Sheila Jeffreys “looks more than a bit like a man. She’s about four shots of testosterone away from passing as one”. When men review ‘Gender Hurts’

gender hurts book cover
Two new reviews of ‘Gender Hurts’ today, both from men, one of whom has actually read the book.
The first is from Dallas Denny, who previously campaigned with Jamison Green, the President of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health, a medical lobby funded by the pharmaceutical industry) in an attempt to censor the publication of this book BEFORE IT HAD EVEN BEEN AUTHORED.
Denny opines in today’s first offering:

 “[Managing Director of Books Jeremy North of Routledge Press] suggested we could review the book after it was published. And now I’m doing just that. Or, rather, I expect I will, if ever I can bring myself to read it. What follows is not a thorough review, but an impression based on a lookover of Gender Hurts.

Interestingly, the page count of Jeffreys’ book is almost the same as Raymond’s; at 189 pages it weighs in just four pages longer than Raymond’s 185.

 Aah, yes, the page count. And what of the paper quality? How much does the book weigh? Does it have that “new book smell”? What was the cost of the shipping freight?

Dallas Denny
Dallas Denny

Angry men should never feel obliged to read a woman’s words before forming strong opinions about them, and subsequently publishing those very important opinions. All that female-impersonator Denny needs to do is look at the book cover to conclude that Jeffreys “adopts a lesbian uniform that makes her look more than a bit like a man. She’s about four shots of testosterone away from passing as one.” How can men possibly take the time to read the books they are reviewing when the author is lesbian, and fails to adopt a distinctly sexay laydee wardrobe requirement?
Read more of Denny’s devastatingly insightful review of a book he has not read here:
Author fails at performing submission
Author fails at performing female submission

Today’s second review is by another man, who in this case claims to have actually read the book he is reviewing. In a New Statesman piece Tim R. Johnston generously offers that feminists have the right to critique males but “that critique must come from a place of established respect.” Jeffreys has dismally failed to respect men in her feminist text, says Johnston. LOL!
“The entire text is a striking example of how not to criticise a group [men] of which you are not a member.” Insensitive, man-hating feminist dyke! In one succinct sentence Mr. Johnston places Jeffreys’ text into the entire canon of the history of the Women’s Liberation movement, on which he claims to be an authority: “The book is poorly researched and argued, and is not a meaningful contribution to feminist theory.” Oh, Okay bro.
"Mansfeminist" Tim R. Johnston
“Mansfeminist” Tim R. Johnston

Johnston suggests that women abandon women’s liberation and release ourselves from our “attachment to our sex”; By doing so (Stupid cunts! Why haven’t we thought of this ourselves!) we will..something… something …something.
When we abandon our attachment to either sex or gender identity we can more clearly see the experiences we share and let those experiences form the basis of a coalition.” Okay bro.
The important thing is that men who take pleasure in sex-roles should be prioritized over the actual violence and subjugation of women.

 “Trans women [men] may identify as women, but they are not women because they do not have the lived history of having been born and raised as women. Identity cannot replace or change your history of living as one of two biological sexes. Feminists have good reason to be attached to this foundation. Women are violently persecuted because of their sex, and the methods of that persecution, methods like rape and forced reproduction, often involve female anatomy. Uniting in this shared history is an important foundation for feminist consciousness raising and solidarity.

Many [male] people ground their politics in gender identity, describing how this identity is a persistent aspect of their experience. Cisgender people [women] must realise that a [male] woman did not become a woman after transitioning, [he] has always been a woman, and because [he] is a woman [he] deserves access to women-only spaces. Certainly not all [male] people identify as having always been one gender, but focusing on gender identity over biological or assigned sex is an important way to ensure that [male] identities are not discredited, ignored, or marginalised.”

 Jeffreys’ work, which is not meaningful to male feminism, discredits, ignores, and marginalizes male feelings and the access to women that males deserve. Oh gosh no!
Okay thanks guys! Thanks for clearing up the whole female oppression thing! Problem solved (for you)!

Women's Liberation symbol with a bunch of male shit on top of it
Women’s Liberation symbol with a bunch of male shit on top of it

63 thoughts on “Sheila Jeffreys “looks more than a bit like a man. She’s about four shots of testosterone away from passing as one”. When men review ‘Gender Hurts’

  1. I’ve been hearing excellent things about this book. Thanks for reminding me that it’s time to get a copy, Gallus. Where would you recommend purchasing one? I know, Amazon. I hate Amazon.
    Also, I did buy and read a copy of “Delusions of Gender” by Cordelia Fine, which I thought a well done piece of work.

      1. It is under 25 USD (I think it is 23 and some change) for the kindle version on Amazon. If you don’t have a kindle, you can download the kindle app and read it on most other devices or you can use Calibre (a very nice (free) e-reader/library program that you can convert to/from .mobi, .epub, .pdf or any other text format).

  2. I really need to buy that book. And wow, one didn’t even read it and is taking cheap shoots at Jeffrey’s for not conforming to sex roles (so transgressive!) and one is whining about how it’s not relevant to his sex-role worship and how dare she not respect men’s fee fees.

    1. > spells out exactly why she and other radical feminists are opposed to “transgenderism” and seek to prevent trans women from entering “women-only” spaces.
      You can practically feel the disgustedly delivered air quotes.
      >This allows her to avoid confronting the wealth of research that discredits her arguments, all while casting herself as the victim of politically correct censorship.
      Isn’t this where you link a bunch of voodoo brain sex research? You’re not even really trying on this one, eh?
      > the term “transgendering” implies that each transgender person participates in the same process or ideology.
      What are you, ignant? Here, read from their official manifesto:
      >Trans women may identify as women, but they are not women because they do not have the lived history of having been born and raised as women
      I may identify as a vampire wombat, but since I don’t have the lived history…
      > Cisgender people must realise that a trans woman did not become a woman after transitioning, she has always been a woman, and because she is a woman she deserves access to women-only spaces.
      A man can magically retroactively become a lifelong woman by simply stating, “I feel like a girl.” A man is not a woman, not even if he claims he feels all womany (maybe if he grasps a pink blanket in toddlerhood, that would be different). So you’re saying that any man who claims he’s a woman is a woman, regardless of penis, and gets the keys to the bathroom and clubhouse, yes? Da fuck’s wrong with you.
      > Certainly not all trans people identify as having always been one gender, but focusing on gender identity over biological or assigned sex is an important way to ensure that trans identities are not discredited, ignored, or marginalised.
      Basically you’re saying that men who choose to masquerade as women are given priority over actual women so as to not blemish their delusion or hurt their pink, sparkly feelings?
      > We need a trans-inclusive feminism that recognises trans people as who they are
      Absolutely, feminism *needs* to prioritize the rights of men to be legally recognized as women. That’s *exactly* what feminism needs, that’s totally not the antithesis of feminism; that’s certainly in the best interests of women everywhere to kowtow to men, who, after all, can do woman better, as they never get tired of claiming.
      > Gender Hurts is an ugly and divisive book.
      I guarantee this tool didn’t even read it–maybe skimmed it, but this jackass had his mind made up at the get-go.

      I wasn’t expecting some quality comments on that article. That’s heartening. 🙂

  3. Wooks wike disagweeing comments made widdle Timmy sad. The comments are closed after only 15 (who knows how many others were deleted before closing).

  4. “adopts a lesbian uniform that makes her look more than a bit like a man. She’s about four shots of testosterone away from passing as one.”
    Of course, if they’d read ANYTHING she has written, then they’d know about WHY and WHEN she rejected all that nonsense. But yet again, we see the ugly lesbians who look like men (as opposed to REAL laydees who wear make-up & pretty dresses!) bollocks.
    What MORE do you need to know really — they don’t give a flying fuck about what ANY woman says (and never will), and think all that matters is how we look. But then we KNEW that anyway.
    The fact is though that the rest of the cult will find this lame nonsense a prefectly REASONABLE critique of a book (because after all, how DARE you expect a proper laydee to get all upset by being repeatedly misgendered trying to read this trash — plus their floods of tears will probably ruin their mascara and make them look all ugly…………) — because you have to throw all reason and judgement out of the window in order to accept the trans cult anyway — so much EASIER to just blindly hate on TERFS no matter what they actually say or do.
    And the News Stateman review is just laughable. He should at least read his own magasine, where in August 2011, Julie Bindel had an article headlined:
    Why “fun feminism” should be consigned to the rubbish bin
    If men like a particular brand of feminism, it means it is not working.
    So, if men LIKE a feminist book, it’s probably not working, and if they DON’T like it, it at least MIGHT do doing so!

  5. Not a comment on the blog post! I just don’t know how to get hold of you otherwise to say thank you for all you do. Thank you! You rock! I always appreciate you and just sometimes want to tell you. Take care.

  6. Whelp, both reviews just made me want to buy and read the book, which i wasn’t going to do before because I have a reading list a mile long. Actually, they made me feel that it was urgent for me to read the book. Good work, dudes, hahaha! 🙂

  7. “The entire text is a striking example of how not to criticise a group [men] of which you are not a member.”
    I, on the other hand, am coming from a neutral, non-sexualized, non-racialized position of objectivity and am free to criticize and dictate boundaries to whomever I please!

    1. Haha!
      Yes, including the right to assert to women how their own liberation movement should be structured.
      Can you imagine doing this to any other movement?
      “Okay student protesters, I know that the current budget has the potential to raise University fees to astronomical heights but when you focus on this you really alienate wealthy students and students on scholarships. We think you should really be protesting the lack of Subway™ restaurants on campus.” -Government.

  8. ‘Jeffreys “adopts a lesbian uniform that makes her look more than a bit like a man. She’s about four shots of testosterone away from passing as one.”’
    Beside the fact that mocking Jeffreys’ choice of plain and practical clothing has nothing to do with reviewing her book, Jeffreys, needless to say, does NOT look like a man. But, picking up the thread Dallas started, how far away is he from passing as a Disney villain? One penciled-in beauty spot? Two applications of blue eye shadow? Three coats of red lipstick?:

  9. ““The entire text is a striking example of how not to criticise a group of which you are not a member.”
    Now wimminz, you can’t be criticising people if you’re not a member.
    It’s like fucking pro-paedophile Reddit argument.
    “Don’t criticise them! They were born that way.”
    Who cares that they think about raping children!
    Despite their stupid assertions to the contrary, transgenderism is just so fucking WHITE.
    Intersectional my fucking left tit.
    He states that women are oppressed on basis of SEX but we should forget about SEX because men are getting oppressed for their GENDER?
    “Women are violently persecuted because of their sex, and the methods of that persecution, methods like rape and forced reproduction, often involve female anatomy.”
    “…but focusing on gender identity over biological or assigned sex is an important way to ensure that [male] identities are not discredited, ignored, or marginalised.”
    Fuck all the females on the planet that lack safe access to abortions (including the FUCKING USA).
    Fuck all the females that lack safe access to gynaecological/obstetric services during childbirth which can leave them with fistulas, prolapse, and death.
    Fuck all the females that get sold into sexually slavery because they are female.
    Fuck all the females that get aborted for being female or abandoned on the streets for being female.
    Fuck all the females killed for shaming the “honour” of their male family members.
    Fuck all the females everywhere (3.5 BILLION of them) who can’t identify their way out of having fucking body parts because feminism should be about (white) MEN IN DRESSES AND THEIR FUCKING FEELINGS!
    He conflates rape and violence against women with fucking discrediting, ignoring and the marginalisation of men.

    My Reaction when i heard Selfie on Pandora

    1. ” … but focusing on gender identity over biological or assigned sex is an important way to ensure that [male] identities are not discredited, ignored, or marginalised.”
      Yup. Feminism that does not prioritize male fantasies is Not Good for men. In other words, feminism proper makes men unhappy. Talk of biological sex rains on their parade, so let’s ensure that it’s forbidden.
      It was actually quite good of Johnston to just come right out and read from the “Trans Handbook on Dismantling Feminism and Maintaining Male Power So that Men Can Do As They Please No Matter Who Gets Hurt.” It’s pretty clear, at least. Usually, they try to gas-light us with watered-down postmodern gender-studies mumbo-jumbo.

  10. “Transgender Health”? What an oxymoron (with emphasis on the MORON part). How could shooting up the body with unnecessary hormones simply for the sake of cosmetic appearance or mutilating a healthy human body have even the slightest thing to do with health??
    I’m looking forward to reading Sheila Jeffreys’ book.

  11. Thank you, Gallus, for writing your reviews of their “reviews.”
    And, thanks, especially, for this encapsulation: “Women’s Liberation symbol with a bunch of male shit on top of it.” Ha! Where else would this, or any, male shit be but on top, eh?

  12. Good mansplainin’ there, Timmy bro. Xtra points for stickin’ up for tranzwimminz fee-fees while slamming Jeffreys really hard. Now explain to us poor women who don’t have your superior male brain p0wer how you can respect transgender women activists’ point of view while dismissing what biological feminists have to say, and still claim to be accepting transwomen “as women.” Oh, did that hurt your feelings? Guess you don’t have to think about what I said then. Ever wonder why we don’t respect people born with penis’s? Look in the mirror. Male entitlement= Only listening to what women say when they’re talking about how wonderful males are.

  13. This is Mr. Tim Johnston. He is the Manager of Education and Training at SAGE. We all know that women need to be educated on feminism because we are just plain too stupid to know what is good for us.
    He identifies as a cis gay man. Incidentally, it was two gay men who gave us AB1266.
    “Tim Johnston is the Manager of Education and Training for SAGE’s National Resource Center on LGBT Aging. He is responsible for coordinating nationwide trainings about the needs of LGBT older adults for aging providers and LGBT organizations, developing training curricula, and tracking training outcomes and evaluations.
    Tim has a PhD in Philosophy, with a focus on Women’s and Gender Studies. He has published scholarly articles on gender and LGBT identity, and has worked on issues in bioethics, such as end-of-life care, informed consent, and the specific medical needs of the transgender and intersex communities. Apart from his work at SAGE, Tim frequently lectures on a variety of topics ranging from transgender rights to anti-LGBT violence.”
    Mr. Johnston states,
    “When we abandon our attachment to either sex or gender identity we can more clearly see the experiences we share and let those experiences form the basis of a coalition.”
    What “coalition” is he talking about because he isn’t talking about the interests of women. He really means his own particular political views and opinions. “Gender identify” laws are shredding the privacy rights of women and placing us in danger. When “gender identity” laws force the media to treat suspected serial killers of women like Douglas, “Donna”, Perry like princesses least we “mis-gender” them, we aren’t going to remain silent. When we clearly see examples of “gender identity” laws placing women at risk (Christopher, “Jessica”, Hambrook), we will not remain silent. Women are half the population and we have our own unique needs and history.
    Tim Johnston needs to comb his cowlick and learn to respect his elders.

    1. Tim Johnston lobbies to have rapists like Christopher Hambrook placed among vulnerable elderly women in care facilities. That is what Tim does.

  14. “Tim Johnston lobbies to have rapists like Christopher Hambrook placed among vulnerable elderly women in care facilities. That is what Tim does.”
    True, and do we know the ages of the homeless women that Hambrook stalked and sexually assaulted? Imagine the terror that these homeless women felt. From what I’ve read, one of Hambrook’s victims was a deaf woman, and one woman was escaping domestic violence. Why was a rapist allowed in two different women’s shelters to begin with? All they have to do is “identify as women” and they gain access to women’s facilities. If Hambrook wasn’t allowed in the women’s shelters, trans activists would have screamed “gender identity” to high heaven and sued. Even after it was revealed that Paul (Paula) Witherspoon is a registered sex offender who molested a girl, trans activists still demanded that he be allowed to use women’s restrooms. So, the privacy and safety of girls and women means nothing to trans activists and their staunch allies.
    Tim Johnston states,
    “Cisgender people must realise that a trans woman did not become a woman after transitioning, she has always been a woman, and because she is a woman she deserves access to women-only spaces.”
    In other words, even if they still have male genitalia, and have no interest in getting it surgically removed, in the words of Johnston, “she has always been a woman”. The way that most “gender identity” laws work, sex reassignment surgery is optional. This is why middle aged men like Colleen Francis aren’t arrested for exposing their male genitalia to teenage girls. The actual Evergreen State College police report says, “her legs open with her male genitalia showing”. Never mind the penis because “she has always been a woman”. Tim, how can it be “her male genitalia”? Most rational people have a firmer grasp on reality than Tim.
    Moreover, Mr. Johnston is saying that Christopher, “Jessica”, Hambrook “deserves access to women-only spaces”. It’s there in black and white for the entire world to see. Didn’t Hambrook call himself “Jessica” and identified as transgender?
    Even though he is a registered sex offender, Tim Johnston is saying that Paula Witherspoon “deserves access to women-only spaces.”
    Convicted murderers of women such as Robert, “Michelle”, Kosilek and Kenneth Hunt aka Ketheena Soneeya “deserve access to women-only spaces”.
    According to the SAGE website, the powerful senior lobby AARP is a ‘SAGE partner”.
    Hey, AARP is this elderly gentleman in the pretty blue floral top one of Tim Johnston’s senior SAGEs?
    Suspected serial killer of women, Douglas, “Donna”, Perry is 62 years of age. The murders occurred in 1990, and DNA and fingerprint evidence ties Perry to the killing of the three women.. Is he another Tim Johnston SAGE senior? Because of “gender identity” laws, some of these men end up being housed in women’s prisons.
    I nominate 62 year old Douglas, “Donna”, Perry as Tim Johnston’s SAGE of the year with wife killer Robert, “Michelle”, Kosilek a close second. Kosilek was born in 1949, so that would officially make him a senior. He has been sitting behind bars for years for the cold blooded murder of his wife.
    I hope AARP is reading this.

  15. It’s funny. If you look closely at Tim R. Johnston’s woman-hating piece of shit, it is rather illuminating.
    Here’s how this works. Part of what Tim is actually saying, in a sideways shuffle, is:
    -Transwomen are male
    -The life experiences of transwomen are male life experiences
    -Transwomen and women are fundamentally different
    -Transwomen are not women
    -Women have a right to meet and organize away from transwomen (or at least “it could at times be beneficial” for us to do so).
    Then he deflects trans wrath away from himself by wrapping it up in a bunch of “protect male/transwoman feelings” shit, tops it off with a bunch of noxious sexism, and frames it all inside a big public thrashing of a respected gender-critical feminist.
    Seriously. That is what he did.
    It’s the same exact thing Tom Chivers did in his “rebuttal” of Kevin Williamson’s ‘Laverne Cox is Not a Woman’ piece (that was censored from the Chicago Sun Times).
    Tom agrees with Williamson: Laverne Cox is not a woman, and we all know it:
    “Sex is a biological reality,” [Williamson] points out, unarguably. Indeed it is. No amount of surgery or hormone therapy will allow Cox to become pregnant, no terms of address will turn that stubborn Y chromosome into a second X. That is, indeed, a simple fact of human biology.
    But who disagrees with that? No one. Williamson’s fearless truthsaying is, in fact, a fatuous statement of the obvious, dressed up as iconoclasm. Nobody in the world believes that calling Cox and other trans women “women”, using the pronouns “she” and “her”, will change anything biological;”

    So Chivers agrees with Williamson, who is “stating the obvious” when he correctly identifies Cox as a man.
    “Yes, yes, sex is a “biologically reality”. But pronouns aren’t biology, they’re language. Language is a set of conventions, not an agglomeration of eternal truths. If we choose to use “woman” and “she” and “her” to refer to both the biologically female and people who identify as female, then that is what those words mean.”
    Laverne is a man, no one in their right mind would argue otherwise, Chiver maintains, but it is simply rude to say so, at least where Laverne might hear you. It is a matter of politeness to men’s feels. And he wrapped it all up in a little bow of taking Williamson (impolite fellow!) to task for his tone. Just call their damn dicks a “lady-stick” and play along with the whole pretend woman-schtick fer christsakes! We all know it’s bull!
    And the trans loved it. Trans Media Watch THANKED Chiver for his post! LMAO.
    So that’s how it works folks. If you wrap it up in a bow of “trashing”, and you are a man, you can say the exact same things that the person you are trashing has said, things that would get you pilloried if you stated them outside that frame. Imagine if Johnston and Chivers had written their pieces cold without wrapping them in this device.
    Doesn’t work as well for women, because men instinctively suspect and fear that all women, even (especially?) those that support them and seem “well controlled”- see right through all their male bullshit, right down to the bone. And rightly so.

    1. This entire comment is brilliant, Gallus! These men, who are defending transgenderism, have the same grasp on the reality of sex as we feminists do, but they avoid the public thrashing by putting men’s needs above women’s (always a palatable position to take, especially if this position is buried in sentimental claptrap) and by concluding that it hurts no one to play pretend with these delicate flowers, trans “women.” I mean, c’mon! Men have always come first, so what, beside the lipstick and skirt, is the difference here? Get back on track and don’t be a big bigoted meanie!
      ‘Laverne is a man, no one in their right mind would argue otherwise, Chiver maintains, but it is simply rude to say so, at least where Laverne might hear you. It is a matter of politeness to men’s feels. And he wrapped it all up in a little bow of taking Williamson (impolite fellow!) to task for his tone. Just call their damn dicks a “lady-stick” and play along with the whole pretend woman-schtick fer christsakes! We all know it’s bull!’
      Exactly. All Williamson said, really, is that he wasn’t going to play along with the lady-stick routine, and that in his opinion, neither should anyone else. His position is that rationality itself is something we should all be defending–that it’s important to defend rationality from assaults because those assaults have wider implications for the health of a society. He said we should refuse to elevate delusion above material reality, EVEN if it’s considered hurtful and impolite to do so.
      Williamson’s article, needless to say, is not informed by radical feminism (but it’s not inconsistent with it, either*). This is why it really hit a nerve: he’s not a woman, he’s not a feminist, he’s not a “TERF,” so, which buttons do trans-activists/allies have to push to shut him up? They can’t intimidate him with rape threats. They can’t treat him like a dumb woman and tell him up is down, and that penises are female if a man says so. So, what they’re doing, as you said, is AGREEING with him, but in a sneaky, self-preserving way.
      *The reason I say that Williamson’s article is not inconsistent with the radical feminist critique of transgenderism is that, though he doesn’t say so in explicit terms, he IS talking about the violence of trans-activism. These men in dresses want us believe a lie, or to publicly validate a lie on their behalf. And they are NOT taking no for an answer. Especially from women.
      We–and “we” here is not just gender-critical feminists–can take Cox’s idiotic and famous statement that “calling a trans woman a man is an act of violence” and turn it around into “forcing us to lie, to protect your feelings, is an act of violence.”
      This is obvious and easy to understand.

  16. I would like to follow up on the powerful senior lobbying group AARP being a “SAGE partner”.
    Tim Johnston is the Manager of Education and Training for SAGE’s National Resource Center on LGBT Aging.
    Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE)
    “Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE) is the country’s largest and oldest organization dedicated to improving the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) older adults. Founded in 1978 and headquartered in New York City, SAGE is a national organization that offers supportive services and consumer resources for LGBT older adults and their caregivers, advocates for public policy changes that address the needs of LGBT older people, and provides training for aging providers and LGBT organizations, largely through its National Resource Center on LGBT Aging. With offices in New York City, Washington, DC and Chicago, SAGE coordinates a growing network of 26 local SAGE affiliates in 19 states and the District of Columbia. ”
    AARP should read this statement from an elderly woman who is shocked at having to share a changing area with a young man who doesn’t even have the decency to cover his erect penis. Why was he in a women’s locker room? It’s just like Colleen Francis, Paula Witherspoon, and Christopher Hambrook. All they have to do is “identify as women”. Forget the penis, or the fact that they could be a sex offender. This is article is one of the saddest things I’ve ever read. The poor elderly woman acts as if she is the one who should be apologizing. This is how insane it’s become.
    Under most “gender identity” laws, sex reassignment surgery is optional.
    “I am a senior woman. Recently, a “man” claiming to be transgender, who had not yet begun physical treatments, was permitted by our local Y to use the women’s locker room. There are no secure change rooms. The person they allowed in was not courteous and stared at me while I struggled out of a wet bathing suit. He was naked, had an erection and playfully asked ‘do you come here often?’ I understand that gender is no longer judged solely by genitalia, but does a brief contact with the duty manager mean that men not yet committed to gender reassignment are free to disrobe anywhere they choose?”
    It didn’t take long for women to respond. An excellent response to this article entitled, “Trans rights trump women’s rights” was posted online.
    Transgender man’s ogling behaviour unacceptable, Jan. 4
    “Ontarians accept that it is a challenging life for people with transgendered identities, which is why providing a reasonable alternative via the use of separate unisex bathrooms or change rooms seems to be a reasonable course of action to assist such individuals. Why is this reasonable and simple accommodation not enough for the minuscule minority of transgendered individuals among the millions of Ontarians?
    Our “decision-makers” at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal have decided for all Ontarians that it’s not enough for a trans person to view himself as the opposite sex — the whole world must be forced to share his subjective view, too.
    The new transgender bathroom policy has affirmed that the vast majority of Ontarian women and men are not entitled to the protection of the Human Rights Code as much as transsexuals are. What about the feelings, discomfort, and safety of the millions of girls and women in Ontario who are now forced to undress in the same change room with a pre-operation phenotypic male, who may claim to be transsexual? (***does this sound familiar)
    Do our rights get trumped because an individual subjectively “feels” female even though he may still have a penis, and be more than happy to show it off? Did the OHRT consult Ontarians regarding their decision?
    I am concerned that sexually predatory men will take advantage of the new bill by claiming they are transsexual in order to freely access any women’s washroom in the province. The guaranteed consequences of this bill are that many girls and women will definitely be victimized as a result.
    Mr. Gallinger’s article suggests that this is already happening — hardly a surprise — and the trend will likely increase because there are no legal consequences for any predatory individuals who behave in this way. A predator banned from one facility simply has to go down the road to another.
    Mr. Gallinger bemoans the predatory behaviour that one poor woman was forced to endure, while actively supporting a system that allows such predatory behaviour to flourish. Far more women than trans people stand to feel invaded and helpless by such behaviour as there are likely far more sexually predatory individuals out there than transgendered people — predatory individuals who will be delighted to put on a dress (or not even that) in order to access women’s bathrooms and change rooms under the guise of being self-identified as “transgendered.”
    Although a transgendered person may feel s/he has the “right” to be in a women’s change room, what about the feelings of the phenotypic females who may not wish a phenotypic male to be in that washroom?
    We women are entitled to the protection of the Human Rights Code, just like anyone else. Exactly how many transsexual people are there for whom we are risking the safety and security of our roughly 6.8 million girls and women?”
    Daniela Caruso, Toronto
    Transgender activists don’t care about this embarrassed elderly women, homeless and disabled women living in women’s shelters that Christopher, “Jessica”, Hambrook sexually assaulted, or teenage girls that had to see Clay Scott, “Colleen” Francis and his penis.
    Since women generally live longer than men, I’m sure there are far more AARP members that are women compared to the number of transgender AARP members.
    Incidentally, in the SAGE drop down menu listing “Issues”, women aren’t mentioned. “Transgender Aging” is listed, but not women.

    1. Trying to sell this as gender dysphoria is pure and utter crap. GD is about feeling alienated from your genitalia, not proudly showing your bits to women. Terrible bait and switch and a severe medical ethics violation and should be treated as one.

    2. Wasn’t long ago that SAGE stood for ‘Senior Action in a Gay Environment,’ right? Before everything got transed up.

      1. soon enough SAGE staff will get to spend their days convincing insurers who’ve been made to cover hormones that m2t should still be entitled to coverage of viagra, because being unable to get an erection makes them feel like less of a… lady. ffs

  17. Comparing Tim Johnston and Dallas Denny to Robert Jensen….we know who is the better man…
    “People routinely assume that pornography is such a difficult and divisive issue because it’s about sex. I think that’s wrong.
    This culture struggles unsuccessfully with pornography because it is also about men’s cruelty to women, and about the pleasure then men sometimes take in that cruelty. And that is much more difficult for everyone to face.”
    – Robert Jensen (a Radical Feminist ally)
    “You can’t fight sex discrimination and protect the pornographers at the same time.”
    – John Stoltenberg (a Radical Feminist ally)

    1. Why the fuck would I give a shit what Jensen or Stoltenberg (who is a totally disgusting woman-hating pig, btw) have to say??? I don’t understand this comment. But whatev.

    2. I appreciate the work of Robert Jensen, but Stoltenberg is definitely not a radical feminist ally. He has spent much of the past year enthusiastically slandering gender-critical feminists as ‘biological essentialists’ in his efforts to toady up to the trans lobby, and, worse, he has been shamelessly using Andrea Dworkin’s name and work to do so. Check out this spew-worthy piece he wrote as part of Feminist Times’s pro-trans propaganda ‘Gender Week’. A disgusting male reversal of the life and work of Andrea Dworkin. As if she would have sided with porn-sick cross-dressing men over women.

    3. “…and about the pleasure then men sometimes take in that cruelty”
      Rewrite: “…and about the pleasure then men GENERALLY (OFTEN, USUALLY, AS A GENERAL RULE, TYPICALLY) take in that cruelty.”

  18. “Why the fuck would I give a shit what Jensen or Stoltenberg (who is a totally disgusting woman-hating pig, btw) have to say??? I don’t understand this comment. But whatev”
    Some Basic Propositions About Sex, Gender and Patriarchy
    “Within feminism there has been for decades an often divisive debate about transgenderism. With increasing mainstream news media and pop culture attention focused on the issue, understanding that feminist debate is more important than ever.
    Two new feminist books that analyze transgenderism (Sheila Jeffreys’ Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism and Michael Schwalbe’s Manhood Acts: Gender and the Practices of Domination, which includes a chapter on “The Limits of Trans Liberalism”) are helpful for those who are concerned about the harms that result from the imposition of traditional gender roles but do not embrace the ideological assumptions and assertions of the transgender movement.
    The propositions below are not taken directly from those books, whose authors may not agree with my phrasings. I am not trying to summarize their arguments but instead hope to bring greater clarity to the debate with a concise account of my position, which is rooted in a radical feminist analysis of sex and gender. I present these ideas as a series of propositions to make it easier for readers to identify where they may agree or disagree.
    Biological and Cultural
    We are a sexually dimorphic species, male and female. Although there is variation, the vast majority of humans are born with distinctly male or female reproductive systems, sexual characteristics, and/or chromosomal structure. Intersex people are born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not fit the definitions of female or male; the number of people in this category depends on the degree of ambiguity used to mark the category. Intersex conditions are distinct from transgenderism.
    The biological differences between males and females that are tied to reproduction are not trivial; no species can ignore reproductive realities. Not all females have children, but only females can bear and breastfeed children, which no male can do. Therefore, human communities have always, and will always, recognize two distinct sex categories, male and female. There has always been, and always will be, some sex-role differentiation in human communities.
    Other observable or measureable physical differences (average height, muscle mass, etc.) between males and females may be socially relevant depending on circumstances. Sex-role differentiation based on those differences may be appropriate if it can be shown to be necessary in the interests of everyone in a society. This claim is asserted far more often that is demonstrated.
    People from varying ideological positions also claim that these biological differences give rise to significant differences in moral, intellectual, or emotional characteristics between males and females. While it is plausible that differences in reproductive organs and hormones could result in these kinds of differences, there is no clear evidence for these claims. Given the complexity of the human organism and the limits of contemporary research, it’s unlikely we will gain definitive understanding of these questions in the foreseeable future. In the absence of evidence of the biological bases for moral, intellectual, or emotional differences, we should assume that all or part of any differences in observed behavior between males and females in these matters are a product of cultural training, while remaining open to alternative explanations.
    In short: males and females are far more similar than different.
    Today’s existing sex-role differentiation is the product of a patriarchal society based on male dominance. In that system, males are socialized into patriarchal masculinity to become men, and females are socialized into patriarchal femininity to become women.
    In patriarchy, sex-role differentiation supports male power and helps make the system’s domination/subordination dynamic seem natural and normal. Moral, intellectual, and emotional traits are assigned differentially to each sex, creating what we today typically call gender roles. This patriarchal system of control—which is complex, adapting to changing conditions and to resistance—is designed to justify and perpetuate male dominance.
    The gender roles in patriarchy are rigid, repressive, and reactionary. These roles constrain the healthy flourishing of both males and females, but females experience by far the most significant psychological and physical injuries from the system.
    In patriarchy, gender is a category that functions to establish and reinforce inequality.
    Radical Feminism
    In contemporary culture, “radical” is often used dismissively as a synonym for “crazy” or “extreme.” In this context, it describes an analysis that seeks to understand, address, and eventually eliminate the root causes of inequality.
    Radical feminism opposes patriarchy and male dominance. Radical feminism, which challenges the naturalizing of the process by which patriarchal societies turn male/female into man/woman, rejects patriarchy’s rigid, repressive, and reactionary gender roles.
    Radical feminist politics addresses a wide range of issues, including men’s violence and sexual exploitation of women and children. Many radical feminists critique the gendered dress/grooming/presentation norms imposed on females in patriarchy, such as hyper-sexualized clothing, make-up, and ritualized behaviors of subordination, arguing for the elimination of these practices, not for males to adopt them as well.
    The goal of radical feminism is a world without hierarchy, in which males and females would be free to explore the range of human experiences—especially experiences of love, whether sexual or not—in an egalitarian context.
    Transgender is defined as “A term for people whose gender identity, expression or behavior is different from those typically associated with their assigned sex at birth.” The transgender movement rejects the automatic sorting of males and females into the categories of man and woman, but does not necessarily reject gender roles. Some in the transgender movement embrace patriarchal gender roles typically attached to the cultural categories of masculinity and femininity.
    While not all people who identify as transgender have sex-reassignment surgery or use hormones or other treatments to modify their bodies, the transgender movement as a whole accepts and/or embraces these practices.
    Most radical feminists, who seek to eliminate patriarchy and patriarchal gender ideology, disagree with this transgender approach. Most radical feminists believe liberation is achieved through a political project that transcends patriarchal gender, rather than accepting those gender roles and merely seeking to allow people to move between the categories. Radical feminist politics focuses on challenging the patriarchal gender ideology that restricts the freedom of most individuals, especially women and others who lack power, to explore the fullest range of human experiences.
    Nothing in a radical feminist analysis minimizes the social and/or psychological struggles of—nor provides support for violence against—people who identify as transgender or people who do not conform to patriarchal gender norms but do not identify as transgender. Radical feminism is not the cause of those struggles or the source of that violence but rather advocates for an egalitarian society with maximal freedom without violence.
    Many people, whether radical feminist or not, are critical of high-tech medicine’s manipulation of the body through the reckless use of hormones and chemicals (which rarely have been proved to be safe) or the destruction of healthy tissue to conform to arbitrary beauty standards (cosmetic surgery such as breast augmentation, nose jobs, etc.).
    From this ecological approach, such medical practices are part of a deeper problem in the industrial era of our failing to understand ourselves as organisms, shaped by an evolutionary history, and part of ecosystems that impose limits on all organisms.
    People are not machines, and treating the human body like a machine is inconsistent with an ecological understanding of ourselves as living beings who are part of a larger living world.
    Public Policy
    The state should not limit people’s freedom to choose, when those choices do not harm others. Disagreements can, and do, arise over identifying and assessing harms.
    Transgender claims have led to a variety of policy debates, especially concerning the integrity of female-only spaces that are designed to foster a sense of safety and expressive freedom for females generally (such as cultural institutions) and particularly to create safety for females who have been victims of male violence (such as rape crisis and domestic violence centers). Forcing female-only spaces to accommodate people who identify as transgender reinforces patriarchy as a system and harms individual females.
    Public funding for sex-reassignment surgery (such as through Medicare) raises serious public health questions that cannot be resolved by simplistic freedom-to-choose arguments.
    Transgender practices involving children that are questionable on public health grounds (such as the use of puberty blockers) raise serious moral questions about our collective obligation for children’s welfare.
    Intellectual Practice and Rhetoric
    As in any contentious political debate, angry and uncivil words have been exchanged. People on all sides should be respectful and careful in choices of language.
    Labeling a radical feminist position on these public policy issues as inherently “transphobic” or describing radical feminist arguments on the issues as “hate speech” are diversionary tactics that undermine productive intellectual and political discussion. A critique of an idea is not a personal attack on any individual who holds the idea.
    This critical analysis does not demand that people accept these principles in constructing an individual sense of self. These propositions are relevant to such individual decisions, but are presented in the context of collective decision-making about public policy.
    Transgenderism is a liberal, individualist, medicalized response to the problem of patriarchy’s rigid, repressive, and reactionary gender norms. Radical feminism is a radical, structural, politicized response. On the surface, transgenderism may seem to be a more revolutionary approach, but radical feminism offers a deeper critique of the domination/subordination dynamic at the heart of patriarchy and a more promising path to liberation.”

    Some Basic Propositions About Sex, Gender and Patriarchy

    By the way, Lierre Keith’s and Derrick Jensen’s article was on counterpunch.

    The Emperor’s New Penis

    1. I say I have less than zero interest in Derrick Jensen’s views on Radical Feminism and your response is to publish his entire essay here. lol. I’m going to assume you thought I hadn’t seen it.

  19. “Why the fuck would I give a shit what Jensen or Stoltenberg (who is a totally disgusting woman-hating pig, btw) have to say??? I don’t understand this comment. But whatev”
    If Gail Dines has no problem with Robert Jensen and even list his site on her website, then I don’t have any problem with him. How many men speak out against pornography?

    1. ” How many men speak out against pornography?..”
      Here comes the token ‘good man’…………..WHY is it that some of us STILL give so much space to the ‘count them on the fingers of one hand’ words of men who claim to support radical feminism, or be critical of gender, or porn? Is this just the usual both sides of the argument approach, where the vast majority of men who make comments like the one that started this thread are somehow ‘balanced’ by the few?
      This individual man MAY be a fucking saint, but that isn’t the point, because it isn’t about HIM but about THEM. As an individual man BTW, who may buck the trend and pretend to be a great supporter of feminism etc, LOOK at all the lovely attention it gets him from women! Just a peacock who has discovered a slightly different type of tail, and boy does this one seem to work……………
      “then I don’t have any problem with him” Doesn’t mean we have to waste space on here reproducing his words though. Except some of us still do, we’ve been trained SO WELL, to listen to male voices rather than our own, or act as if our ideas somehow become much more validated if a single man agrees as well. Or get worried that they are invalid if men DON’T agree……………..
      Let’s face it, that piece above that someone bothered to paste says NOTHING that hasn’t been said on here many times (and said better), so the ONLY point is that it has a mans name at the top. So why should we bother? Why give space to this man? Why should we care?
      Perhaps the whole point is just the analog of what the lovely Dr Johnson had to say:
      “Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”

  20. …that awkward moment when men who claim they “just want to be accepted” and are “subverting gender roles” shame a woman for not being “feminine” enough.

  21. Gallus, thanks for allowing the article from Robert Jensen. I just wanted to show the readers that not all men are brainwashed by transgender activists like Denny and Tim Johnston.
    For clarification, Derrick Jensen and Robert Jensen are two different people. I don’t know if they are related or not.
    The article by Lierre Keith and Derrick Jensen, “The Emporer’s New Penis”, is brilliant.

    The Emperor’s New Penis

    Below is Robert Jensen’s article that recently appeared in counterpunch.
    Some Basic Propositions About Sex, Gender and Patriarchy

    Some Basic Propositions About Sex, Gender and Patriarchy

    Again, thanks for posting Robert Jensen’s article. Dallas Denny and Tim Johnston should read it.

    1. I find it fascinating that Counterpunch is pushing back so hard against mainstream transadvocacy. Is it because they’ve always been more focused on such issues as war, corporate malfeasance, and the encroaching security state and less on “identity” politics?

    2. Skylark, it’s not a matter of men being ‘brainwashed’ by trans activists. The trans agenda allows leftist men to embrace an explicitly misogynist agenda, which destroys the ability of women to do feminist analysis, name men as oppressors or even meet in public together, and includes the censorship, no-platforming and marginalization of feminist women as hateful bigots – that’s why men like Tim Johnston and virtually the entire fucking male left are so enthusiastic about it. It’s not a question of them being ignorant and in need of education. They will never give feminists a fair hearing or stir themselves to care one jot about women’s lives and reality.
      Just like with the issue of porn and prostitution – the male left didn’t embrace these things and isolate and demonise women who opposed them because they had carefully considered the matter and decided a global sex trade and the blanket distribution of sexually violent propaganda was in women’s best interests. They went for the position that reinforces male supremacy. Between feminism and genderism, which one do you think these same guys will prefer?

  22. My University library has ordered this book! I can’t wait to read it. Hopefully no pro-book burning transactivists like Judie Orly Enji work there…

  23. I read this book and it was really good! If you can get your hands on a copy, please do so. It’s very important.
    Now that I’ve read the book and seen how good it is, I’m even more angry that the queer and trans cult considers a “review” like this totally legit. But then again, these anti-intellectuals haven’t even read it and make outrageous claims that Jeffreys wants to exterminate trans people
    Yeah, because thinking that there’s better ways to deal with psychological issues than mutilating the bodies of adults AND children who don’t conform to sex roles is “exterminationist” now.

  24. okay, so I see your opinions on this topic are a bit extreme
    I wonder, because of course not all transgender people are good like any other group, I believe that they are just trying to get on with their lives the best the can and live genuine lives. Some of you argue that they will never be female because they haven’t lived the full female experience, but I disagree, I don’t see how there is a “fundamentally” female experience, it’s true that women are the targets of violence and rape, I find it unfair when it’s said that the transgender women are not “women” because they have not experienced, in fact, they have, maybe not in the same way, and they fought patriarchy by not conforming and stating their right to live as they want to exist.
    Now… if biological sex matters that much , is a “XY woman” (with androgen insensitivity) really a man? That seems weird to me. Anyways, to get you some idea I was born with XXY chromossomes, with male genitalia. Growing up has been terribly because I am underdevelopped for a male, have a really high voice, feminine features (face, arms, etc) and developped breasts. I was the target of violence for my effeminacy. If I wished to transition, would I always be a man in your POV “because I was born as such” or would my experience more valid than normally-chromossomed people who want to transition? Also, what I described doesn’t make my life a “female experience” or “male experience”, it’s just MY experience, just like each one of you has unique experience and intake in life. To question other people’s lives because they do not act as expected and what they “should be” seems silly, and no one has the right do it, which won’ts top people from doing it, but yeah you get it.
    Like I don’t really think I am delusional. If I wanted to wear a dress, why the hell can’t I? If I indentified as a female, why couldn’t I live as one? I agree that identifying as something doesn’t make you that something, yet just because it is supposedely against biology doesn’t necessarily make it an invalid choice. People also used to say that gays and lesbians were making a “choice” against nature, but it’s just so pointless. Biology can never justify everything in itself… There will always be other sources of knowledge.
    Chromossomes and biology don’t really have to make someone’s life miserable forever, we can see past that and change what we don’t like in us to what we like. Transgender people are not necessarily changing themselves to “fit in” (although they make effort at it too, just like everyone else) they’re changing and evolving to be their best selves. No one asks for this, just like no one asks to be intersex.

      1. I wonder if Hanne Blank shopped around for a boyfriend with Klinefelter’s by trolling support forums in order to write her latest book about how she’s not in a hetero relationship? (I guess where can you go after working for a sex ed site that solicited articles about teen sex from a sexual predator?) And what’s the incentive to tell the truth, anyway, since these “syndromes” are also just identities people can adopt?
        BTW, the Wikipedia article on Klinefelter’s is hilarious
        “Gynecomastia is present to some extent in about a third of affected individuals, a slightly higher percentage than in the XY population.”
        Slightly. It’s amazing how trans and trans supporting feminists have run with that “slightly.” Of course, I’m guessing they’ve never been to the Midwest where something like 75% of males have sizable boobs.

    1. ‘Also, what I described doesn’t make my life a “female experience” or “male experience”, it’s just MY experience, just like each one of you has unique experience and intake in life. To question other people’s lives because they do not act as expected and what they “should be” seems silly, and no one has the right do it, which won’ts top people from doing it, but yeah you get it.’
      Well, no, I don’t “get it.” What I do get, though, is that you have an uninformed opinion. You’ve wandered in here, telling us that we are meanies to do and say things that we do not, in fact, do or say. Follow?
      If you’re going to argue against something, it’s good form to know what you’re arguing against. This educational process usually involves lots of reading. To yourself. Silently.

    2. “some of you argue that they will never be female because they haven’t lived the full female experience, but I disagree, I don’t see how there is a “fundamentally” female experience.”
      I do not argue I state it–fact Jack. They are not women, not female and they never will be. Woman is not a “feeling” a man has. A man can wear whatever–silken gowns, reams of pink taffeta–but women are not made of taffeta–we are flesh and blood humans and not what a man feels, or what he wears. We are not more real dressed than we are naked.
      If a man wants to laydee face it or feminate in public that is his right. He does not have the right to expect others to play along with him. That infringes on women’s right to know and to say a man is a man and we are not going to be trivialized into a some mens psychological issues or sexual urges. So if he does not “pass and none do he is SOL isn’t he.
      That you seem to imagine, if women were “nice” or compassionate or caring they would comply with men. Why? These men are abusive frauds and liars who could not give a rats ass about anyone and prove their hate of women by demanding us to damage ourselves for their dick shoot a wad in a dress.
      To further prove my point. Just look at your own touch points using people wholesale with no respect. These men are NOT intersex and NOT androgyne insensitive–they are men–XY all systems good to go. In their selfish entitled male privelage they use other peoples real conditions and trivialize those conditions to add legitimacy to their own. That is called a con game.
      Your last sentence is beyond disgusting–“no one asks to be intersex” And they are not intersex–It is not called intergender is it? No. In order to preserve real compassion for real conditions lets not equate mens demanding controlling sexual urges to real people and real children–can you manage that. Can you even see or care about the difference? It is these men that have ZERO compassion.
      There still is reality and it does exist away and apart from males arousal and demands. I for one am not question anything–I know a man when I see one and he is treated like all other men I encounter–he does not get princess talk and sparkle dust because his dick is in a tube dress. You know what other people matter–women matter and they are not a “feeling” a man has or an outfit a man wears.

      1. I got more compassion in my little finger than you do in your whole body. Woman tomboys better watch out for the malenists then. But for you women on here that want it all your way stop spitting the dummy and grow up and stop worrying about other peoples lives worry about yours cause transgendered people aren’t hurting you and if you can’t stop worrying about other peoples lives it is you that has the problem. I am finally happy i am livig my life as i should have been born and i don’t care what you BIGOTS say cause i know there are a lot of women out there that are accepting of transwomen but i guess they aren’t true women are they.But i am ready for smart ass coments now cause you all have an answer for everything cause you don’t have much of a life cause all you do is put people down and that is SAD in itself so GET A LIFE..

      2. I think many of us disagree with your assertion that transgender people aren’t hurting us or at least don’t have the capacity to harm us.
        Just putting gender theory aside, it’s transadvocates who want to remove gender dysphoria as a condition for transitioning (i.e. any fetishist can legally change his gender and get HRT on insurance companies’/taxpayers’ dime) while they’re also trying to gain access to women’s spaces for real transgender women and the fetishists alike. Many of us here are threatened by that, we do see that as harmful.
        By all means, live the way you want, but don’t demand access to sex-segregated facilities and don’t demand that we treat you exactly according to your special snowflake requirements. If I regard you as a man, I’m going to treat you as one. Sorry not sorry.
        Also, if you’re going to hector us to “get a life”, you might try taking your own advice. No one asked you to show up here.

  25. Queer politics reduces women to “people with uteri” and “gestational carriers”. Sheila Jeffreys is brave enough to call surrogacy the modern slavery it is:
    Commence freakout from an affluent gay male who thinks it’s his “right” to treat women like vending machines. This guy has about 50 Tweets denouncing Jeffreys as a homophobe (LOL), transphobe, and all around bad sort:
    Frankly I think rich gay men like him are playing a dangerous game. They’re treating women like baby machines without even offering the protection (racket) het women can get from het men. Does he really think he can play more than half the population for chumps?

  26. This is the thing, for people trans women can be seen as “not- women” “something in between” or “men in disguise” but when it comes to talk about power and domination. EVERY MAN VOICE IS GONNA TRY TO DOMINATE A TRANS WOMAN THROUGH HER FEMININE POSITION. It is true that not all trans women identify as a woman since birth. There is plenty of experiencies. Official trans discourse reduce all to the identification since birth, but everyone here is reducing trans reality as men that magically decide to be women. It is way more complex than that.
    Even if a trans woman is educated since her 12 years for example as a man, there´s much more in the proccess of education that her family. In public and collective backgrounds where the messages about gender education are emited to the crowd in general, with the labels of /woman – feminine/ and /man-masculine/ as a sort of differentiation for the receptors. Trans women are gonna absorb all the education labelled as feminine. So we find subjects with a gender-mixed education, so difficult to speak about, so difficult to classify in a power category, so difficult to study.
    Anyway, charging against trans women when trans men are totally free of criticism in the same rethoric is ironical and misguided.
    We should think about a more complex way to adress this issue from a critical feminist point of view, that a rudimentary analysis based of the genitalia medical categorisation
    (It would be nice to address as a woman instead of copying patriarcal manners for domination)

Comments are closed.