone in a room full of boys. If that potentially makes a few cis girls uncomfortable, then that’s something we need to talk about, not cheer – but it’s also not a sign that the action is inherently to be demonized, either. (Side note: please remember that, as much as transgender activism may /seem/ to be about taking away women’s rights – and yes, I agree, sometimes it does seem that way – it always stems from a primary source of wanting to protect trans people from harm.)

    7. Female only safe spaces is also complicated, because the hard-won fight for their existence was done during a time when it was not widely understood that trans women exist. I don’t agree with the aggressive and volatile manner in which some trans activists have demanded to be let in, but I also don’t agree with the way in which this demand has been expressed as an attempt by men to invade women’s spaces. The argument around female-only spaces has typically been steeped in language which casts trans women as men – using the word “male,” but always with the understanding that there is no material difference between the two when used by the feminists who do so. I do not love that MichFest has been shut down – I wish that it had, instead, opened its arms to welcome trans sisters who are just as desperate for inclusion in sisterhood in a space where we can be cleansed of the scourge of men as you are. Having been told all of our lives that we carried that scourge within us intrinsically, it is perhaps all the more important that such spaces be available to us, to help heal that terrifying, self-destructive wound. I think this is one of the key misconceptions people often have about trans women – that we are just men who “became” women one day, when in reality, most of us carried womanhood like a terrible secret burden for most of our conscious lives, even if we didn’t understand what that meant.

    8. Sports is an oft-cited, rarely proven issue. In the article you linked, the trans athlete won by only /one second/. Is it really so shocking and offensive that a trans athlete, subjected to the same hormonal requirements as any other athlete in her category, might have won? I am sure there are countless other examples of trans athletes who have not won. This feels reactionary, and given the hormonal requirements, there isn’t even a clear argument to be made for a “male” supremacy here; and to talk about catering to men seems pretty specious since it’s not exactly like men love trans women full stop. At any rate, the win was /slim/ and the use of the word “dominate” is highly questionable, probably deliberately used as clickbait. Such wins are certainly not ubiquitous.

    9. No, ignoring critiques of the establishment from detransitioners whole sale is not really good at all. But critiques of the establishment do not mean that being trans is inherently a falsehood, or that the solution to gender dysphoria is just to get over gender stereotypes, as many detransitioners are eager to say, thus making it very difficult for trans people to want to hear them out, since our experiences of reality directly clash. All that said – yeah, we could definitely stand to have more of those conversations in our communities (though I would note that there was a very interesting response to the linked video from a person within the trans community who is not detransitioning, asking for more insight, perspective, consideration of the supposed exclusions…and there was no response..? It seems like none of us are too eager to talk to each other)

    I’ve been trying to reach across the aisle more to learn about the conflict between Rad Fems and (Trans) Lib fems, because I’m tired of it and want it to end. Articles like this portray trans activism as being inherently antithetical to “feminism” (though, really, it’s a particular brand of radical feminism that tends to stand in opposition); but you can just as easily find droves of articles on the other side painting gender-critical radical feminists as slavering, bigoted barbarians. Both sides tend to be rooted in some out-of-context quotes and a refusal to understand the baseline assumptions of the other side. I feel like it has to begin with both sides being rigorously committed to a fair and accurate representation of the issues, with an understanding that each side is simply doing their best to advocate for something they truly believe in, and that we are /not/ starting from the same point. The issue about menstruation is a perfect example of not seeing eye to eye on the core of the issue and then walking away with totally different interpretations of what happened. In your view, a feminist was panned for refusing to accept the idea that women could be reduced to menstruation; in the trans activist view, a trans-exclusionary radical feminist was panned for refusing to accept that women aren’t the only kind of people who menstruate. Both views seem like they’re probably a little inaccurate and rooted in some heavy misunderstandings of the other side.

    I think we need to stop the sensationalist mischaracterizations and keep trying to reach across the aisle. This article was entitled “dear trans activists,”…well, I’m a trans activist, and I’m responding. I hope the candor of my writing has convinced you of my seriousness. Obviously, we agree on some things, and disagree on others. And I have definitely been given some things to chew on by your article (detransitioners, in particular). I hope my response will give you some things to chew on as well.

    1. Hey Ana, yeah the trans lobby is always trying to give women things to “chew on” so be sure that none of this is anything new to me, no. My article was actually asking for trans activists to stop no-platforming women. I actually think it is incredibly presumptuous when trans activists won’t support feminists who demand a stop to the no-platforming – but still continue to bombard them with this kind of material anyway. Oh, you’ve been silenced? Well here, take some more of our half-baked ideas. Ana, I have just lost my job because of people like yourself. You can get on board with the call to stop feminists being no-platformed – and THEN we can talk about all your ideas about bathroom design and what have you. Yes, I’m being blunt, but please, listen to feminists and what we are saying BEFORE you bombard them with more of your stuff.

      1. I can see exactly one reason why stopping no-platforming TERFs (which is a slur, a political slur like “Reds” for Communists) should be supported, and that is a position against no-platforming in general, an uncompromising support for freedom of speech. I know of a few activists who hold this position, including one who is very definitely pro-trans, Peter Tatchell – he took some flak from his own community for his consistent anti-censorship stance. I happen to agree with his position. Here is a sample article of his on the issue: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12158352/The-intolerant-student-Left-has-even-turned-on-me-a-lifelong-civil-rights-campaigner.html

        But somehow, an anti-censorship angle does not seem to be mentioned. Perhaps you don’t agree with never silencing voices no matter how offensive to you, or perhaps an oversight.

      2. @ ramendik
        ” TERFs … is a slur, a political slur like “Reds” for Communists .. ”
        Totally agree, instead of criticizing the ideas some anti-communists just throw the slur as if being a Marxist was some kind of disease. Same thing is happening with the acronym TERF – even used to promote personal violence against feminists or people that don’t accept the trans-ideology
        https://twitter.com/ghostinmarble/status/880981359170387968

    2. 5 — http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/woman-accused-of-terrifying-7eleven-axe-attack-is-transgender-unionist-once-known-as-karl/news-story/a333cc1f7caa9db53ff9e7f694e13f76 — also research indicates that transwomen have the same level of violence and criminal behaviour as men. so yes it is harmful to reframe their crimes as that of women. if i recall correctly that research was by karolinska institutet in sweden.

      there has been a very large amount of crimes against women commited by TW that have been documented (one of the most notable ones in recent is dana rivers the transactivist who murdered a lesbian couple and their child and was ignored by lgbt media). another issue with these crimes is sex offenders who decide (or announce) that they are women while in custody and are therefore campaigned to be moved into women’s prisons… making those women more vulnerable.

    3. Cheryl de Rue

      FFS I’m disgusted that in the 1st country to get the vote for women we are throwing female rape victims, lesbians and just basically OUR MOTHERS under the bus. Fuck you NZ men.So much for democracy. Who voted for this! Who!

  3. Pingback: Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best? Thoughts on BBC2’s This World programme – A butterfly's diary

  4. You are not being ‘no-platformed’ for being a feminist. You are being no-platformed by feminists because you have been actively campaigning against organisations which provide support and advocacy for queer youth in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

    You write as if you are a martyr: a lone, brave voice of insight in a sea of uncritical thinkers, lol. You couch your hate speech in questions asked with genuine concern for women’s well-being. But you — along with people like Thistle Petterson and Sheila Jeffreys et.al.— are the ones who just that can’t, or won’t, wrap your heads around the issues. This is evidenced in your arrogant reply to Ana above, after she clearly spent a lot of time writing a respectful reply to this tiresome piece, taking your concerns into consideration. ou also show your ignorance by lumping long-standing flaxroots feminist, indigenous and trans rights activists like Ahi Wi-Hongi in with Caitlin Jenner and Trump. Arguing that trans activism is not grass roots because Caitlin Jenner likes Trump is like saying grassroots feminism doesn’t exist because Hillary Clinton does, or Margaret Thatcher did. Ridiculous nonsense.

    You think your opinions don’t have the power to harm? I disagree. They give seemingly (but not) legitimate discourse to back up people’s exclusion of trans people and the denial of safety, medical care and support which they need. Furthermore, they encourage women’s organisations to exclude transwomen who are one of the most vulnerable groups of women.

    To accuse those who care about trans people of being ‘anti-feminist’ is bull shit. It is possible to think critically and fight for the rights and needs of both cis and trans women. The two struggles are not the same, but neither are they in conflict; unless you are transphobic.

    Despite the fact that you and the people you sighted above have done some good work for women’s rights, we don’t include you in feminist and queer spaces and projects because there are plenty of other awesome feminists and indigenous activists working on the same issues but without the hate speech.

    1. Another trans activist who feels completely entitled to pummel me with opinions whilst insisting feminists remain silent. Interesting.

      1. Oh and Bell, this is the kind of thing that is resulting from people like yourself being intentionally disingenuous, obscuring the nature of biological sex and sex-based oppression with your pop-postmodernism, and putting giant handbrakes on women’s movement and ability to SPEAK, to organise and protest as women -to even blog, for crying out loud!

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingtomatthew/2017/01/texas-bill-aims-to-take-away-voting-rights-from-women-who-have-abortions/

    2. Cheryl de Rue

      FUCK “C*s !
      Who gave men the right to label me? To add or subtract from me? Get stuffed. I’m with Renee all the way.

  5. Reblogged this on The New Sexism and commented:
    The no-platforming of feminists needs to stop. Particularly by trans activists.
    Now, there are many feminists whose ideas and ideals I don’t agree with, and I even mean within radical feminism. But that doesn’t mean silencing their voices, death threats, and excommunicating them. Those are very masculinized ways of dealing with disagreement, and Renee hits the nail on the head.

  6. Ok, Mancheeze is here.

    I’ve been reading your blog for a short period of time Renee and I’m glad you have added your voice, which if men had it their way, would be silenced forever.

    I’m going to take a little bit of time and address Ana because Ana is extremely pretentious. Ana has to have the loudest voice in the room and I’m here to address it, point by point.

    1. Trans’men’ are FEMALE. They can use whatever words they personally want but changing entire women-based practices built on the reality of our lives is FUCKING PRETENTIOUS. We women have sex based language and use it because it WORKS, not because we want to exclude. Language is a funny thing like that. Language is meant to be goal oriented, cooperative and efficient. Most women know what ‘vagina’ is. Most women don’t know what ‘front hole’ is.

    2. Ah yes, Caitlin isn’t ‘trutrans.’ I won’t even bother with that because honestly, feminists don’t and shouldn’t invest too much time into what two rich white males are doing, unless they’re being talked about in terms of patriarchal oppression of females, which apparently you don’t see how transactivism is male supremacist garbage.

    3. See point 1. Transactivists ARE pushing for the erasure of female sex based language. If you don’t know about it it’s your problem. Renee talked about MANA. Apparently you didn’t read that part of the article. Kicking women out of their own jobs because they won’t succumb to a tiny part of the population renaming a critical part of female language is fucking fascist, not to mention anti-feminist.

    4. Sexual preference is a highly personal matter. Lesbians love WOMEN and WOMAN means adult human female. Men who think they’re women are not female. They’re not women. That’s the fucking entire crux of the matter. Lesbian has a meaning. Once again, a bunch of men want to shame women for their sexual preferences. This isn’t new eh?

    5. Men who claim they’re women are not women. They’re male, and they are like every other male when it comes to violating FEMALES. See the study that Renee linked.

    6. It’s clear you care not one fig about how females feel about their safe spaces being violated. There was a case in the midwestern USA where one male decided he was really a woman and wanted IN the girl’s locker room. The girls didn’t want this and spoke up, only to be shouted down and called transphobic bigots. The school told the girls to go change in the basement. Male supremacy at work again. The school offered him his very own private changing area but it wasn’t good enough. The fact you cheer on the erosion of a girls private and safe spaces in adolescence, a time when girls are realizing they are sexual prey, just started their periods and other trauma means you’re a male supremacist and don’t care.

    In fact, that’s the end of my patience with you. The fact you cheer on the erosion of female language, female spaces, lesbianism etc. means you are a male supremacist. You don’t care about females or our struggles in a world that has consistently oppressed us as a sex class. This is where I can tell you’re an anti-feminist. If you had feminist understanding and knowledge you wouldn’t have written such woman hating garbage.

  7. Pingback: Fundamentalism, pseudoscience, romanticism, and scapegoats: some parallels of gender identity doctrine with Nazi eugenics – writing by renee

  8. Hi. I am sorry that I am going a little off-topic (the silencing of feminists) here, but I have a few questions about your article, and would be interested to read your opinion about certain topics. I understand if you prefer not answering them, as they are not related to the main subject of your article, but thank you in advance if you do answer.

    The first one is about the green picture: did you make it or was it drawn by transactivists? (I think you made it, I just want to be sure of it, in order to fully understand its meaning here).

    The second one is about whether or not trans women (MtF) should really be counted as males in statistics about male violence: I agree with you that they should not be classified in female violence, but is it really accurate to count them as male, especially after they transitionned? The existence of gender dysphoria has been acknowledged by the medical corps, and surely a trans woman (MtF) has a very different experience of gender (as a system) from that of a cisgender woman, even before transition. And if they do beneficiate from male privilege as males, and still surely carry a psychological legacy of that privilege after they transitioned (even without realizing it), it doesn’t mean that they don’t have a peculiar perception of how gender roles and expectations apply to them, even before transition. And the fact that the level of violence among trans women is the same as the one among cisgender men doesn’t fully prove that they both result from the same experience of gender (even though they tend to show that). So do you still think trans women should be counted as men in statistics? (I also understand that it is difficult to establish who is trans and who isn’t, since many people claim to be trans but describe very different realities, so let’s say the ones who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria). If you do, why?

    My third question is about the changing rooms ans bathrooms issue: the problem of safety for young girls is often brought up is these conversations, but rarely do we hear about what happens when a female wants to join the boy’s changing rooms. Also, I have heard that in northern european countries, such as Sweden, changing rooms and bathrooms are (often) unisex. Although I see how the safety and well-being of young girls is jeopardized here, isn’t there a chance unisex changing rooms would bring a satisfactory solution? Especially given that unisex spaces shouldn’t necessarily have to be forced upon everyone: for instance, maybe three options -male, female and unisex- could be given to people. What do you think about all this?

    I apologize in advance for potential grammatical mistakes in my message, English is not my first language (although I am fluent and understand it very well).

    Finally, I would like to wish you good luck on finding a new job, and express my support towards you and all the other feminists that have found themselves silenced and threatened.

    1. Hi there, thanks for your comment, questions and support! To answer your questions:
      1) I didn’t make the green meme, no – but it is a great piece of feminist satire.
      2) When a male commits violence, no matter how that male identifies, the violence needs to be recorded and reported as having been committed by a male, as a matter of accuracy.
      3) Please see my article on bathrooms for an answer to this question. It’s here:
      https://reneejg.net/2017/06/13/get-your-story-straight-on-the-bathroom-debate/
      Thank you!

      1. Hi again! Thank you very much for answering.

        When I posted my previous comment, I was still processing all this mess between transactivists’ revendications and ideas and other feminists’ (the ones that usually get called “terfs” by transactivists). Even though I have seen your reply only today, I have been able to get some more insight about all this thanks to your link to Magdalen Berns’s Youtube channel. I have to admit that hearing her stance about all this was mind-blowing for me, particularly her video “Transgenders vs Transtrenders: A false distinction”. It has definitely opened my eyes about many things, and I can’t thank you enough for having made me discover her channel via your article.

        Specifically, I think hearing the idea that “transwomen are women, and transmen are men” being frankly contested was exactly what I needed (it was basically what I thought deep down but didn’t dare admitting because of fear to be called transphobic). I actually don’t even understand how I didn’t see how insidiously the transactivist ideology makes it way in the media, and manages to shut down any kind of contestation (conversation would be more accurate). Or no, actually, I do understand how I missed it: I was a victim of it myself. I could somewhat sense Something was wrong with it, but it’s pretty hard to question and think logically about an ideology when every time you see someone doing it, they get called transphobic and accused of both hating and promoting hate towards trans people, even on the very same feminist websites that analyse how patriarchy works and talk about the importance of consent. This is how I ended up believing in the transactivist ideology for a while: not because I found it made sense, but because I was afraid to be transphobic and disrespectful (and a good way to avoid those accusations is to actually call out other people on their transphobia… I’ve done it only once, and I’m still horribly mad at myself for it. I should have known better). I usually avoid talking about myself online, but I think it is very important to say how dangerous transactivism is, particularly for young and isolated people (therefore particularly the homosexual youth): when you are in a situation and a period of time where you are lonely and insecure, being exposed to such an ideology and so strongly discouraged to question it, is particularly toxic and unhealthy. I have sadly experienced that myself, it definitely messed up with my mind a lot (and I was already not exactly in good shape) and today, it outrages me. I am relieved I have gotten out of it, but to be fully honest, when I see how powerful transactivists are becoming, I’m verry worried for the future.

        Thank you for posting this article and fighting this ideology. Once again, I would like to express my support to you and your colleagues that have been silenced. You can from now on count me as a new ally.

  9. Pingback: Seeing through my woman’s eyes: reflections on sexual freedom and growing up female – writing by renee

  10. Pingback: Reflections on sexual freedom, feminism and growing up female – writing by renee

  11. Pingback: “Trans women are women” – Identity politics takes aim at women’s emancipation | A communist at large

  12. Pingback: How to defend democratic rights and political space – case study of a political victory | A communist at large

  13. Pingback: The birds and mice will hear you: On transactivism and the characteristics of totalitarian rule – writing by renee

  14. Pingback: Gender discussion: Could we please include all the stakeholders? | Christian Rethinker

  15. Pingback: “Transwomen are doubleplus good women”: Government receives late submission on Births Bill from Handmaids Association – writing by renee

  16. Pingback: Adding insult to injury: On the invisibility of women in men’s “free speech debate” – writing by renee

  17. Pingback: Gender identity: Quick facts – writing by renee

Leave a Reply