It hasn’t been but 2 days since I reviewed the disguising way in which TS Separatists have taken up abhorrent fallacies and used it as a weapon against an oppressed people. If that wasn’t enough to expose this ideology as being morally bankrupt, the following exchange should settle the debate.
Suzan is another opinion leader in the TS Separatist movement. Responding to my article, in an aptly titled post, “Which Side Are You On”, she addressed me personally. I will link to the post here if you would like to see the unedited back and forth. The following ideological pustule is as shocking as it was abhorrent. I’ve chosen to share this to ensure that all will see with clarity, the disgusting ideology that represents the underpinnings of TS Separatism:
“Identity with out actions that actually change your sex is meaningless, nothing more than a con game played by penis people who want to violate women’s privacy.”
Violate women’s privacy? Are you suggesting that crazed crossdressers are going to be kicking in stall doors? Following this same line of reasoning, are you suggesting that all FTM’s should be forced into the women’s restroom? They were assigned female at birth, generally menstruated (some still do), some gave birth, all were socialized as females in a patriarchal society and many still have a vagina… so, according to your logical house of cards, the best thing for women is to have Buck Angel hanging out in the women’s bathroom and a pre-op Isis hanging out in the men’s restroom? Are you suggesting that pre-op transsexuals should be forced to use the men’s restroom until they have vaginoplasty? I get that you’re so irate that you can’t even get your facts straight about what I did and didn’t say, but it would be helpful it you’d deal with the particulars of exactly how this genital-based ideology would work in the real world.
What is it with Separatists and their need to reduce women to walking, talking vaginas?!?
As for F to Ms they are not my concern. I put the interests of women first.
The big problem with the Transgender ideology is that it requires us to ignore the crazies (and anyone who has ever gone to a TS or TG support group has met at least one seriously crazy scary person) that no woman wants to be faced with meeting in the rest room.
“As for F to Ms they are not my concern. I put the interests of women first.”
*facepalm* What a disgusting thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself. This statement is below your obvious intellect. My god… you are better than this!
“The big problem with the Transgender ideology is that it requires us to ignore the crazies (and anyone who has ever gone to a TS or TG support group has met at least one seriously crazy scary person) that no woman wants to be faced with meeting in the rest room.”
If I wanted to ignore it, I wouldn’t have used [Dana] Taylor’s propaganda in my public response.
And let me wind up by restating my actual original position… a position that you’ve chosen to ignore:
Her fatuous, contemptible and downright abhorrent rhetoric is appalling. I’ve based these conclusions upon her use of one of the most repugnant – and seemingly favorite – tools of bigots throughout history: the “some sicko can be associated with a population and therefore the entire population should be viewed as being suspect” reasoning. Literally everyone from Hitler to the Klan used this logical fallacy and it is repugnant and more than worthy of scorn and public admonition.
Why should I be concerned about the interests of F to Ms? Seriously…http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/a_y_chromosome_is_worth_the_sa.php Becoming male is a move up on the class status ladder. Becoming female is a move down.
Putting women first is what makes me a radical feminist.
Emotional pleas will get you no where with me.
Dana Lane Taylor: it is very entertaining to watch someone stand up for those poor, oppressed men. You know, the men who control pretty much everything?
Suzan: Oh really… I’m at a point where I think the only solution that would help the working people is a revolution where we treat the rich oppressive pigs the same way the French Revolutionaries treated the freaking royals. Or to paraphrase Denis Diderot “Mankind will only be free when the last rich pig is strangled with the entrails of the last McMegaChurch Televangelist”
It’s a good thing I’m in a generally more pleasant mood than I was in the 1970s when I would have quoted Valerie Solanis to you.
Oh. My. God. You’ve utterly repulsed me. What sort of warped heart cannot respond when transmen are bullied, bashed and murdered? And you dare deride transgender people as being selfish? Selfish you say? In the face of such cold and abhorrent disregard for the 14th amendment rights of transmen you – in an astounding display of moral hypocrisy – claim any authority to speak on that which is just?
I am not a christian, I do not believe in god or in forgiving my oppressors. I do not believe they are oppressed by their acts of oppression. that is the poisonous pap passed down by supporting institutions of oppression to quiet the oppressed often accompanied with promises of an imaginary reward from a magic invisible in some imaginary paradise beyond the grave. sky daddy
Why should I spend anymore energy on “transmen” than I spend on men in general? They moved into the world of the male privileged, into the world of the patriarchy.
Suzan asked it first and I think the question is valid: What side are you on?
I choose to stand on the side of 14th amendment equality for all:
- I do not stand on a side that would stand by and allow half of the trans population suffer.
- I will not put myself in the same moral boat as Dr. Ruth Jacobs, the KKK and those who would seek to bar Muslims from holding office . These bigots all use the same “some part of your population did something bad, therefore all of that population is a risk and should have their 14th amendment rights trampled upon” propaganda.
- I do not stand on the side that views transmen as being my oppressor.
My conscious will not allow it.
cross-posted from Ehipassiko
- Excited
- Fascinated
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
Related posts:
I| wonder if the day will ever come when we talk only about the rights and protections of people and stop segregating everyone into arbitrary groups -male/female black/white young/old . Its very last century thinking.
This is what happens when you take a position that has no basis in fact or science. When attacked you are forced into making statements that defend a position that never made sense in the first place. Its not complicated- either trans women have the right to use the ladies room or not. By allowing trans women to use the ladies room you are making it more dangerous for women or you are not.
I love it — trans men don’t matter, because they’re men. Trans women don’t matter, because they’re men. OK then.
I would like to ask a question. What efforts are underway to train men that they shouldn’t commit violence against those who are different than them? They need to be educated that some men dress as women and should be able to use the men’s restroom without incident. Why does it surprise anyone when women get upset about being the ones who have to end up dealing with that?
Why is it not safe for a man dressed as a woman to go into a men’s bathroom? Are men more violent than women? Ah, so, let us make women open up their spaces to the men (you know, men being violent and all).
The transgender agenda is becoming more clear every day. It is more about the rights and protections of men than it is for women.
“Men are more violent, crossdressers are men, therefore crossdressing men are more violent.” This is a logical fallacy/circular reasoning.
You can’t address the most crucial piece of Brennan’s supposition with any facts. Gender identity language has been on the books since the mid 80′s in many places and not ONE example has been put forward how such language has ever endangered anyone.
Basically you’ve just proved the supposition that Cristan was putting forward.
You have a pretty standardly cissexist definition of men. If you want to argue that men should be kept out of woman only spaces, I’m with you… but when I say men, you hear, “the penised.” When you say men, I hear, “those who identify as men.” This is because apparently, you are willing to take a doctor’s word over whether a person is trans than the trans person’s word.
This is a rather convenient metric for you, because typically you don’t find un-operative transsexuals who do not have a good chance of getting surgery, due to their resources, or doctors who would deny them, or the fact that it just doesn’t conflict with their body map to a degree sufficient for them to worry about it… identifying that way.
It’s much like how most MBAs coming out of Harvard don’t feel there are structural inequities in the education system.
At any rate, by your logic, I imagine you would prefer Buck Angel in the washroom stall next to you over Bailey Jay, to mention two indie porn stars with atypical genitalia as examples.
What efforts are underway to train men that they shouldn’t commit violence against those who are different than them?
You might want to type ‘Zero Tolerance + Bullying’ into ‘The Google.’
That and the cissexists with whom you spend your time are really universally good at dismissing my very public sexual assault, which, by the way, was before transition, but long after everyone knew I wasn’t quite normal.
“As for F to Ms they are not my concern. I put the interests of women first.”
It’s nice that she accidentally correctly gendered non-operative trans men at least… yeah, this stuff is terrible… the idea that somehow surgery makes us trans women (who have been female from birth and taught that we weren’t and spent years unlearning that particular lie) into women is… pernicious is the best word I can think of.
I changed my presentation, and the way I was able to publicly identify. I never changed my gender, which was always, despite what cissexists like them would have me believe, female.