Elizabeth Hungerford: Sex is Not Gender


CounterPunch WEEKEND EDITION AUGUST 2-4, 2013
There is No War
Sex is Not Gender
Samantha Allen’s article, “Counterpunch and the War on Transgender People,” published in the Jacobin on July 10, 2013 and then republished on Salon the next day under the title “The hate group masquerading as feminists,” contains many emotionally-charged adjectives and strongly-worded assertions, but it is remarkably short on analysis and understanding. There is no war. As a gender critical feminist and an attorney, I have been analyzing the legal and medical conflation of gender with sex for years. The articles authored by Julian Vigo and published in CounterPunch last month are not “reactionary” or demonizing of trans people, as Jacobin’s editorial staff erroneously believes.  Jacobin and Salon have both been used as proxies for hate speech against gender critical feminists and, unlike Counterpunch’s balanced ethos, neither publication acknowledges that Allen’s inaccurate article demands a response. The silencing of gender critical dissent has become so widespread that it has infected leftist and mainstream media outlets alike. As a result, I feel especially grateful to have the opportunity to answer Allen here.
By equating the speech of gender critical feminists with “bullying” and “contempt,” Allen materially misrepresents the positions taken by the women she references in her article. Allen actually calls for more people to recognize radical feminists as a hate group and then pointedly adopts the term Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) to refer to them throughout the article. Make no mistake, this is a slur. TERF is not meant to be explanatory, but insulting. These characterizations are hyperbolic, misleading, and ultimately defamatory. They do nothing but escalate the vitriol and fail to advance the conversation in any way.
In fact, gender critical feminists raise very serious and legitimate concerns about essentializing gender roles as innate parts of ourselves. We also take issue with the construction of sex and gender as legally interchangeable. Further, gender critical feminists are as diverse a group of people as trans activists are. Vigo has never identified as a radical feminist, she is a queer theorist; and while a certain Internet user may appear to be “the chief TERF figurehead,” she is not my chief. What we all agree on, however, is that sex-based gender roles are oppressive social constructs– not natural states of being in need of protection and celebration– and that the well-documented threats of violence against women who defend women-only space are an abusive and unacceptable response to political disagreement.
Allen calls for radical thinkers to better “expose the flaws,” “dismantle,” and “repudiate” the gender critical arguments circulating in radical communities. In response, I’d like to radically deconstruct some of the allegations contained within Allen’s article– the one that Jacobin “stand[s] behind without reservation” and claims to be “so proud to publish.”
To start, Allen relies on a specious analogy between trans and gay politics in her attempt to discredit Vigo’s excellent reportingand analysis:

…if the anti-trans* rhetoric that has appeared on CounterPunch over the last two months were transposed onto gay or lesbian identity, leftists would instantly recognize it as homophobic. If Julian Vigo questioned the existence of “straight privilege” instead of the existence of “cisgender privilege,” she would be instantly shouted down by a chorus of gay-affirmative voices. If she posited that lesbians are “confused” in the same way that she argues that transgender folks “confuse sex with gender,” she would be shown the door at any leftist publication worth its salt.

There is no “anti-trans* rhetoric” in either article written by Vigo on CounterPunch. More importantly, this facile analogy brings no clarity to the discussion. Finding similarity between “straight privilege” and “cisgender privilege” evinces lack of understanding about the differences between sexual orientation and “gender identity.”
Heterosexual coupling requires both sexes by definition. “Straight privilege” therefore accrues to both men and women equally. “Cisgender privilege,” on the other hand, is a misnomer. Gender-conforming males are rewarded for masculine conformity. Masculine men are never oppressed on the basis of gender; or to say it another way: “cisgender” men are never oppressed on the basis of gender. The same does not hold true for women; it is the opposite. Women’s gender conformity does not protect us from oppression on the basis of gender. “Cisgendered” women are still routinely targeted for sexist treatment, harassment, and discrimination. The concept of “cisgender privilege” falsely posits men and women as social equals in regard to gendered oppression. It is an inaccurate explanation of how gender norms operate as a sex-based social hierarchy that devalues women. Talking about “cisgender privilege” simply does not make sense in the context of women’s relationship to gender and oppression.
Frankly, Allen seems to have missed the point of gender critical arguments entirely. Gay men and lesbians do not seek to define the essence and lived experience of another class of persons. By comparison, male-socialized transwomen wish to redefine the meaning of “woman” to include themselves. Gay and lesbian individuals do not demand that others suspend disbelief about the material reality of our bodies and lives. Nor do we claim homosexuality as a “condition” akin to a biological error that can or should be medically corrected. In fact, gays and lesbians fight to make social space for ourselves just the way we are. We fought to get homosexuality removed entirely from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and we have opposed “conversion therapy” because pathologizing the individual for harmless social non-conformity is abusive.
In stark contrast, many trans people believe that they were born into the “wrong” body for their “gender identity” and seek to medically alter their anatomical sex to correct this urgent problem. This is the entire reason for hormonal “therapy” and surgery. Logically speaking, one’s gender or sexuality can only be “wrong” if there is also a “right” way to be. Describing certain sexual orientations or gender expressions as “wrong” when they manifest in individuals with certain bodies or genitals is to normalize the heteronormative status quo as the “right” way of being. It is to come full circle; it is conservative.
These are important and significant points of divergence between the political goals of gay and lesbian people and those of self-defined trans people. Allen glosses over all of this, lazily claiming victimhood as the ultimate political cause without really analyzing what she is arguing. Transwomen are no more a special brand of “endangered species” than butch lesbians are.
Again, it seems that Allen has some serious misconceptions about gender critical analysis:

Just like cisgender women, some transgender women adopt stereotypical gender roles and some do not. To single transgender women out for the perpetuation of gender roles is a leap in logic that can only be explained by a deep-seated, visceral form of contempt.

Clearly, Allen hasn’t read much feminist theory. If she had, she’d know that stereotypical femininity is regarded by many feminists as a harmful social construct that no person should adopt, perform, celebrate, or identify with. The critique is not limited to transwomen; it is directed at females as well. In other words, it’s not all about you. The “contempt” Allen inappropriately personalizes is rooted in an extensive history of ideological critique. A purported explanation that begins with a false premise, as Allen’s does, is over before it even begins.
Next, I want to shed particular light on Allen’s claims about biology:

Penises are not inherently male just as vaginas are not inherently female. Our bodies are not objective pieces of matter that pre-exist the inscription of social meaning; rather, our “beliefs about gender” inform the very notion that a penis is a male sex organ.

Contrary to Allen’s scientific fantasy that a penis is not inherently male, bodies are not purely subjective. Genitals are material realities that shape our lived experiences and social roles. Gender critical feminists do not have a commitment to the naturalism of gendered social roles; but many trans people do. Instead of claiming that the prefabricated binary gender roles of “man” and “woman” are essential parts of ourselves—which again, is a conservative view– gender critical feminists believe that these social roles are harmful constructs that constitute dangerous justification for the on-going oppression and dehumanization of women.
Anne Fausto-Sterling’s work is often invoked by trans activists, including Allen, who wish to make an argument about the physical diversity of human bodies. The existence of intersex people is undeniably real; however, critiquing gender essentialism does not depend on being able to identify a perfectly delineated reproductive binary. The point is that the social categories of “man” and “woman” are a perfectly delineated binary. No one escapes. Gender critical feminists therefore deconstruct the powerful cultural and individual effects of being socialized from birth on the basis of genitals into a binary gender system that strictly enforces heteronormativity. Lived experiences, especially those that are constantly reinforced the way that gender roles are, have lifelong effects.
Finally, I’d like to address my own work. As co-author of the letter to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women referenced in Allen’s article, I am concerned that Allen has falsely represented the submission as an argument against– “yes, against”– legal protections for trans-identified individuals. A quick reading of the letter reveals that its specific purpose was to highlight the legal contradiction that occurs when “gender identity” is defined in such a way that it overrides or disregards sex as a legal category. The practical application of this new development, our primary concern, was that sex-based protections for females were therefore being eroded by the legislation.
This is clearly not a statement denying that trans people are discriminated against. It is a statement demanding concurrent recognition for the rights and needs of girls and women. Allowing the rights of one protected class– “gender identity”– to override those of another–”sex”– can and does cause conflicts.

Read the rest of this article here:
[Image added by me- GM]

41 thoughts on “Elizabeth Hungerford: Sex is Not Gender

  1. excellent article.
    and yes, indeed it is funny how transes will say sex and gender are two separate things…but then on the other hand DEMAND that they be a part of everything with females. very hypocritical

  2. ” Masculine men are never oppressed on the basis of gender; or to say it another way: “cisgender” men are never oppressed on the basis of gender. ”
    hahaha yes! i like how she states it there.

  3. I haven’t even read it, but I’m going to say “congratulations and thank you”, before I do. This is so gratifying.

  4. “By comparison, male-socialized transwomen wish to redefine the meaning of “woman” to include themselves.”
    Same-sex couples wish to redefine the meaning of “married persons” to include themselves.

    1. Idiotic and clueless men want to redefine the meaning of “feminist discourse” to include themselves.

    2. Mikhail, please. First of all, many same-sex couples do not want to get married. You know this. And secondly, marriage is a legal institution that one CONTRACTS into; marriage is not a class of persons. You can try to frame it as “married persons” but I don’t think it works.
      And of course this is ripe for deeper for analysis, but I believe my point is clear.

    3. The difference is marriage is a human invention we made the rules of and therefore we can change them, as distinct from your sex, which doesn’t change over the course of your life. No mammal has that peculiarity.

  5. After trans activists viciously attacked Deep Green Resistance, Lierre Keith, Rachel Ivey, and Derrick Jensen, Counterpunch took notice. Derrick Jensen is a brilliant writer who speaks so passionately about environmental issues. This is what happened to him.
    Derrick Jensen Says:
    May 18, 2013 at 9:35 pm
    “Dear All, just for the record, that is not my facebook page. People keep putting up facebook pages with my name, and they posting horrible horrible things, like calls for violence against women. That is not me. I keep reporting them to facebook, and they get taken down, and then these abusers put up another one.
    They also include photoshopped pictures that purport to show me fucking salmon. This is because I write about how we need to stop salmon from being extirpated by this culture. And I saw a telling post on an anarchist page a while back: it was a picture of a pigeon, with the caption, “I shit on what you love.” This is what they are doing: I love salmon, and they have to shit on that love by pornographying it. It’s all the central patriarchal violation imperative. It’s all so disgusting and horrid.”
    Counterpunch embodies integrity and they are fearless. They make me proud that I’m originally from the redwood region of Northern California. I love these people.

  6. This is a fantastic post. I’ve been trying to put into words what you wrote here for a long time but you did it more beautifully, Concisely and aptly then I could have. Thanks for this!

  7. I posted this article on my facebook earlier and I had a trans viciously attack me and say the article is bullshit and that i should be ashamed for posting. this is what they said to me:
    ‘No objective proof that i’m female? I have two letters from medical doctors stating im female. Who are *you* to argue with an MD?
    Where did you get your medical degree ave? Dont have one? Didnt fucking think so.
    Who are you to argue with an MD’s diagnosis.
    a diagnosis by the way that will hold up if challenged in court
    so you said i have no proof and i do”

    1. And a doctor couldn’t possibly have a vested interest in declaring someone to be a certain sex other than their birth sex, right?
      Sure, it’ll hold up in court, because our society has all kinds of bizarre legal constructs that defy everyone’s understanding of nature. Like, for example, a corporation being a person.
      It holds up in court. Doesn’t make it right.

    2. I’m calling shenanigans that any medical doctor has proclaimed this person “female” anyway. Changed the sex marker, sure, maybe to “legally female” (that’s what those doctors do after SRS), but biologically female? Not happening.
      Or in other words, “sorry about your (inverted) penis.”

  8. Ave,
    It’s interesting that someone who believes they have *proof* of something from a professional, become so angered that someone who isn’t a professional disbelieves them. If I have a PhD from Harvard in archeology, I’m not going to care if a non-expert tells me my specimens are just a bunch of old rocks.
    I had the same experience recently – in my case, they listed doctor, therapist, psychologist, endocrinologist AND surgeon. Who can argue with all THAT? Of course, SRS is a revenue stream for all of the above…

  9. So logical!
    “Silencing gender critical dissent”, that is brilliantly said.
    Trans BS is galling.
    People with penis are not women. Especially not when they act like dominator males.
    Demanding transgender rights while eliminating rights of the class of women is unacceptable.
    I’m so thrilled to read this analysis, and to have followed you GS and see this trans fallacy come into clearer focus, thanks for this.

  10. Great post! I am so sick of the homophobia where straight men with woman fetishes are going after lesbian females to force them to accept hetrosexual sex or be handmaidens to serve them.
    It is so homophobic, I am surprised they are not getting in trouble for inciting a homophobic hate crime. They are no different than the neo-nazis gay bashing, not all are like this, but sh*t, cant you leave women alone and jack yourself off to the fantasy instead?. I lived overseas for almost ten years, and when I returned, the women’s groups were gone. I loved going to these places because they spoke openly about women’s concerns, there were no men policing the conversations and disallowing violent, or topics that discussed situations of men using what ever leverage or trick they can to force women to serve them sexually. I would always leave with a hug from someone and encouragement to stand tall and go on- what ever situation I was subject to in this world that puts men’s desires and entertainment over women’s so-called-equal rights,
    I went to a few groups that claimed to be women’s groups when I returned. but they were full of men in dresses and fetish wear hitting on gay/bi and straight[wants women’s night out] biological females for free, unattached porn-style sex. What was more scary was the angry, hatefull- M to Ts that sneered at the women and were verbally abusive and hateful to the point that the women that were there spent most the time mothering them for the attention they expected from women so they didn’t destroy the space and have a big drama tantrum. In the 1990’s guys used to pay a Dominatrix to play along with these fantasies in private, but now they want to live in a fantasy and force women to play with them for free in their own spaces. Alot of these guys are on BDSM social sites, and they are very open about it being a fetish. They dont mention the ‘children’ crap though.
    If you go to collarme.com and fetlife.com, you will find most of these guys that are attacking you. Just make a man’s profile with a fake photo, and look for them..
    In communist countries, they let women have women’s groups to talk about women’s issues away from men’s sexual fetish groups and these are considered separate issues. But with Pat Robertson’s support, this is going to be a struggle.
    In India, where prostitution and child prostitution are readily available everywhere, it has fueled the demand to the point where it has lead to gangs of men that attack mothers with small children as young as five, in hopes of getting access to a ‘real virgin’ that the culture seems to support they have a right to access. It is widely believed in the most populated countries that Men cant help but to rape and force their sexual desires on women. After that woman was raped on the bus by those six guys, they inserted a pipe into her half way through her body that impaled her internal organs. One of the men said that it happened because they need access to younger, prettier, prostitutes that they can afford. Women and female children get raped and killed every week, EVERY week, there and the women have had enough. You should check out their ’50-million missing women campaign'[50 million is not a typo,].
    Obviously, legal prostitution has fueled this demand. You give an inch, the privileged class takes a mile until you have nothing more to give..
    Don’t give in to them. You are right about this;
    It is a bad sign that these guys are pushing their sexual fetish rights on women that dont desire them. they always mention their prostitution agenda they want to force on the lesbian community.
    It is only a matter of time before this crazy shit and belief ‘women owe them sex’ backfires on them.
    You got a fetish? Cool, good for you, but dont force it on others. That is not right.

    1. The pro-prostitution lobby in the US loves to pretend that things like that don’t really happen to prostitutes both in the US and around the world. How dare anyone think about the millions of girls missing in India when it’s much more fun to think about the few middle class white women who do it b/c they love sex. Or even better, violence against women is just an isolated incident caused by bad luck, and not indicative of a woman hating culture.
      Most of the funfem blogs that do briefly mention violence in prostitution argue that it’s bad b/c the violence happens to transwomen.
      I think we’re at a point where it’s necessary to take sides, b/c it’s been proven time and again that “rights” for transgendered males fly in the face of all women. I know I should be “nice” and advocate for some vague definition of equality, but frankly that’s bullshit. At some point all women need to ask themselves, whose side am I on: men who demand we coddle them and their destructive fetishes, or women who deserve the self-actualization to realize we’re human too?

      1. Very true! 🙁

        ^This is the type of guy I run into that wants to control or destroy women’s groups. He is so ashamed of being gay, and he blames women that have nothing to do with his sexuality.
        He also hates straight men for not accepting him as female, and has vowed to trick them whenever he can.
        No one wants to bring this up as a M to trans issue, and it is where some of the male violence on trans M to Ts comes from.
        Women get killed for tricking men, we all understand this, but
        They want to be attractive like females and enjoy the male privilege, but straight guys dont want to give them straight male privilege [like L/bi/straight women are automatically expected to give in to and offer them male privilege above the female social slave class in every space and humor them to be polite] if they want to id as ‘female’.
        The M to T dont realize that they are being treated like a ‘female’ by the straight guys! Being degraded, treated badly, and judged, treated like shit and nitpicked by your looks is how men sometimes treat women, but they cant see why the straight guys dont give them normal male privilege over biological females when it comes to who they exploit! Duh!
        They hate to be treated as real females and want to invoke their male birthright and scream victim every time they make this type of trouble and hide behind skirts,
        biological women know this could be a death sentence and we are expected to sacrifice everything to give them extra- special male privilege..This is between the men and they need to work it out.

      2. Druidwinter, that video – ewwwwwww. That guy’s voice and syntax are excruciating, first of all, but then come his skills at manipulation: telling straight men that he’s going to kill himself if they don’t return his affection. (Correct me if I’m wrong – I can’t listen to that video again to check – but it seems he did this while still male-appearing as well.) When they don’t respond to his blatant machinations, telling him fine, go off yourself, he uses this as “evidence” of their cold-heartedness. This guy is toxic, toxic, toxic. Passive-aggressive doesn’t begin to cover it.
        And then there’s the most obvious “tell” of this guy’s fetishism – the extremely fake-looking breasts he can’t help but keep on constant display. Look at me look at me looooooook aaaaaaat meeeeeeeee! The usual. But anyway, yeah, toxic.

  11. Excellent article. I was hoping for something like this since I saw the other article in Jacobin.
    Meanwhile though having read a bunch of blogs and articles complaining about “cis-privilege” endlessly, I think it really is a real thing, when viewed from those who wish they had it – but it’s not anything actual women would consider to be “privilege” in a million years.
    Namely, for people who have a fetish about being treated in a way they imagine women to be treated, who are always hoping to “pass” and count those times almost as little tests and victories (as so many of the M2T who make a big point about going into the women’s bathroom do, or that guy who was so thrilled that he was allowed to register to vote with his newly “F” ID was going on about) – they’re jealous that actual women are automatically treated as “regular women” and get the “normal, regular” heaping of misogynistic treatment, as distinct from the “WTF? Why are you in costume?” treatment that the M2T who fail to pass get.
    Obviously a lot of the hate behind the “WTF? Why are you so crazy as to try to pretend to be a woman, of all things?” hate that is “transphobia” is rooted in misogyny to begin with, but the expression is slightly different.
    Again for me it’s all about that same old question, how does a masochistic (as was helpfully pointed out to me here in another thread) person voluntarily join an oppressed group in order to wallow in that fetishized oppression (or get to play at “overcoming” it, or being “better at being a member of that group than the real people born to it” etc)? It only fulfills that deep need if bystanders all either can’t tell that the person is a volunteer (i.e. “pretending”) or they’re willing to play along.
    To use the race analogy again, “dammit, it’s just so unfair that actual black people so easily pass for black and are accepted into those circles while they can tell I’ve just got shoe polish on my face, and so I’m rejected from those circles I’m trying so desperately to join AND also people from my own group torment me for being crazy enough to wear this costume.”

    1. They do have cis privilege Adrian. Male Cis privilege. They not only cannot get rid of it they don’t want to, and use it like I use air.
      “Meanwhile though having read a bunch of blogs and articles complaining about “cis-privilege” endlessly, I think it really is a real thing, when viewed from those who wish they had it – but it’s not anything actual women would consider to be “privilege” in a million years.”

    2. Somehow I have not pity for them. And don’t believe a thing they say. If “xiss” privilege means that people see me and know I am a human female yes I have that. And so do they. We know they are men. And add to that the jobs women have applied for with a pregnant belly that they have not gotten. Or the ones lost when they started to show. Yes, fraught with privilege dripping in it. What they consider privilege is whatever they feel hinders the fantasy impedes the role play. Privilege is when class is afforded economic or political access or power denied to another class. It is not anyone or anything that hurts someones feelings. These guys have “transprivilage” and that allows for them to play the victim and the victim always get the moral high ground when they frame the oppressor. They get lying privilege, the get false analogy privilege. They get all the male privilege that they brought with them. The get the privilege of someone even buying one iota of what they say. They get buckets of money from LBGT privilege. The only thing they are denied and should be continued to be denied is women’s willingness to trade our correct perceptions of them as male in order to role play in their endless sexual fantasy. They don’t get that. Transphobia is anything and everything they don’t like. It is saying you are a male. Who knows maybe the next civil rights battle will be for laws stating specifically that women have to pander to male delusions and sexual fantasies.

    3. Ohh, had an awesome conversation about WTF ‘ciss privilege for being recognised as ‘female’. They dont mean from old ladies
      No, no no!
      I have had ‘ciss privilege’ explained to me as, when men look at women as sexual objects and they dont pay as much attention to other men desperately wanting that looked at for narcissistic ‘sex object’ attention, [more like narCISSistic privilege of sexual attraction and being told you are pretty constantly, like your looks matter more than you as a human]
      Ciss privledge is seen by them as desired ‘ultimate sexual attraction/center of attention’ specialness that women are born privileged with over them.
      ‘Step aside to let the guys be first, but dont worry, you are so pretty!’ -that you can skate by on looks alone and all other talents are stifled or ignored..
      When women going to pee see a badly dressed ex-con with a probation anklett and a red flag goes up when women feel that it is a bad idea letting a person like this trap you in a closed space or letting your five year old child go in the woman’s room alone and someone with this description walks in right after her, it is ‘transphobic’ to protect your self or your child or take any precautions because you need to check your privilege because they need more protection from rape then your child.
      Yea, narCISSistic privilege..
      The attraction and being recognised as a woman? No, it is be recognised like a female sex object. The assume other women look at eachother in this way.
      Sometimes I wonder if ‘ciss privilege’ is internalized jealousy for closeted gay guys that dont pass enough to get wolf whistles and stalked by other men out of this imagined ‘extreme love &attraction’ they view other men as having for women. But they know they are men, so all the ‘female’ attributes, sexy legs, breasts, etc are accented and overdone. The skirts are really short in hopes men are compelled to look up them, It is the ‘LOOK AT ME’ syndrome.
      like they are attractive women, the breasts are larger and stick out.
      Ciss privilege is trying to declaire it is a female privledge when men are sexually reducing women to attraction of body parts and sexuality [leggs, breasts, sluttyness].
      Ciss privledge seems to be more about overly exaggerating female-ness for narCISSistic desired sexual attention,
      they imagine XX women have the privilege of receiving, whether they want it or not.
      Anorexia is even being called ‘thin’ ciss privilege because of men that drool over this like a fetish, despite the women being formally abused, suffering to the point they became abnormally thin and even hospitalized.
      Some M to Ts are ‘jealous’ when women get raped, when I was seeing them as domination clients,[in the 1990s] I was told this-openly, because there is a flawed fetishized view that men rape women because they desire them beyond control, and many M to T have fantasies about being so desired for sex so much-that they are kidnapped and raped.
      They often desire fantasies of being raped and request Dominatrices to strap on pretend -rape them so they can imaging themselves in a raped woman’s position, which they fetishize as being extremely desired. ‘Lesbian rape’ is a common fetish they want to act out with themselves being the object of desire.. I only did this in phone sessions because the ‘job situation’ and it paid good, and I didnot have to look at them. They cant get enough of sexslave fantasies, but always put themselves in the women’s position. Some may believe that this feeling alone makes them ‘women’
      Yet, when you talk about the only time they would really be raped like a woman, in reality- which is in prison, they dont want that type of attention and say it is a completely different situation, – and you cant compare the two, as the same thing.
      So, I am supposed to buy into ‘rape culture’ and ‘rape of XX women’ are ‘ciss privileges’ and beautiful fantasies of extreme love, and them getting unwanted sex-like in prison, [which is the only fair comparison], is what rapeculture really should be focused on preventing, this is why when rape is discussed in mixed groups, they pipe in to say they are raped more, and the normal reaction despite the absurdity is to humor them and falsely validate this claim..
      some will really believe that they are more violently raped and women are normally raped as a ‘privileged attraction’. This is why some insist they are raped more often than women, because our rape doesnt really count as a ‘legitimate rape’ to them and some have argued with me that it is justified and we ask for it sometimes..

  12. Druidwinter, I actually suffered through the whole hateful video… And lord was it awful.
    He starts out by complaining about how men he loved rejected him. HELLO that happens to real women all the time! It’s not “transphobia.” Geez, seriously, does he think all women can have whatever men they want just by virtue of being real women?!
    And right toward the end he says something like “we’re more women than women,” and proceeds to explain how trannies are better at sexually servicing men. Yeah, because, you know, what defines “women,” or makes some people “more women” than others, is how good they are at sucking cock.
    That pretty much sums it up right there. Women are for sucking cock.
    Excuse me while I go vomit.

  13. Thank you for your hard work thinking through and writing this article, Elizabeth. Your articulate voice on these issues is much appreciated.

  14. Thank you for this article. I particularly liked Druid’s explanation of ‘cis’ privilege, which isn’t really a privilege after all. I’ve had the same ideas about what that ‘privilege’ really means for transppl.
    They do seem to spend an awful lot of time wanting to be sexually desired, as if that’s the only thing that matters. When I used to go to fetish clubs I’d see transppl getting incredibly angry if WBW were getting all the attention, which is usually what happened.
    There does seem to be narcissism involved here. When I was a younger woman I’d try to make friends with transppl and it was more like constant competition unlike my WBW friends.

Comments are closed.