Sonia’s report on Janice Raymond’s “The Transsexual Empire” (1979)

This a book report on (the first half of) “The Transsexual Empire” by Janice Raymond. My opinion is still that transsexual (male) invasion of all feminist space should be patently ignored, however- I think these feminist Cliff notes might come in handy for those who want a reference as to why. I also think it’s significant that many of the things I’ve been saying, UP has been saying, and FCM has been saying over the last year or so (both of the latter much more than myself), are echoed here in Raymond’s words, despite the fact that none of the three of us read the book before I started it yesterday.

I find it auspicious and indicative of the fact that there is an objective truth inside women that some of us are getting at, and that when women-identified-women search within in response to the patriarchal culture around them, the same truths re-emerge. This should give us a confidence and a comfort. I also want to thank UP and FCM and all the gals who are writing about this issue for bringing it to the forefront of the online dialogue for us all. It is crucial at this point for feminism as a whole. Although I’m not a lesbian (yet), the book is written from that perspective and so I wrote my thoughts from a perspective of solidarity with my lesbian sisters.

Hope you gals enjoy. I admit it is disorganized, but if you’ve been following the dialogue, will pick it right up. Mostly just wanted to share a bunch of these quotes because they beat ass.

Janice Raymond on transsexual politics:

“If the stereotypes themselves are not confronted but are only frowned upon when acted out by persons of the ‘wrong’ sex, then the origins of transsexualism will be individualized and psychologized. What will go unexamined is patriarchy’s norms of masculinity and femininity and how these norms, if allowed to contain persons within such rigid boundaries, may generate such a phenomenon as transsexualism.”

In “The Transsexual Empire,” Raymond comments on the definitive work of her era on transsexualism, by Money (male) and Ehrhardt (female) which reinforced the obscuration of the primacy of females with statements such as “the antithesis of androgen is not estrogen, but nothing,”’ (p. 57) articulating the cognitive basis for the rationalization of post-operative transsexual males as female. The relevant patriarchal belief at play in transsexual theory, is that females are deficient males. Raymond reminds women of the underlying belief (fundamental to transsexual male rationale) of western, perhaps all, patriarchy, given original and most clear voice by Plato (the foundation thinker behind all occidental belief systems) that:

‘“…woman is defective and misbegotten..the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence, such as that of a south wind which is moist.”’ (p.57).

In other words, your definition and value is that you lack a penis. Aside from the obvious implications for the credibility of male culture and logic suggested by the belief on the part of the man that Western patriarchy regards as time’s most brilliant believing that femaleness is a birth defect possibly engendered by humid Southern breezes, it remains that the belief that women are men who lack, for whatever reason, penises, underlies culture/patriarchy. Though at this end-game stage of female subjugation it may be in the majority of individuals a subconscious or inarticulatable belief, it is ubiquitous in the western psyche, and it forms the foundation for the rationale in transsexual male culture.

Raymond on gender socialization:

‘Erik inner-and-outer-space analogy, where the “inner” sexual apparatus of the female and the “outer” sexual apparatus of the male were seen to be the prime determinants of feminine “inner” directed and masculine “outer” directed behavior.’ (p.63)

We are all familiar with this. I personally correlate many elementary school heartaches and experiences to this dynamic of socializing young children, as I’m sure any female reader can. We remember when this normative conditioning slid closed around us and we grew to live with the yearning for freedom that it engendered. This perspective is so pervasive in cultural thought as to be omnipresent. It is probably the basis for the personal belief on the part of some individuals within patriarchy that their very selves, their souls, are a mismatch to their bodies. Patriarchy is so normative as to make people believe that their characters are flawed, instead of the reality- which is that the system of male dominance based gender conditioning is so relentless and so unnatural that it literally puts people, female and male, at odds with our very essence. Undoubtedly, something is amiss in people who desire transsexual operations. But it’s amiss in all of us, and it’s amiss in the world around us. Patriarchy lacks representation of the truth of human yearning and experience, for females. And for males.

The reasons the transsexuals Raymond interviewing for “Empire” included “absolute knowledge” that they were enclosed in the “wrong body,” or simply an occupational preference for traditionally feminine behavior and occupations. Raymond states- “very little of the transsexual literature has highlighted the stereotyping problem as either causally or therapeutically important.” (p.71)

As Undercover Punk has stated;

“Gender and sex are presumed to MATCH, with gender naturally arising from one’s sexual organs. Simple as that! Authenticity is assumed and the assigned gender is socially accepted without question. If someone isn’t feeling or performing her “gender” properly, there is obviously something wrong with HER, not with the traditional concept of “Gender #2.”

The cultural blindness to the base assumption that the feminine gender matches a female genitalia and the masculine gender matches the male gender is at fault for “gender dysphoria,” not the individuals themselves or their parents, or individual experiences. Patriarchal culture denies the detrimental effects of sex-role behavior mandates even when “treating” those effects in people who request “sex reassignment”. To examine the effects for what they are would reveal the ridiculous predeterminist beliefs about female subjugation that underlie and justify all male abuse of women. It is necessary for patriarchy to relegate “gender dysphoria” theorizing to an individualist basis, a recurring patriarchal tactic for isolating problematic results that develop outside the cultural model/mandate. In other words, if the brainwash doesn’t stick, there must be something wrong with you. You know, individually.

Raymond states:

“A person experiences role strain only if she or he has a self that is separate from the role.” (p.81)

A person with no gender identification would be incapable of social survival, so a prerequisite for success in life is some sort of sex role conformity (or a full time losing battle against it), We are under sex-role strain more or less constantly, but most people resign themselves to it and subsume their experiences under a role heading, in order to continue having “experiences” instead of problems, failures, or excessive traumas. We unconsciously understand that there is no social or material benefit to sex role deviance. Feminism has pushed and slightly changed the parameters of traditional womanhood for some women, but the role remains, and is mandatory. To break out of and completely redefine it without an examination of male social dominance is not possible.

Undercover Punk:

“For example, I’ve tried to do this by identifying certain DISEMBODIED aspects of “femininity” that I enjoy practicing. Examples include my affinity for bright colors, giggling, and being mindful of other people’s situational comfort levels. I’m not sure that I want to describe femininity itself as a/my “gender,” but it *is* associated with the gender traditionally assigned (#2) to and expected of female bodied people.”

Genitalia is too arbitrary a signifier to dictate desired social behavior from. We are all, female and male, too complex as people to have our affect, behavior and preferences dictated by our sex organs. Extrapolating multiple classes of characteristics and actions from physical qualities is unrealistic. As UP states, we all want pieces of both genders, even men, and even the new era’s Self Defined Gender is still too binary and sex-role identified to really be representative of who people are. Patriarchy’s extreme identification with certain emotional characteristics is what drives people to feel displaced within their very bodies, and addressing the binary issue in terms of clothing and hair and job choices doesn’t do very much to address the emotional sense of self or sense of ostracization from our own selves that binary gender mandates creates.

Note: transsexual surgery is an attempt to cure an advanced level of genderized wounds. Compassion, from a woman, for the plight of men is misplaced pity. However, to be unable to see the extreme level at which patriarchy wounds men into abusers by removing their humanity first is to be unable to understand what is at the heart of male-to-female transsexualism. Many men do not want to behave in the ways society dictates for them. Men are different from women, but not in the ways patriarchy thinks they are, and the masculine gender role is not a natural one. It is not based on the nature of men. The extreme brutal socialization that males go through works all of the time. The grinding self negation, self hate of masculinity with no authority or impending judgment drives the cycle ahead- however, not all men want to be a part of it. Who cares why. In the binary construct, the only other option is to be women.

Note: it’s not that radical feminists don’t understand this. We get it. Terming our struggle against transsexual identification as hate is not accurate. We’re working for women alone, and that’s always unacceptable. Radical feminists are for women, struggling against what threatens us. While we are compassionate people, 45 years of evidence suggests that including male interests in our struggle turns out badly for us, and we are most definitely.. for us. No radical feminist is suggesting that someone doesn’t have the right to do whatever they want to their own body. But quite simply, we reference an already existing line between our experience and the transsexual experience.

Raymond spends a great and valuable amount of time characterizing the tone of early transpolitics. She imparts that the teams of treating doctors, evaluating psychologists and others involved in the early surgery and socialization of male-to-female transsexuals were almost exclusively male. That the men who first attained the sex conversion surgery were qualifying their desire to be female and new personas as such through other men. As young women go through a mandatory feminization before being allowed to live as females in patriarchy, these men also had to pass muster with the fathers. Raymond paints a picture of post operative transsexual “females” as the daughters born of the patriarchs. She quotes Kando as referring to trans “females” as the “Uncle Toms of the sexual revolution,” but in truth they are the Athenas of the new age:

“’Blaming the mother’ also functions to identify transsexuals with men….”

“The syndrome of ‘blaming the mother’ in each of these theories raises some fundamental critical responses. Most is indicative of a fundamental reversal. The biological and psychological theorists blame the mother for both female and male transsexualism. Neither asks who is actually transforming transsexual bodies into the desired sex and instructing them in the rudiments of cultural femininity and masculinity..” (she is writing about early formalized socialization processes for post op transsexuals) “…the irony is that mothers are blamed, yet it is transsexual “father figures” (the fathers of the psychiatric and medical domains) who are performing the operations and coaching into roles. One way of perceiving this reversal is to view such “fathers” as “male mothers” who see themselves redeeming the biological mothers’ defective handiwork, whether that defective process is regarded as biological (failing to give enough of the  right hormone or giving too much of the wrong hormone in utero) or as psychological (failing to rear the child correctly).” (p. 74-75)

In a predictably patterned state of affairs, Raymond shows that transsexual operations are seen as a corrective of femaleness, whether perceived to be engendered in the male biologically or socially (since apparently in this case the fathers accept nurture as causal, but don’t you dare try to extrapolate that one- it’s as-needed valid) even though it is the male genitalia that is being removed. Even though the penis is being cut off in a transsexual “sex reassignment,” it is not the masculinity that is being corrected- always, in the patriarchal eye, the femaleness is errant and in need of correction- emotionally or physically. The operation seeks to correct an errant femaleness. (Maybe to create a fuckability for the perceived emotional vulnerability that is present? That part is worth thinking more about, but)

For me the above concept is the most significant aspect of the dynamic, being the reversal-thinking that creates both the problem and the therapy to “fix” it. We know that all life including humans is primarily female, and that maleness is a variation (not errant-that kind of thinking is strictly patriarchal because women know that nature makes no mistakes, but variant). The suffering from gender based conditioning is a result of this thought-reversal and stigmatization of the female.

Raymond on the roots of transsexualism, and more on Blaming The Mother:

“We consider the psychological hypothesis of Henry Guze…Guze thinks that as a rule, boys will psychologically develop in a feminine direction unless a male model is present in some way.”

(p.78) (i.e., the dominant male role model is necessary to prevent the feminization of boys which causes “gender dysphoria”, read=too much Mommy)

In this sense, then, a patriarch allows that masculinity itself is a castration. The transsexual operation seeks to castrate where an emotional castration has failed. Although the emotional castration of masculinization is seen to remove the perceived female aspect of a male, and the physical castration is an alignment with that perceived aspect, we see that some type of castration is necessary for males to feel complete in their culture. I will tie this in to further writing on the necessity of sacrifice, castration, and circumcision to patriarchal male sense of self and reality, but for the time being, the point is supportive of the reality that masculinity is a wounding, abusive construct at its core. On a meta/mythic level, this necessitated bloodletting/castration, whether symbolic/emotional or physical, is an example of the constant dis-identification-with-and-concurrent-emulation of females by patriarchal males.

In a sense, the transsexual identity is a confirmation of the fact that gender has conquered sex, and that gender categories have superceded natural sex, an affirmation, again, of patriarchy’s dominance over nature. Which is obviously the entire purpose and point of patriarchy. Male-to-female transsexuals are simply required to be good examples of the feminine role for other sex-class members. Patriarchy is now confident enough in the sex-class category to allow greater numbers of voluntary admission to males.

Raymond discusses transsexual presence in lesbian-feminist space, first giving us the history of the eunuch role in patriarchal gender dynamics:

“There is a long tradition of eunuchs who were used by rulers, heads of state, and magistrates as keepers of women. Eunuchs were supervisors of the harem in Islam and wardens of women’s apartments in many royal households. In fact, the word eunuch, from the Greek eunouchos, literally means “keeper of the bed.” Eunuchs were men that other more powerful men used to keep their women in place. By fulfilling this role, eunuchs also succeeded in winning the confidence of the ruler and securing important and influential positions…the earliest mentions of eunuchs is in connection with the Minoan civilization of Crete, which was a transitional period fro an earlier gynocentric society. It thus appears that eunuchs, to some extent, always attached themselves to women’s spaces and, most frequently, were used to supervise woemn’s freedom of movement and to harness women’s self-centeredness and self-government. ‘It is stated that entrée into every political circle was possible for eunuchs even if barred to other men.’” (p.105)

She continues:

“Men, of course, invented the feminine, and in this sense it could be said that all women who conform to this invention are transsexuals, fashioned according to man’s image. Lesbain-feminists exist apart from man’s inventiveness, and the political and personal ideas of lesbian-feminism have constituted a complete rebellion against the man-made invention of women..” (p. 106) (boldness mine, as usual 🙂 )

“What men really envy is women’s biological ability to procreate. Transsexuals illustrate one way in which men do this, by acquiring the artifacts of female biology. Even though they cannot give birth, they aquire the organs that are representative of ths female power. However, it is the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist who illustrates that much more is at stake that literal womb envy. He shows that female biology, whether exercised in giving birth or simply by virtue of its existence, is representative of female creativity on a profound mythic level.” (p.107)

Finally, Raymond answers, 30 years ahead of her time, the transpolitical character assassination on radical feminist response to intrusion:

“ (transsexuals) would encourage us to set no boundaries by employing the analogy of how boundaries have been used oppressively against lesbians in the past/present. “There are so many painful parallels between how the world has treated strong women and lesbians and how Raymond and others categorize and discount transsexuals,” she quotes a critic, “but the analogy is false. The boundaries that have been used against lesbians are the boundaries of the fathers…(they) would have us believe that all boundaries are oppressive. Yet if feminists cannot agree on the boundaries of what constitutes females, then what can we hope to agree on?” Raymond tells us that transpolitical invasion in feminist space  “encourages the leveling of genuine boundaries of self-preservation and self-centering.” (p.110)

Raymond quotes Robin Morgan in Los Angeles, 1973: “If transvestite or transsexual males are oppressed, let them band together and organize against that oppression, instead of leeching off women who have spent entire lives as women in women’s bodies.” (85).

With trans politics, anger at an experience is misplaced on women as per usual, instead of on the dominant patriarchal order where it belongs.


Filed under Uncategorized

20 responses to “Sonia’s report on Janice Raymond’s “The Transsexual Empire” (1979)

  1. With trans politics, anger at an experience is misplaced on women as per usual, instead of on the dominant patriarchal order where it belongs.

    Thank you, Sonia.

  2. Bev Jo

    I was writing against men invading our female-only space in 1973 in “Dykes and Gorgons.” A man who had sexually harassed me when I was 17, and had no understanding that a female might prefer another female over him, decided he was a Lesbian and proceeded to get into as many power positions in our community as possible. (Details on my blog — — and in our book, “Dykes-Loving-Dykes.”)

    Men have always wanted access to Lesbians and now Lesbians help them. Please don’t call them “transwomen” or “women” anything. Please don’t use female pronouns for them. Please instead support the Lesbians and women who recognize these invasive men for what they are. They are castrated men demanding to be called Lesbians. Are we really no more than the absence of male body parts? The male medical system can never create a woman out of a man.

    What is a man who refuses to take “no” for an answer?

    They try various methods, but their narcissism is their main trait. They have no idea what a female is and so they base their appearance on their fetishized idea of who we are. Some are mentored by Lesbians and have learned how to look and act more Lesbian — but it’s an act. Ignoring them supports them, because they have taken away our last female only space. Elliott Mattiuzzi, who calls himself Beth Elliott (he picked a first name as close to min as he could — he’s the ultimate stalker) even got his long article “Lesbian Sex” printed in “off our backs” by lying to them that he was female-born. He caused the end of Daughters of Bilitis, he was the “Lesbian” columnist for Bay Area Reporter, he claims to be one of the originals of “Womyn’s music,” and he writes racist letters as a “Lesbian.” Just a few months ago he “sang” (bellowed off-key) a “song” in “women only” space personally attacking me because I won’t keep quiet about what he is. Many think he’s a joke, but he got more support than I did. Castrated men have destroyed a lot of precious women’s and Lesbian places internationally. They and their Lesbian helpers destroyed the last women’s center in Sweded. They are going after the battered women’s shelter there. They sued to be on the rape crisis lines in Vancouver. They could do none of this without Lesbian support.

    I would rather see a het man in Lesbian space than these parasites. But I prefer female-only and Lesbian-only space.

  3. sonia

    I wholeheartedly agree that using the female pronoun for MTF transsexuals is bad for women.

  4. liking what you said, sonia, about the “objective truth” that several of us are getting at, without any guidance to speak of. its just in there, and some of us are tapping into it.

    as i mentioned over at UPs place, i looked this book up on amazon, intending to buy it if it was cheap enough (it wasnt) and noticed that it has like half a star and almost all negative reviews for its alleged “transphobia” and “hate speech.” while “whipping girl” has tons of stars, and rainbows and fluffy bunnies to boot. made me want to fucking kill someone, is what it did. what a bunch of fucking shit!

  5. Eve's Daughter

    Not only should we not use female pronouns, I also don’t think we should refer to an inversion of the penis as a “neo-vagina”. It would be just as accurate to call it a “second anus”.

    The fact that they manage to get a significant part of the population to see it as “similar to” a vagina is a pretty blatant statement of how our patriarchal cultures see women: void space (or the absence of space), both physically and psychologically. They’re not even hiding the bullshit here. It’s right out in the open. Of course, most women are so nightblinded we can’t see something that’s so brightly lit up.

    “…(they) would have us believe that all boundaries are oppressive”

    Yes, because if there is no such thing as “females” or “women” then there is no clear group being oppressed. Perhaps some people might be worse off than others, but the mechanism of the oppression is no longer clear. It’s a classic patriarchal reversal – females are no longer oppressed by being female, because there are no “females” or “women”, so now radical feminists are “oppressing” people (read: men) by trying to “define” “females” and “women.” We’re just coming up with this bizarre, unsubstantiated definition of “women” out of our (double) ass, and forcing other people to abide by it. Oh, cruel, cruel feminists; next we’ll be oppressing those poor, minority Christians (90% of the US population is a minority, right?) by reminding them of their religion’s misogyny and active participation in the slaughter of millions of women.

    Hey, feminists! Stop being so oppressive!

    Of course, I’m sure it would be perfectly acceptable to point out that neither evangelical nor mainstream Christianity is friendly to transsexuals. That wouldn’t be hating, after all, because transsexuals are oppressed.

    But females are not oppressed because there are no females. So we can’t point out our oppression, because we do not experience oppression, because we do not exist. For some unknown reason, some people experience rape and others do not. For some unknown reason, some people are forced into marriages and others are not. For some unknown reason, some people die in childbirth and others do not. It’s a mystery.

  6. sonia

    “It’s a classic patriarchal reversal – females are no longer oppressed by being female, because there are no “females” or “women””

    That’s it, baby. That is the function. Does anyone else think there’s a function to everything patriarchy does? That right there is the social value of MTF transsexuals, and I dare anyone to say that it’s unintentional. It is the final answer to feminism, and if we don’t wise up it will be the final nail in our coffin.

  7. sonia

    @FCM- yeah, what a fucking popularity club going on between teh funfemz and teh transwomen, eh? their lips are all wedged up each other’s butts.

  8. Eve’s Daughter!! Thank you. And I am going to repeat-quote you:

    It’s a classic patriarchal reversal – females are no longer oppressed by being female, because there are no “females” or “women”, so now radical feminists are “oppressing” people (read: men) by trying to “define” “females” and “women.”

    I had NO IDEA how common these reversal are!! So much to see as my night-blindness wears off.

    And yes, those DEFINITIONS are so oppressive, aren’t they? Goddess FORBID we should want find any value in boundaries. Or the *meaning* that these boundaries create.

    There’s an article that I want to post here that discusses the benefits of boundaries (to curb the worst of male behavioral excesses) and how they are particularly important to women/oppressed people. You know, for PROTECTION. Demonizing ALL boundaries is libertarianism.

  9. @FCM: I know, I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel here or anything– because MANY WOMEN were screaming about this waaaaay before the pomo/queer explosion (Hi Bev Jo!).

    I do think there’s value, though, in going through your own process….wading through this point…to that question….to this concern. It helps me remember and more fully understand the non-reason behind trans logic. I also think it’s helpful to restate and restate and RESTATE our point, because it might reach a new person when phrased in a slightly different way. I’m thinking of Loretta Kemsley’s “sticker shock” strategy for getting people to accept something that previously sounded too crazy to believe– do you know what I mean?

  10. omg. a “second anus.” YES!!!!!!! i am totally going to use that now. thanks.

  11. had a chance to use “second anus” already eves daughter. not really a surprise, as all the fucking pomos want to talk about is how castrated men are really women.

  12. sonia

    yeah, echoed= obvs this has been thought out and written- however, our generation has dropped the ball on some (a lot) of these issues, so I wanted to help the sisters who are bringing it to the forefront. I see you too, BevJo

  13. Ames

    Bringing this comment over from UP and adding.

    Sickeningly, with lesbian support, the National Center for Lesbian Rights yesterday announced that a report they sponsored (with the Women’s Sports Foundation) recommended that “[transgendered] students have equal access to opportunities in all academic and extracurricular activities in a safe and respectful school environment.” With lesbian support (Pat Griffin led the charge), boys and men who claim they are female will be able to take positions on girls’ and women’s sports teams. Besides being outrageously unfair to girls and women who will lose out to these creatures with greater mass, faster reaction times, longer reach, etc., this could easily lead to subversion of Title IX protections and end them once and for all.

    If there are no “girls” or “women,” if there are no boundaries and delineations, then there is no one who needs to be protected. In the scenario of full-inclusion for trans MtF, it’s one long continuum, and eventually, the best man wins (the hallmark of fair competition) regardless of how the “man” got there, because by definition, there’s no bias.

  14. thebewilderness

    It was the boundaries issue that struck me.
    Females are not permitted to set boundaries under patriarchy.
    Men set the boundaries for women and then when men transgress those boundaries they blame women for failure to adequately enforce them.

  15. The ‘Erasure’ of femaleness, from the ‘Human Condition’ is the ultimate objective. Transpolitics is part of it, but one of the other of Janice Raymond’s books “Women as Wombs”, describes another part – the removal, or “erasure” of female role in reproduction through artifical reproduction.

  16. rhondda

    Oh, my Goddess! The idea of a second anus reminds me of my ex brother in law who equated the birth of a child as having a huge dump. I was so shocked, I could not say anything and wondered if his wife thought that too. Sorry the wrong hole brother. It was more like a painful orgasm, only because the kid slid along my spine and the male doctor delighted in my pain and refused any relief. Luckily, it was not a long journey and the result was okay. It is not like a bowel movement at all. Stupid men.

  17. sonia

    I just reread “FTM transsexualism and grief” by Sheila Jeffreys on Amy’s Feminist Reprise Library site. This:

    “Loree Cook-Daniels found FTM transsexualism to be surprisingly common in her circle of lesbian friends in the US once she started asking around in response to her partner’s decision to become a ‘transman’ ( In 3 years previous to 1998, she says, there had been 5 national conferences devoted to FTMs. She writes about how difficult it is for partners of FTMs who have to devote their energies to the quest of their girlfriend to be a man whilst that quest throws their own lesbianism into doubt, with consequent painful heartsearchings for their lost identity. FTM transsexualism destroys the lesbianism not just of the woman who ‘transitions’ but that of her female partner too. Sadly, Cook-Daniels’ FTM partner committed suicide in 2000.”

    was striking and I think the other side of this issue- normative transsexualism for strongly butch lesbians- deserves a lot of attention as well. Especially the energy-sucking aspect mentioned above. UP, if you’re into it, I might write another piece on the flipside after some research.

  18. sonia

    @rainsinger- totally brilliant. I also think these things are tied together. How often do we as radfems see this big picture you illustrate with this simple sentence? That these things are working on a myriad of fronts, but working together, towards gynocide. The usurpation of femininity and simultaneous definition of females as femininity, combined with the science of artificial reproduction? dude, that’s everything men like about women right there. the ability to CREATE MORE DUDES, coupled with the ability to be feminine? Rendered obsolete.

  19. ablackdyke

    This notion that “trans women are men seeking to infiltrate lesbian spaces to rape women” is actually a bunch of baseless nonsense, which conveniently ignores the fact that trans women are just as likely to be sexually assaulted as than cis women and furthers the invisibility of survivors of rape perpetrated by other women.

    Way to go. It seems in your loathing of trans women, you’ve managed to sell all women down the river.

  20. I have no idea why I approved your comment, ablackdyke. Sometimes I get all, oh it’s the READING GROUP, and I think other people should be able to comment freely.

    Actually, there are multiple reports of trans women assaulting FABs. Here’s one right now! And that’s a pretty tame one.

    FYI: Radical feminists do not accept the trans-political definition of WOMAN as performance. In OUR view, MtFs are still MEN because they were SOCIALIZED as men, which is the emotional and cognitive SOURCE of male entitlement to female bodies. And guess who the primary perpetrators of violence against women are?? That’s right: MEN. MABs, to be specific. So even while being a target for male violence because of their gender-nonconformity, MtFs are still MUCH MORE LIKELY to harm FABs than other FABs are. Because MtFs/MABs cannot ERASE their brains from the gender conditioning they experienced as male children. Sorry, but they can’t. No one can. PTSD survivors would love to!

    MtFs pose a legitimate threat to FABs. This is not an expression of HATRED; it is SELF-defense, sister. Please stop being a male apologist. That’s not what FRG is for.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s