Authenticity of – Forbidden Discourse: The Silencing of Feminist Critique of "Gender"- statement has been confirmed


The authenticity of following statement, now censored from which was among the first sites who published it, has been confirmed. Some question of its authenticity arose in the initial period after its distribution for issues you can read about Here. However, many women have contacted various signatories and the authenticity of the document has been confirmed. Not only that, but more women have, and are currently, co-signing the document.  Thank you to all the women who contacted me and provided verification over the last twelve hours. The entire statement is published below. Heart at Women’s Space has provided biographical information on the original signers Here, and what an impressive group of women they are. If you would like to have your name added as a co-signer of the document please contact Carol Hanisch here:

The original statement in full:

Forbidden Discourse: The Silencing of Feminist Criticism of “Gender”
An open statement from 37 radical feminists from five countries.

August 12, 2013

We, the undersigned 1960s radical feminists and current activists, have been
concerned for some time about the rise within the academy and mainstream media
of “gender theory,” which avoids naming men and the system of male supremacy
as the beneficiaries of women’s oppression. Our concern changed to alarm when
we learned about threats and attacks, some of them physical, on individuals and
organizations daring to challenge the currently fashionable concept of gender.
Recent developments: A U.S. environmental organization that also calls itself
radical feminist is attacked for its political analysis of gender. Feminist conferences
in the U.K., U.S. and Canada are driven from their contracted locations for asserting
the right of women to organize for their liberation separately from men, including
M>F (male to female) transgendered people.

Deep Green Resistance (DGR) reports1 that queer activists defaced its published
materials and trans activists threatened individual DGR members with arson, rape
and murder. Bookstores are pressured not to carry DGR’s work and its speaking
events are cancelled after protests by queer/transgender activists. At “RadFem”
conferences in London2, Portland3 and Toronto4, trans activists accuse scheduled
speakers of hate speech and/or being transphobic because they dare to analyze
gender from a feminist political perspective. Both MF transgender people and
“men’s rights” groups, operating separately but using similar language, demand
to be included in the Rad Fem 2013 conference in London called to fight against
women’s oppression and for liberation.

How did we slide back to the point where radical feminists have to fight for the
right to hold women-only conferences and criticize conventional “gender roles”?
The rise of Gender Studies may be part of the problem. Language is a wonderful
human tool for thinking, understanding, cooperation and progress, so it makes
sense that when people fight for freedom and justice against those who are
oppressing them, the use and misuse of words—of language—becomes part of
the struggle. Originally the term “gender” may have been a useful way around
the communication problem that the word “sex” in English has several meanings.
“Sex” refers to the reproduction of a species, as well as acts bringing about sexual
pleasure AND the simply descriptive division of many plants and animals into
two observable categories—the “sexes.” Using “gender” instead of “sex” allows
feminists to make it clear that all kinds of social relations and differences between
the sexes were unjust, not just sexual relations between the sexes. “Gender”
also covers the artificial, socially-created differences between the human sexes,
the overwhelming majority of which are politically, economically and culturally
disadvantageous to female humans.

“Gender Studies” has displaced the grassroots women’s liberation analysis
of the late 1960s and early 1970s. An early embrace of the neutral idea of
“sex roles” as a major cause of women’s oppression by some segments of the
women’s liberation movement has morphed into the new language—but the
same neutrality—of “gender roles” and “gender oppression.” With a huge
boost from the “new” academic theory coming out of those programs, heavily
influenced by post-modernism, “gender identity” has overwhelmed—when
not denying completely—the theory that biological women are oppressed and
exploited as a class by men and by capitalists due to their reproductive capacity.
Women often can no longer organize against our oppression in women-only
groups without being pilloried with charges of transphobia. But, as a UKbased
radical feminist “Fire in My Belly” wrote in her blog, “Radical feminists
recognise that an individual’s ‘gender identity’ cannot, in a fair society, be
allowed to ride roughshod over biological sex, which cannot be changed.”5
We do not view traditional sex/gender roles as natural or permanent. In fact,
criticizing these “roles” is valid and necessary for women’s liberation. Radical
feminist analysis and activism focus on unequal power relations between men
and women under male supremacy, with real, material benefits going to the
oppressor group (men) at the expense of the oppressed group (women).
The system of male supremacy comes down hard on non-conforming men and
women, as movingly described online by members of the trans community.
While switching gender identity may alleviate some problems on an individual
level, it is not a political solution. Furthermore, a strong case can be made that
it undermines a solution for all, even for the transitioning person, by embracing
and reinforcing the cultural, economic and political tracking of “gender” rather
than challenging it. Transitioning is a deeply personal issue associated with a
lot of pain for many people but it is not a feminist strategy or even individual
feminist stance. Transitioning, by itself, does not aid in the fight for equal
power between the sexes.

There will have to be many advances in science and technology before the
bodies of female humans will no longer be needed for the complicated
and dangerous jobs of supplying eggs and gestating and bearing ongoing
generations to carry on the work of the world. There will also, no doubt, be
struggles to ensure that women are not oppressed in new ways under these
new circumstances.

Not all feminists agree that ‘gender’ should be done away with, nor do
we agree with one another on pornography or prostitution or a radical
transformation of our economy or a number of other issues. But our movement
has a history of airing serious dif
ferences in speeches and distributed position
papers, not in physical attacks, threats of bodily harm and censorship of such
analyses. DGR and RadFem stood up for the right to think, speak and write
freely on the question of gender.

Although we may not be in total agreement with DGR’s analysis of gender, we
welcome it as an important contribution to radical feminism and commend
the courage it has taken to stand against the threats and attacks it brought
upon them. We defend the right of RadFem to exclude men, including M>F
trans people, from their feminist meetings and to invite speakers who analyze
gender from a feminist perspective. We also commend CounterPunch online
for publishing the DGR material, which brought similar attacks for transphobia
upon them, including from Jacobin magazine online.

We look forward to freedom from gender. The “freedom for gender”
movement, whatever the intentions of its supporters, is reinforcing the culture
and institutions of gender that are oppressing women. We reject the notion
that this analysis is transphobic. We uphold the radical feminist principle that
women are oppressed by male supremacy in both its individual and institutional
forms. We continue to support the radical feminist strategy of organizing an
independent power base and speaking the basic truths of our experience out of
earshot of the oppressor. We hold these principles and strategies essential for
advancing toward women’s liberation.


Initiated by Carol Hanisch (NY), Kathy Scarbrough (NJ), Ti-Grace Atkinson (MA), and Kathie Sarachild (NY)

Also signed by Roberta Salper (MA), Marjorie Kramer (VT), Jean Golden (MI), Marisa Figueiredo (MA), Maureen Nappi (NY), Sonia Jaffe Robbins (NY), Tobe Levin (Germany), Marge Piercy (MA), Barbara Leon (CA), Anne Forer (AZ), Anselma Dell’Olio (Italy), Carla Lesh (NY), Laura X (CA), Gabrielle Tree (Canada), Christine Delphy (France), Pam Martens (FL), Nellie Hester Bailey (NY), Colette Price (NY), Candi Churchhill (FL), Peggy Powell Dobbins (GA), Annie Tummino (NY), Margo Jefferson (NY), Jennifer Sunderland (NY), Michele Wallace (NJ), Allison Guttu (NY), Sheila Michaels (MO), Carol Giardina (NY), Nicole Hardin (FL), Merle Hoffman (NY), Linda Stein (NY), Margaret Stern (NY), Faith Ringgold (NJ), Joanne Steele (NY)


51 thoughts on “Authenticity of – Forbidden Discourse: The Silencing of Feminist Critique of "Gender"- statement has been confirmed

      1. To see many of my sheroes standing up like this is incredible. If this had happened in the 90s I might never have fallen in with the trans cult in the first place. The impact can’t be over-stated. This is a huge step toward mending the patriarchally-engineered division between our generations of women which has been so disastrous for us all.

      2. Relevant link to videos of one of the aforementioned sheroes, Faith Ringgold <3
        LISTEN to what she says about the women's movement and why come young women don't get it ("it has to touch you personally in a way that you can't deny"), and everything else. "See it in the way you do see it." Indeed! <3 <3 <3

  1. I think it’s “amazing”/shameful for Amanda Marcotte to question these women’s radical politics – I know some of these names and their involvement in radical feminism is undeniable. I wonder what she’s going to write about now that this statement’s veracity has been confirmed. Perhaps she should get over the fact that her commercial appeasement brand of feminism will never be radical. Otherwise, it wouldn’t sell which her career depends on.
    Seeing as the feminist movement is literally about to break apart because of the trans issue, this statement was necessary to remind younger feminists how much they’ve sacrificed sisterhood to men who want to be women.
    PS: Heart already deleted the biographical info.

      1. Problem is radical feminism is only one “wing” of the feminist movement. The trans issue has caused the vast majority of those calling themselves feminist (whether liberal, libertarian, queer, socialist, what have you) to cluster at the other end of the liberal-radical spectrum to distance themselves from our “transphobic” politics. It’s dangerous to have a liberal arm with actual social status basically doing appeasement and compromise all the time while shutting out radical influence which could actually change the status quo. Especially if the liberals think they’re radicals. How the hell are we feminists going to liberate women if those of us with power are upholding oppressive institutions while those of us without much power are shunned?
        We’re not in the 60s/70s anymore when there were at least some libfems (e.g. Gloria Steinem) who worked together with radicals and actually questioned existing social structures (incl. the sex industry and transsexualism).

    1. The article is still available on Pandagon but only as a pdf download. Apparently the Pandagon url has been taken over by somebody else not associated with previous owner.
      I think it really unfortunate that this important article got tangled up with ongoing online fueds as it has obscured the contents.
      And as an email contact is available at the end of the document maybe it would have been more positive (ie a clean start) to have posted it to its own wordpress blog to (re)start the conversation. And let women sign up on line.
      This is all just too cloak and dagger.
      The majority of women who think these issues important are just not interested in this obsession on the internet of constant point scoring.
      I am worried that already what could have been a positive start has been undermined by what look like cheap tactics.

    2. If I’m not mistaken, Amanda Marcotte already got into trouble on Feministe (not by the bloggers there of course, but the observent commenters) when she published something that clearly plagiarized the works of a WOC blogger, and then denied it. She’s definitely no friend to women or feminism.

      1. Ugh, yes. Marcotte’s job consists of sucking up to leftist bros who like to consider themselves revolutionary and PC. If you’ve read her screed against the statement and followed some of her tweets you will realize that she (and her political peers) are heavily invested in disappearing trans-critical voices from our feminist past. This is achieved by claiming that “true” radical feminists are not “transphobic” (i.e. trans-critical) and never were – so they can reclaim the label “radical” to wear it as some kind of advertising badge for their journalism & writing careers. Also, they’d really really like to paint themselves as the grand successors of our feminist foremothers and that shit can’t happen if these foremothers were THE TRANZPHOBEZ.
        It’s fucking disgusting. Here we have women with money & power and all they do with that money & power is investing it into getting more money & power. If they were serious about all their feminist biz it would have been easy for anyone of them to either remain silent about trans or actually take a teensy tiny risk for solidarity. Jfc, I hope that cock is good enough to sacrifice feminism for.

    3. Hi ibleedpurple, you wrote: “Seeing as the feminist movement is literally about to break apart because of the trans issue”
      The entire gay, LG, LGBT movement could break apart.
      Look, I go back to the coalition days, feminism 1960’s from a “lay perspective” meaning I went to NOW meetings, signed petitions, discarded bra, never took man’s name nor allowed male economic support, put myself through college, etc., and worked for black male political political office candidates, I would say that it was a COALITION that brought civil rights advances.
      Can the larger umbrella unite to NOT allow trans agenda to allow the gay/lesbian movement to break apart?
      “They” have already driven the divisive nail between the races and the classes, can we unite from the ground up again?
      That would include male gays rising up to support lesbians on this issue with het feminists. Or, feminists formerly het, or feminists at heart who need a campaign like this to unite them to our whole body?

    4. Marcotte’s latest post at Slate is about how Bill O’Reilly was upset about the new law in California that allows trans students to use facilities and participate in programs based on their “gender identification” and not their actual sex. I guess O’Reilly’s beef is that he thinks teenage boys will claim to be trans simply to gain access to the girls’ locker room. Marcotte uses snark to dismiss his complaints as hysterical paranoia. She goes on about how the very last thing most teenage boys want to do is say there’s anything female about themselves whatsoever, which is probably true.
      It’s like the magician who gets you to focus on something else while she/he is doing the sleight-of-hand off to the side in order to complete the trick.
      Marcotte knows that most readers and commenters at Slate (indeed, most thinking people) can’t stand Bill O’Reilly, for a lot of good reasons. I’m certainly not a fan. So she uses O’Reilly’s asshattery as a distraction: “See, look, this mean old conservative man thinks this new law is bad, so if you agree with him, that makes you a mean old conservative too! Guilt by association!” I mean, who wants to be anywhere near O’Reilly, ideologically speaking? Most readers at Slate want to consider themselves hip and progressive, not like some old fuddy-duddy like O’Reilly.
      By doing this, Marcotte keeps people from thinking THIS thought: “Well, I don’t want to be mean to trans kids, but….um, what about the girls in the locker rooms? Why should they be forced to undress in front of a male-bodied person? Or vice versa? That could be very embarrassing, even traumatic, for a lot of kids.”
      Marcotte does not want people to think that thought because the demands of trans people, particularly MtT, are way, WAY more important to her than the right of women and girls to privacy. Why? Because the more she kisses up to them, the more “progressive” cred she gets. (I put the word progressive in quotes because I don’t think there’s anything remotely progressive about forcing girls to undress in front of males.) The more unthinking liberal love comes her way. The more ego strokes. It shows how down she is with the downtrodden! She gets their pain, unlike those elitist old prudes who care about the girls’ dignity! My God, THE HUMANITY OF THIS WOMAN!!!!
      Here’s something that may get me in trouble with folks on this board: I have no problem agreeing with Bill O’Reilly on something. Just because I disagree with him on pretty much everything, doesn’t prevent me from agreeing with him on something. It’s bound to happen; there’s probably not a whole lot of people out there with whom you can disagree with on everything. To disagree with O’Reilly simply because he is who he is, and not what he’s saying, is the mark of a truly thoughtless person; someone who’s more concerned with toeing the line of their political party than actively listening and coming to their own conclusions.
      Ultimately, what O’Reilly is concerned about is the girls’ right to privacy, and safety. I am too. Amanda Marcotte is not. She is no ally to women, or girls. It’s simply more important to her to get ego strokes from having men in female drag compliment her on her makeup, fawn over her, and tell her how righteous and “understanding” she is. Those of us who have no need for male approval see this clearly, because we are on the outside. I respond to women like Marcotte the way a cat responds to a coyote – by backing away quickly and quietly. Women like her do not have our best interests at heart.

      1. Isn’t seeing teenage cis girls undress TORTURE for transkids though? Because all they talk about is how fucking hard it is to exist in a world with real females.
        I remember the funfems threw a party called Dudefest where all their nigels got together to be better masculine of center people and the assigned reading was Riki Wilchins about how crazymaking it was as a kid spying on a female neighbor playing basketball in her driveway, knowing he’d never fill out a sportsbra like that. TORTURE! And that of course is worse than *other* male’s violence and more worthy of books and conversations up until words need to fly out of the other side of their mouths.
        When I was 14, I had my head bashed against a sink in a boys locker room about 20-30 times as it made a good point of leverage for someone to punch me in the face. Good times! But I’m somehow supposed to believe I have privilege over these special snowflakes who don’t even have to take ownership of their own part in patriarchy? Why am I supposed to be more concerned with helping these dudes make girls bathrooms less safe instead of making places safer for everyone?

      2. “Those of us who have no need for male approval see this clearly”
        Yep, it all boils down to her desperate need for male approval{ewww}. Women like her are far more dangerous than the most sexist male; she’s basically a pet but she’s too stupid to know it. These guys, her “friends”, *snort*, will get bored with her and toss her aside once she becomes useless to them. She’s a useless human being anyway.
        Glad O’Reilly offered some common fucking sense!

      3. Funny you should bring that up, anon male, as I had the misfortune of stumbling across…give me a minute here to find it again…this yesterday, an article by a MtT about his envy of born women. I have no idea how I ended up there. It’s the web.
        Apparently he thinks we’re all born knowing how to shave our legs without nicking ourselves, or something, unlike himself who cried in the shower from the pain. Here’s the last paragraph:
        “And so, I always find myself indignantly imagining all those goddesses (ed. – women on T.V. commercials for razors nicking a major artery in their leg, pouring out quart after quart of blood, pooling and staining the white beach sands.
        That always makes me feel a little bit better.”
        In the comments, Red Durkin and “Valerie” Keefe commiserate with his existential angst. So yeah, you’d think they wouldn’t wish to subject themselves to that, but I guess it’s just more important to them to be in a space meant for females. Such martyrs! See how they sacrifice their own well-being for the greater good?! /sarcasm

  2. Whatever the writers’ intention in composing the piece, it was a savvy move to put it up where it would attract so much attention. Have Fishy et al shown up to mansplain that these second wavers are old and irrelevant?
    The Amandas should be ashamed of themselves. Alas, true to type, they’ll probably just dig their heels in harder.

  3. Marcotte’s rant makes clear the point of her earlier Raw Story post lamenting the good ‘ol days of “real” radical feminists, how great they were compared to ‘us’. Ooops.
    Meet your new writer Raw Story: you’ve got yourselves a racist, homophobic, women-hating bigot.

  4. Yes, Ms. Marcotte reacted in a thoroughly unprofessional way, ignoring the distinguished group letter and using the opportunity instead to hurl some abuse our way. She owes radfems an apology for her active participation in the attempts to silence other women. If she looked hard at the comments under her article regarding the Letter, and counted the number of women, and I mean women, who commented, versus the number of men and trans women, she would see that she is supporting men against women on this issue, indeed, men who threaten and silence women. I beleieve if she actually read the Letter and thought about itm she would realize she is harming women with her political position and possibly change it.

  5. If she looked hard at the comments …
    Wow. That is very optimistic of you, Oserchenma. I’m inclined to think that she intends to support men over women which is the infernal problem with liberal/faux feminsm. It’s a fraud from the get go.

    1. Maybe so, femmeforever…I do tend to believe that intelligent women can see logic. Both Ms. Marcotte and Ms. Valenti are in indefensible positions. They are being viciously attacked as feminists on MRA sites, but they are at the same time attacking feminists, as both of them just did, as documented above. They appear to also support prostitution, pornography, and the enshrinement in law of gender roles (by uncritically supporting current trans theories), all positions that are anti-feminist IMHO. I’m just pointing out facts. If it were me I’d sit down and scratch my head and re-examine my politics.
      The same is true for transactivists. The time has come for them to examine whether it’s logical for them to promote laws that enshrine rigid gender stratification at the expense of feminism, and also whether they must expend most of their energy blaming radfems for what men, not radfems, do to them. The former position is going to re-bound on them, because gender roles are fluid, and their current position is harmful for trans people too in the long run. The latter position gives the real perpetrators of their misery a free pass to continue harming them.

      1. Oser, read up on Paul McHugh, Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence. Read the formal sites not the trans ones. Pay special attention to “autogynephilia”.

    1. Women’s ‘his’tory is forgotten at the speed of light. It was only six years ago we last battled with The Amandas (Jessica, and Jill), then over pornography and prostitution, which they rename “sex work” and Amanda “I know I’m lovely” avowed she would fuck for money but for the fact some people would look down on her.
      They are all three, corrupt, unethical and loathsome.
      Amanda is bending over to please her leg-lickers, trans commenters, to a man. They are paying for her column. So in essence, she’s doing it whether or not some people would look down on her.

    2. …because last week Valenti was running between cars in the street, screaming at the top of her lungs to everyone about how great Piercy is and that they should all go buy her books.
      It’s interesting how on one hand Valenti picked out one name from the list as an icon worthy of shaming — but it’s not like that icon status did anything for Piercy until the exact second she became inconvenient.

      1. Yeah, just an easy opportunity for her to diss an older feminist, and whine about how “irrelevant” she is. ‘Cause Jessica’s younger and knows better. Or something.

  6. Really, really disappointed that most of the comments posted since I visited yesterday actually make my point. All anyone is interested in is carrying on internet wars and helping to make feminism just about a few individuals.
    Isn’t anyone interested in responding to the article itself and how we can take this forward.
    Otherwise we are letting the patriarchy keep us where they want us. In the schoolyard pointing fingers and calling each other names.
    Why for instance has no major media outlet reported on this?
    They are usually only to happy to take up and amplify disagreement between feminists eg mainstream media coverage of #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen
    Even amongst the unenlightened mainstream some of the signatories names must be recognisable.

    1. I’m really really disappointed in your comments. All anyone named Passerby is interested in is doing a drive-by and naysaying women who are actually doing the work to keep the lights bright at the best damn feminist gender site on the fucking internet.
      What are YOU doing passerby? What do YOU do for HOURS EVERY DAMN DAY to forward this issue? What is YOUR plan of action? How do YOU intend to implement that action? What work have YOU done to achieve your goals?
      I am QUITE satisfied that I am WORKING MY ASS OFF, EVERYDAY, FOR FREE, WITH NO BENEFIT TO MYSELF WHATSOEVER to bring people (including trans people!) TOGETHER ON THIS ISSUE.
      And I am QUITE satisfied that my dedicated posters are also WORKING THEIR ASS OFF doing research and media outreach and IRL organizing on this issue.
      I personally believe the letter would have had a much greater impact if it had been held and shopped to a “major” outlet. Or launched with a massive community cross-post. But as I understand it the women involved decided that each signer should distribute the statement in her own individual way. That was their decision.
      Now. What is YOUR DECISION? Do not come here and piss on my work and that of my commenters again. Thank you.

    2. I wished we could stop “pointing fingers” at other feminists but Amanda Marcotte et al are basically complicit in what can be rightfully termed a witchhunt campaign against radical feminists. They have become part of the enemey and I think that our critique is not infighting but defense against people who actively want to see us gone so they can replace us.

    3. Passerby, I understand your aggravation, to a degree. And Gallus, I definitely get your irritation. Having said that…
      Passerby, I realize I’m one of the “guilty” ones in this thread when it comes to what you consider name calling. I thought my post upthread about Marcotte had a little more to it than that, but you’re certainly allowed to see it differently. As I was typing it, I was feeling a little guilty because I knew it wasn’t strictly on topic; that is, related to the document only. But since it’s Marcotte’s former blog name that was grabbed, and she’s quite angrily denounced and demeaned the document, and the document is decrying the exact tactics she practices, I thought it a fair place to point out one of the ways in which we’ve arrived at a place where a document like this is even needed.
      Also: please realize that this site is one of the few places online wherein trans actions can be critiqued through a feminist lens. Amanda Marcotte and her ilk have managed to silence any trans critique at all the major feminist blogs – they simply delete dissenting comments and ban commenters who don’t drink their Kool-Aid. As you might imagine, this has angered many women (and men) who don’t agree with every trans idea or demand. So yes, steam get blown off here, simply because it can. Deal.
      I have to admit to being amused regarding your wondering “why no major media outlet has reported on this.” Really? You really think that CNN is interested in anything feminists, particularly older feminists, have to say? Or that they’re even remotely interested in friction between trans people and born women? If so, I’m kind of shocked at your naivete, to be honest. (And yet touched by your hopefulness!) This document may be important to us, but really, it’s not stop-the-mainstream-presses material.
      Lastly, I agree with you. I too think that using that url was probably not the way to go, and it would’ve been better to post it at its own wordpress blog. Not being involved with this, I don’t know why this route was chosen, but nevertheless I’m so glad these women have spoken out.
      Frankly, I’m not sure how to take this forward. I wish I was. But I think this website is a powerful tool for getting the word(s) out, and every time I see a new name here, I know that there are still others who refuse to be bullied into accepting the whole trans ideology if it harms women and children. Gallus writes excellent articles here, and many times there’s been information here that was accidentallyonpurpose left out of articles at other sites. She does this for free, on her own time and dime, for which I’m very grateful. If you are disappointed, well, .

      1. “Or that they’re even remotely interested in friction between trans people and born women?”
        Fox News covered it when OneDown/Lynne/Rainsong accidentally outed himself as trans.
        “The Queen of the Radfems is a dude! See how stupid liberals are!”
        But I guess they don’t need to hire women like Wendy McElroy anymore. Which is sad in a variety of ways.

      2. “Fox News covered it when OneDown/Lynne/Rainsong accidentally outed himself as trans. ”
        I’d be super interested to see whatever info you have on this. TY.

      3. Hi anon female! Haha that makes me laugh.
        anon male can you find a link to that fox news coverage??? I would also love to see it.
        Anon female- as I recall “One Down” was a commenter on the Michfest boards who was a man pretending to be a woman arguing AGAINST female impersonators being allowed into michfest. I think they also went by “emma” and/or “Lynne”. When other transgender males realized he was also transgender they got quite angry. This was years ago.

  7. Interesting comment found on Manning article, refuting the idea Manning suffers from androgen insensitivity syndrome, or is ‘intersex’:
    “Manning, has neither of these conditions. Some have mention XXY, he is too short for that. Manning suffered fetal alcohol syndrome and continued parental negligence throughout his childhood. It is very common for these children to grow up with sexual issues. Whether it is dissociative identity disorder, borderline personality disorder, or any of the other personality disorders. “

  8. Of course we agree.
    Straight men & women and gay men harming lesbians, stealing our employment & right to gather. What else is new? Only the ridiculous excuses change.

  9. Thank you so much Gallus. I hope you know how important this blog is to so many of us. Just back from ‘Michigan’ and there is so much to say, think about, write–I’m still processing it all, but I am more optimistic than I have been in some time. I am also sad and often in despair…then GenderTrender comes to me again and I remember that we WILL PREVAIL!

      1. Seeing women that inspire me put their names to this tract was quite a lift for me at this moment in time. I am so tired of the jender fairytales- by misogynists in dresses and the funfems who coddle and encourage it. The power of this is its clarity- it is a direct opposition to the post-modern, post-ironic woo-woo of the trans cult. They are trying to erase us. Erasing sex is erasing the herstory of our oppression as women, and it is maddening. This statement has the potential to be a wake up call and bring liberal feminism back from the darkside, or one can hope . . .

Comments are closed.