The New Yorker: What is a Woman? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism

new yorker article
From the New Yorker:
“On May 24th, a few dozen people gathered in a conference room at the Central Library, a century-old Georgian Revival building in downtown Portland, Oregon, for an event called Radfems Respond. The conference had been convened by a group that wanted to defend two positions that have made radical feminism anathema to much of the left. First, the organizers hoped to refute charges that the desire to ban prostitution implies hostility toward prostitutes. Then they were going to try to explain why, at a time when transgender rights are ascendant, radical feminists insist on regarding transgender women as men, who should not be allowed to use women’s facilities, such as public rest rooms, or to participate in events organized exclusively for women.
The dispute began more than forty years ago, at the height of the second-wave feminist movement. In one early skirmish, in 1973, the West Coast Lesbian Conference, in Los Angeles, furiously split over a scheduled performance by the folksinger Beth Elliott, who is what was then called a transsexual. Robin Morgan, the keynote speaker, said:

  I will not call a male “she”; thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman”; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.

Such views are shared by few feminists now, but they still have a foothold among some self-described radical feminists, who have found themselves in an acrimonious battle with trans people and their allies. Trans women say that they are women because they feel female—that, as some put it, they have women’s brains in men’s bodies. Radical feminists reject the notion of a “female brain.” They believe that if women think and act differently from men it’s because society forces them to, requiring them to be sexually attractive, nurturing, and deferential. In the words of Lierre Keith, a speaker at Radfems Respond, femininity is “ritualized submission.”
In this view, gender is less an identity than a caste position. Anyone born a man retains male privilege in society; even if he chooses to live as a woman—and accept a correspondingly subordinate social position—the fact that he has a choice means that he can never understand what being a woman is really like. By extension, when trans women demand to be accepted as women they are simply exercising another form of male entitlement.”

177 thoughts on “The New Yorker: What is a Woman? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism

  1. It’s better than nothing.
    Went to a lotta trouble to maintain seeming neutrality, but lost it at the end with the concluding ‘bow down and worship’, or else statement from some AGP.

  2. From the article:
    But the pain of radical feminists, she insists, can’t trump trans rights. “If it were a perfect world, we would find ways to reach out and find ways of mutual healing,” she says.
    But, as it is, “I am going to have to say, It’s your place to stay out of spaces where transgender male-to-female people go. It’s not our job to avoid you.
    How fucking threatening is that last sentence?
    It’s our responsibility to stay away from men?
    Where? Back in the fucking kitchens?
    That made me so fucking angry
    They whinge and tantrum when we build spaces for us!
    They didn’t fight for women’s bathrooms, our right to vote, didn’t build Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival or create Dykes On Bikes
    And yet DEMAND access to everything we have, our spaces and our bodies (pretendbians).
    Disgusting entitled pricks.

    1. Me too. They go out of their way to crash a party where they not invited nor wanted and they say WE have to stay out of places THEY go? It’s not like going to MichFest is required of all women like a trip to Mecca.
      If they want to start their own festival, build their own domestic violence shelters and even demand their own bathrooms and locker rooms, FINE, I will steer clear!

      1. It’s not like women want to avoid transgenders at work or on the fucking street. They just don’t want them in places where they will be naked or vulnerable, and in spaces or at events created exclusively for WBW. Currently, women ARE staying “in their place”. It’s transgenders that are being colonialist assholes. Transwomen don’t just stumble into women-only spaces because true women-only spaces are really fucking rare. You’d have to google events and spaces and invade them strategically (which they do). They want to use women-only space as a method for affirming their chosen “gender”. They want to be among women and to have those women nurture and love and stroke their inflated egos because that’s what women do, duh. “Why aren’t you wimmenz being nurturing??? Check your cis-privilege and fucking nurture me, already!”
        And the 15-year-old tumblr trans handmaidens are nurturing and coddling and stroking the egos of adult men with grown children and ex-wives. It’s totally gross.

    2. I thought the same thing. Hello, women keep trying to have our own spaces and you motherfuckers show up with rape and death threats at every turn and make sure radical feminist speakers are no-platformed even when not speaking about transgenderism or gender at all. Women try to carve out any space, including meeting in a private home and these people show up like locusts. They mentioned the Radical Feminist conference in London. The place where they were supposed to have that conference prides itself on free-speech above all else and even had a British/White Supremacist political party (with ties to Neo-Nazi groups) meet there. So, white supremacists=okay but female-only events in light of females suffering sex-based oppression=not okay.
      To quote Professor Farnsworth, “I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.”
      You’re right, these people didn’t establish all of these women’s rights or fight for the vote. Shit-for-brains bisexual-until-graduation queer activists weren’t around when the lesbian and gay liberation groups kicked off and they want to be hip and queer until it comes to the part about being in a same-sex relationship and being persecuted as such. Two sides of the same coin.

    3. big fuckin surprise. In a perfect world… …the Civil Rights movement would have had more focus on eradicating Jan Crow …the anti war movement would have addressed violence against women in theatres of war and the home front …the labor movement(s) of the last r centuries would not have contented themselves with protections for mostly male dominated jobs …the gay rights movement would have paid back all the work lesbians did, acknowledged the risks we took, and taken action against the deep misogyny of gay male culture … the fucking american revolution would have lived up to a higher ideal than “all MEN are created equal” … and on and on and on in every movement you can name, including, these days, the feminist movement. Does the articles author expect us to act as if we’ve never heard this shit before? So, big fuckin surprise, women, less important …Again

      1. However, kudos to the author for addressing this at all. In this climate, she risks her job in addressing any position held by Radfems, and who knows what kind of editorial pressure as to use of pronouns and description of both Radfem and tranz she was answering to.

    4. The best part is that it is exactly the “job” of men to avoid women-only spaces. That’s why the bathroom/locker room door says “Ladies,” and not “Ladies and any dude who wants to come in and watch or listen.” We label those spaces in order to notify men that they are prohibited from entering, just as their bathrooms and locker rooms are labeled so we know that we’re not supposed to go wandering around in there.
      You know, I really feel like I should have gone to Harvard and graduated from there. I’m just as smart as a Harvard grad. I’ve seen movies set there and read books about it and know a few people who graduated from there. So I have every right to go hang out at their alumni meetings and reunions, right? Because of my feels? Hey, it’s not my job to stay out of places I wasn’t invited and have no real right to enter; it’s the job of the Harvardites to quit gathering together at all if they don’t want to welcome me there.

    5. Sandy Stone shares this view—up to a point. Of the radical feminists’ position, he says, “It’s my personal belief, from speaking to some of these people at length, that it comes from having been subject to serious trauma at the hands of some man, or multiple men.” He adds, “You have to respect that. That’s their experience of the world.” But the pain of radical feminists, he insists, can’t trump trans male rights. “If it were a perfect world, we would find ways to reach out and find ways of mutual healing,” he says. But, as it is, “I am going to have to say, It’s your place to stay out of spaces where transgender male-to-t people go. It’s not our job to avoid you.”
      This pisses me the fuck off. Women have PTSD from being raped and abused by men and set up their own place and when some male walks in they have to leave their own fucking space that they set up for themselves?! What the fuck is this shit? ‘Oh, I know you’re being triggered by me but I just don’t care! I should have the right to take away one of your few safe spaces because I’m a male!’ It’s disgusting. They don’t just demand access to our spaces, they want to run us out of our own fucking spaces!

      1. It’s like a bratty sibling who agrees to loan you a pencil as long as they’re not using it but then immediately wants it back for no other reason than to exert ownership rights over the pencil and power over you. Or someone who gives you something, like a shirt or something that they don’t wear anymore, and as soon as they see how you added a scarf and wore it with the sleeves rolled up and a pair of pedal-pusher capri pants, insist it’s theirs and they want it back.
        It’s the behavior of a selfish narcissist who can’t bear to think that someone somewhere in the world might have something special for themselves, or that there is a place somewhere that’s not set up especially for them.

      2. Women’s PSTD and and well founded realistic fears of these men are not as important as male sexual pleasure and male erotic arousal triggers–the most important thing–men getting off. The inability to force women to part take in their abusive sexual compulsion leads to them to claim they are murdered and threatening to commit suicide. That is the bottom line. These guys threaten suicide if they can’t shoot their wad in our faces. A bunch of abusive fuckers–

  3. On the surface this article looks like it’s presenting two viewpoints fairly and neutrally, but look at the language used to describe the feminist position – hell, look at the language used to describe the feminists.
    We’re told that Jeffreys “insists on using male pronouns to refer to trans women” – why not just write “Jeffreys uses male pronouns to refer to trans women”? Because the author wants readers to focus on Jeffrey’s insistence, implying she’s being unreasonable.
    The author keeps telling us the feminists have short hair – one is “stocky”, and another wears a “uniform of black T-shirts and jeans”; Janice Raymond, who of course is brought up, is a “a lesbian ex-nun”.
    In contrast, look at how little description there is of the men and the MtF transsexuals. Describing the feminists’ appearance lets readers dismiss them – “ugly dykes, so interchangeable they wear uniforms” – but men can be discussed in terms of their ideas. Julia Serano and Sandy Stone look like men in dresses, but though they’re quoted, there’s not a word about their appearance; trans women are only described when they have feminine features like blonde hair or a “tiny nose and long brown hair”.
    However, when the NYT has to step in to try to define trans politics as the norm and radical feminist critique as a bizarre backlash by women that have been hurt by men, it’s significant – because it means the critique has gotten loud enough that the mainstream needs to defend itself against it.

    1. I have no idea what Goldberg’s personal views on the subject are, but in the current climate, it’s more than any journalist’s career is worth not to use “preferred pronouns,” or to be openly sympathetic to feminist critiques of the trans movement. Any hint of that, and you’ll be identified with the issue forever, and relegated to the “women’s interest” ghetto. (“Sorry, we already have someone who covers the woman stuff.” “But I mostly write about securities fraud –” “Next!”)
      If I’m not mistaken, this is the same Michelle Goldberg who wrote “Thy Kingdom Come,” a mostly very good book on the Dominionist (theocratic) movement within evangelical Christianity, back when this topic was not getting much attention. Like this piece, however, it’s not as hard-hitting as it could have been — she pulls a lot of punches.
      Around the same time “Thy Kingdom Come” came out, Chris Hedges published a much angrier book on the same topic, “American Fascists.” Hedges has also written some scathing critiques of the porn industry — making many of the same points as Gail Dines — but for some mysterious reason, he doesn’t get dismissed as a hysterical feminazi. And I’m pretty sure he’s not worried about being dismissed that way.
      Draw your own conclusions.
      I think you’re dead-on that this is a sign the critique has gotten loud enough, though, and I hope that this ambivalent, ultra-cautious little article will lead more people to the real discussion that’s been going on for a while, now.
      Many thanks to the women who have been writing critically about trans and queer politics, despite the personal risks they take in doing so, and the hostility they have faced from progressives and neo-cons alike. You are brave as f***, and I salute you.

      1. True about using pronouns. It’s probably part of their style guide. And every story has an editor. I do agree that “insists on” should have been edited out. The bit about the little nose was weird. I guess they have a rule that if they describe anyone’s looks or clothing, they must do everyone’s, but yeah it did seem the men were depicted in a better light. Being blond isn’t feminine though; plenty of men are blond.

      2. Yep, it’s the same Goldberg and I’ve also read Thy Kingdom Come. I would say her book was less hard hitting than Hedges’ book because her intended audience was different — she wasn’t “preaching to the choir” as Hedges was, and was likely aiming the book to fence-sitters, hoping to get them to jump off on the progressive side.
        Because of her familiarity with the religious right, I would have liked to have seen her do an article on what the RR and transfolk have in common — they both view gender in essentialist terms, though their solutions to it differ. To the RR if the gender shoe doesn’t fit, then cram that sucker on tighter and ignore those blisters. To the transfolk, it’s cut the foot to fit the shoe. And a key point would be that there’s a third way — either change the shoe or go barefoot.

      3. @Me: “And a key point would be that there’s a third way — either change the shoe or go barefoot.”
        Agreed. But you know what they say about women who wear comfortable shoes…

      4. I was pissed when I first read the article, but after reading it thoroughly 5-6 times, I have decided that the writer is actually a radfem sympathizer, was under editorial direction to use preferred pronouns, and threw in the jab at the end to get women on the fence talking because it’s an unreasonable request. The more I read it, the more subversive and snarky it seems…. almost like the author made a stylistic decision to describe the transwomen like pretty princesses and the women in more neutral or “masculine” (human) terms. She basically said that the men care more about enforcing femininity than the women do without saying that specifically, and it’s true. I wear dresses, but I’ll never be as feminine as a transwoman because at some point when I was a girlchild, I realized it was an act, that it made me feel less capable, and that I wanted to be perceived not as a boy, but as a capable and strong girl. Most women have a problem with femininity, even if they are not self-described feminists. Most women are very practical and aside from a few gender signifiers like lipstick or earrings, are not really all that “feminine” in the behavioral sense. Though there are some behaviors that are tough to unlearn… like making yourself small or being too accommodating. I think that’s because we learn those the earliest. I still struggle with the being small thing, because I was harassed for my muscular arms and body in middle school and I, to this day, hunch and hold my arms in to my sides as close as possible when I’m not thinking about it. Femininity is nothing but internalized abuse and harassment. One day, in gym, one of my main tormenters was saying that I looked “like a lesbian” and saying something about how he knew how to “fix” me (I’m het, but it’s irrelevant). We were all wearing a uniform, but I guess I didn’t overcompensate enough with feminine behavior to overcome the loose knee-length shorts. I lunged at him with my entire weight, threw him over my right shoulder, ran 20 yards and threw him onto a padded practice area (he was not injured). I was never harassed at school again because word traveled, and I didn’t get suspended because coach was a nice old lesbian and really went to bat for me. I am in contact with her to this day. She was the first feminist I ever knew.

  4. That article is really slanted pro trans.
    The very last sentence really sums up the male trans position. From Sandy Stone: “It’s your place to stay out of spaces where transgender male-to-female people go. It’s not our job to avoid you.” Their position is always the same, throughout the thousands of years of their rule over and oppression of women : the burden should always be on the female. Lazy ass boundary violators.

    1. I thought it was fairly balanced in that each side probably thought it leaned toward the other side, but overall I thought it was one of the more objective articles I’ve seen. As for the last quote, obviously it was incredibly inflammatory. Wrapping up with that remark was intentional and I doubt that the author agreed with it.

      1. Well, it’s more balanced than something you’d find in, say, Huffpo, but I’ll be damned if I’ll use that as a measuring stick. I thought it was pro trans slanted all the way, for reasons that are pretty well covered in the other comments here

      2. At this point, acknowledging “TERFS” as anything other than inhuman beasts feels like progress.

  5. Not too bad, considering it’s pretty much the first article covering this topic in a large, mainstream publication. But it’s a pity Goldberg ignores the many, many intelligent bloggers who have been writing about these matters from a feminist perspective for years without a lot of fanfare or recognition. (Blogger known as Debunking Serano, you are missed.)
    That last quote the article ends on, the one from the well-known M2T, is also a textbook anti-feminist guy-statement. Maybe this is a good thing — it’s something most women have heard before, in some form or another, even if they haven’t been affected by the trans issue. Perhaps some women who have been toeing the liberal line in spite of private misgivings, because they don’t want to offend anyone, will see this and recognize it for what it is.
    According to this M2T, radical feminists don’t want bepenised individuals in what are supposed to be sex-segregated spaces because they’ve
    ” ‘been subject to trauma at the hands of some man, or multiple men.” She adds,” You have to respect that. That’s their experience of the world.” But the pain of radical feminists, she insists, can’t trump trans rights. “If it were a perfect world, we would find ways to reach out and find mutual healing,” she says. But, as it is, “I am going to have to say, it’s your place to stay out of spaces where male-to-female transgender people go. It’s not our job to avoid you.”
    In other words, when women insist on acknowledging a set of basic biological facts– sex is a reproductive category, mammals do not change their sex, men have penises, women have vaginas, vaginas are organs, not surgically constructed blind pouches — they are not simply exercising their logical reasoning capabilities.
    No, according to this M2T, these women are having a purely subjective emotional reaction, because of a sad, private trauma. Some man must have hurt them, and now they hate all men. They need to get over it, or remove themselves from the public sphere.
    However, not believing the postmodern fairy tale that humans, with the help of some synthetic hormones, cosmetic surgery, and the application or removal of lipstick, can change sex like some species of fish, does not make anyone a man-hater. Neither does not wanting men (whatever they feel like internally, whatever they’ve had done to themselves) in women’s restrooms, women’s homeless shelters, women’s sports teams, etc., make anyone a man hater.
    It’s logic and science, folks. No trauma necessary. You can arrive at the same conclusion regardless of your personal history, and no matter what you think about the male sex as a whole — you can love them categorically, or hate them, or even view them strictly as individuals!
    That quotation is the classic response of a sexist man who has just been told “No” by a woman. Women are not supposed to draw their own boundaries, and if we do, it must be because we’re somehow broken and damaged. This is also something women hear after doing or saying something that’s not consistent with someone’s stereotype of what a woman is.
    “No, I will not go out with you. No, I will not have sex with you.”
    “Aw, who hurt you, baby? We’re not all like that. Give men a chance.” (There’s an excellent post on the blog paleotrees on the way this line gets used, btw.)
    “Actually, I’m a lesbian.”
    “Some man must have done something terrible to you!”
    “Actually, I’m a lesbian, which means that I am homosexual, not homogenderal.”
    “If you don’t think my internal identity makes me a woman and a lesbian, you must have been traumatized by a man, because otherwise you wouldn’t have a problem with my having a penis!” If anyone thinks this conversation is hypothetical, or an exaggeration, or something that only happens on tumblr, well, let me tell you: it’s not.
    “I’m not interested in having children.”
    “You must have been abused by your father!”
    “No, I do not think pornography is okay. No, I do not think sadomasochism is healthy.”
    “You must have been traumatized, or you else wouldn’t hate sex!”
    Same old, same old. Tl;dr: Just say no to this nonsense, even when it’s dressed up as progressive, liberal, or queer.

    1. “No, according to this M2T, these women are having a purely subjective emotional reaction, because of a sad, private trauma. Some man must have hurt them, and now they hate all men. They need to get over it, or remove themselves from the public sphere.”
      Yep. As always, male feelings are the basis of reality (“I feel like a lady so my penis is female and you must accept it as such!”) and female feelings are proof that women can be dismissed (“You’re just saying that because you feel hurt!”)

    2. My thought is, I’m entitled to be traumatized…and logical. I’m entitled to be honest about being hurt – by men – and still analyze trans theory in terms of the theory of evolution, and find it a gigantic theoretical FAIL.
      I’m entitled and AM both these things – emotional, scarred, traumatized…AND logical, analytical and systemic in my thinking.
      I’m not trapped in a BINARY of…oh wait…binary…feminine-masculine…….apparently, I am gender-nonconforming in my response to trans theory, as well as many other areas of my life.

      1. Hell yes, it’s possible to be traumatized and logical. It occurred to me later that my comment could be read as suggesting that the two things are mutually exclusive, which is not my view at all.
        I’m just tired of the old, old trick of dismissing a woman’s legitimate complaint by suggesting that it’s the result of some unique-to-her personal problem that has nothing to do with anything that happens on a societal level.
        “I’m so sorry that happened to YOU, but…” is just the dressed-up version of “Bitches be crazy.”

      2. “I’m just tired of the old, old trick of dismissing a woman’s legitimate complaint by suggesting that it’s the result of some unique-to-her personal problem that has nothing to do with anything that happens on a societal level.”
        Hey this is the story of my life 🙂 So we’re on the same page with that one.

      3. I so agree with this. Experiencing trauma and being capable of rational thinking are not mutually exclusive.

      1. Glad you liked it; I’m fine with the links if GM’s fine with the associated traffic.
        Susan, if your comment was addressed to me, thank you as well.

    3. *delurking for the first time to say* THANK YOU SO FUCKING MUCH FOR THIS. *relurking*

    4. Saying that those critical of the trans agenda “must have been hurt by men or suffered trauma” — well, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
      I can’t imagine a person who hates themselves so much that they’re willing and eager to mutilate their healthy bodies and pollute them with possibly cancer-causing hormones isn’t exactly a poster child for mental health and has no place condescending to others about it.

    5. Excellent post! What the original article does is try to pin all of these views on radical feminists who have been hurt by men. You don’t have to have been traumatized to see the stupidity in the trans agenda. You don’t even have to be female to see just how ridiculous this whole thing is! Yet anyone who says, “Your brain doesn’t have a sex; you’re brain does, however, have plasticity. A lifetime of fantasy and role-playing will change the structure somewhat, just as pursuing different careers and interests develops different areas of the brain. Does a taxi driver innately have a brain hard-wired for navigation, or does his/her brain develop that way through repetition and practice?
      ‘Moreover, while intersex conditions do arise, there is never incongruity between the mythological ‘brain sex’ and your actual reproductive system,” is labeled a traumatized woman who’s ‘opinion’ is influenced by her unfortunate experiences.
      Transcritics are made up of men and women. We are of all ages, religions (or non-religion), political affiliations, careers, levels of wealth and affluence, and different ideologies. Some call themselves ‘feminist’ of one kind or another, others do not; but to say that only a small minority of radical feminists have any problem with men who say that a dress makes them female or women who claim that watching Transformers makes them basically male is dishonesty.

  6. “I am going to have to say, It’s your place to stay out of spaces where transgender male-to-female people go. It’s not our job to avoid you.”
    M2Ts actively seek to invade women’s only spaces and events. They don’t just stumble upon them by accident because true women’s only events and spaces are few and far between. They are seeking validation for their “femaleness” by being among women and they are not getting it, which makes them very angry. If transwomen made themselves a transwomen-only space, there would not be an issue of WBW attempting to harass and invade their way into that space because that’s not what women want to do. “But the pain of radical feminists, she insists, can’t trump trans rights.” Likewise, the “pain” (aka hurt feelz) of being a man who wishes he was a woman should not trump the rights of those born women with exclusively female experiences. Make your own goddam space. This is not about rights; this is about individualism, consumerism, and having your “chosen” identity validated by women. That’s what the “cotton ceiling” debacle is all about; Having sex with a lesbian (as a man) is the ultimate affirmation of his genderfeelz as he collects, appropriates, steals, caricatures, abuses and seeks to control all that which is woman. This is nothing but regular old misogyny dressed up in what everyone thinks is a transgressive or progressive ideology and high heels.

  7. It takes real talent and effort to produce a misogynistic post this artfully disingenuous. This is how a woman becomes a part of a patriarchal institution like the The New Yorker.

  8. “self-described radical feminists, who have found themselves in an acrimonious battle with trans people and their allies.”
    Wait, so .001% of the population has Allies[tm] but those representing 51% of the population doesn’t?
    Now that 100% of women who are paid cash money to be professional feminists think that all males can and should be feminists, full stop (no more of that “pro-feminists” crap), it’s absurd to think that no one, ever, would side with self-described radical feminists.
    The concept of allies is so stupid. All the “good allies” are considered “good” precisely because of their privilege (wealth, power, prestige) and they earn the label by backing the most privileged members of a specific minority.
    So of course radical feminists wouldn’t have any allies…

  9. “Sandy Stone shares this view—up to a point. Of the radical feminists’ position, she says, “It’s my personal belief, from speaking to some of these people at length, that it comes from having been subject to serious trauma at the hands of some man, or multiple men.” She adds, “You have to respect that. That’s their experience of the world.” But the pain of radical feminists, she insists, can’t trump trans rights. “If it were a perfect world, we would find ways to reach out and find ways of mutual healing,” she says. But, as it is, “I am going to have to say, It’s your place to stay out of spaces where transgender male-to-female people go. It’s not our job to avoid you.”
    Who is Sandy Stone? Sandy Stone is a biological male who “identifies as a woman”. The “she” in this paragraph is a male, and no one can force me to believe otherwise.
    “But, as it is, “I am going to have to say, It’s your place to stay out of spaces where transgender male-to-female people go. It’s not our job to avoid you.”
    Mr. Stone has it all backwards.
    How in the hell were Christopher, “Jessica”, Hambrook’s homeless female victims supposed to avoid him? I guess they could go back to sleeping on the streets. The homeless deaf woman that Hambrook sexually assaulted could go back to sleeping on a street corner, or go back to an abusive relationship so that Hambrook could have more space in the women’s homeless shelter. Is this what Mr. Stone is suggesting?
    Predator who claimed to be transgender declared dangerous offender
    TORONTO – A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday. He noted the Montreal man, 37, attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years. “He has demonstrated from the age of 12 until the present an inability to control his sexual impulses,” said McMahon.
    Justice John McMahon declared Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — was a dangerous offender”
    When Colleen Francis (Clay Scott Francis) paraded “her male genitalia” in front of teenage girls, what were they supposed to do? According to Mr. Stone, these girls and women should have just given up the whole women’s locker room to this middle-aged, heterosexual male.
    Evergreen State College Police Report
    Please note that under sex it says, “F”. At the time of this incident, Francis definitely had male genitalia. Scroll on down and see where it says, “her male genitalia”. Yes, this campus police report says, “her legs open with her male genitalia showing “. This is how insane “gender identity” laws have become. For those unfamiliar with this incident, Francis is a retired military man who was married a couple of times and has children. At the time of this campus police report, he was taking classes at Evergreen State College.
    This elderly woman should have just scooted over and given this male more room.
    “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?”

  10. That closing line reminds me of that teacher who suggested that bigots get their own bathroom. Would that mean I don’t have to see peen in the women’s locker room? Sounds good to me.

  11. “It’s my personal belief, from speaking to some of these people (radical feminists) at length, that it comes from having been subject to serious trauma at the hands of some man, or multiple men.” She adds, “You have to respect that. That’s their experience of the world.”
    Is Mr. Stone saying that Hambrook’s victims were “radical feminists”? How would he know? What about the female juvenile offenders and female staff that the violent transgender teenage boy referred to as “Jane Doe” repeatedly assaulted? Are we to believe that they are all “radical feminists”?
    Mr. Stone, how were “Jane Doe’s” female victims supposed to stay out of his way when they were locked up with him? Where were they supposed to go? I supposed they could try and jump the fence and escape so that this violent young man could have more room in the girl’s juvenile facility.
    Gender identity laws that violate the privacy rights of women and place all of us at risk impact the female sex as a whole. Moreover, because of legislation pushed through by transgender activists, males don’t even have to undergo sex reassignment surgery to claim “gender identity” or transgender status. Many transwomen are fully intact biological males.
    There are legitimate reasons why women are suspicious of males in our private spaces.
    (1.) There are far more male registered sex offenders than female sex offenders. Look at who is and isn’t incarcerated.
    (2.) Males are responsible for most violent crime. Look at all the mass shootings. How many mass shootings were perpetrated by women.
    (3.) Studies that go back decades show that paraphilias are far more common in males.
    Males who “identify as women”, or say they are transgender offend at the same rate as other males. Now, they are demanding access to women’s restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, and women’s shelters.

    1. It’s the part about not having to have had ANY alterations or surgery to be considered a “woman” in the legal sense that is the most illogical thing about this mess. I wouldn’t be as concerned if the laws were limited to those with SRS because that would at least separate the lifers from the PIW dudes and the law would still retain women’s rights to file charges against sexual harassers. At the very least it would not make perverted heterosexual men a protected class.
      It’s disturbing how quickly the police backed off when they heard that the friend voiced complaints about mis-gendering. It’s ridiculous that people are defending the feelings of sex predators against women’s right to privacy and right to be free from sexual harassment. I just can hardly believe that mainstream feminist activists and the media are actually defending the rights and feelings of rapists and child killers over women’s rights and calling it progressive. If you had told me this 5 or 6 years ago, I would not have believed it.
      How is it that we are actually making laws that say a person has a right to basically “make things up” and have their delusions taken 100% seriously? Can I say I feel like a tiger and demand the zoo let me live with the big cats and eat raw meat? What if I get tiger stripe tattoos and have my teeth filed (like I have seen some do online). That example is obviously silly, but they are writing laws that allow basically the same thing (with 100% more danger to women) under our noses all the time.
      For instance, that Evergreen police report is particularly telling where it says that the laws are a grey area so they don’t think they can press charges. Uh, last I checked indecent exposure by an adult towards minors is DEFINITELY still a crime. But the cops are afraid of trans-backlash so better to relegate it to “uh, we’re not sure” to be on the safe side. They obviously couldn’t care less the poor girls and their right not to get “flashed” by a intact man in the women’s locker room – even the police now put the media and trans-activists first.

      1. Given what I’ve now found out about criminality among MTTs, I’m not exactly wild about changing sex demarcation for them, especially the rewriting of history by changing birth certificates. But requiring SRS at least makes them have considerable skin in the game, so to speak. For the most part, a plain old sex predator isn’t going to get his dick inverted so he can prey on women and girls in women’s facilities. But changing his sex designation when there’s no objective criteria required? Why not?
        It’s a sex predator’s dream, especially if his involvement in civil society is so marginal he’s not going to face serious repercussions at home or at work as a result. And that last part is going to be especially true of any sex predator who’s already been caught and convicted. He’s not likely to have family relationships or a career that would be negatively impacted by trans identity. “Paula” Witherspoon is a prime example of the sex predator who has nothing left to lose.

  12. “But, as it is, “I am going to have to say, It’s your place to stay out of spaces where transgender male-to-female people go. It’s not our job to avoid you.” Sandy Stone, a male who “identifies as a woman”.
    I’m sure “Jane Doe’s” female victims all gave a sigh of relief when the State of Connecticut finally sent the violent adolescent male referred to as “Jane Doe” to a facility for boys. Mr. Stone, how were these girls and women supposed to avoid him?
    “…November 2013 pleaded guilty to assault on an officer”
    “Director of CJTS testified there were eleven occasions in which police were called to either a facility or program regarding an incident with the respondent.”
    “A supervisor from juvenile detention center in Bridgeport stated the respondent exhibited assaultive behaviors toward staff members, other juveniles….The supervisor stated that her behavior was more severe than other residents.
    ….CJTS director…specific behaviors that make the respondent especially dangerous and difficult to secure: an inability to de-escalate, targeting of female staff, and smearing feces……”…”The respondent then ripped at her (female correctional officer) and bit her, leaving puncture wounds. All three fell to the ground, after which the respondent, wearing army boots kicked and assaulted the staff member in the head, arm, face, and ear. The assaulted officer believes she was kicked six times. She estimated that the respondent weighed approximately 180 pounds and stood five foot eight inches compared to her 135 pounds and five foot five inches..”
    *Mr. Stone, what about Douglas, “Donna”, Perry? I suppose Mr. Stone is going to say that the three women that he is accused of murdering in cold blood weren’t quick enough to dodge the bullets when “Donna” was on a shooting rampage.
    *Katheena Soneeya (born Kenneth Hunt) murdered two women and is serving a life sentence in Massachusetts. One victim’s neck was slashed and her body had suffered multiple stab wounds to the chest, abdomen, and groin. There were strips of sheeting around her neck and ligature marks on her wrist. In addition to blood, water was found on the bed and in the vicinity of the body. An autopsy revealed sperm in the victim’s vagina and rectum, indicating that Hunt raped her. (His victims weren’t quick enough to avoid him. Isn’t that right Mr. Stone?)
    *Sandra Jo Batista, formerly called David Megarry Jr., is a convicted serial child rapist. (The girls should have tried to avoid him. Isn’t that right Mr. Stone?)
    *Richard, “Sherry” Masbruch was convicted of rape and torture. He tied two women up and sadistically tortured them with an electrical wire before raping them. (In a women’s prison where it’s impossible for females to completely avoid him.)
    *Robert, “Michelle”, Kosilek was convicted of murdering his wife, but it’s all her fault because she wasn’t fast enough to avoid him.
    Mr. Stone, how were these women supposed to avoid their male transgender identified attackers?
    A transexual and transvestite who raped a woman face a significant jail sentence after a judge described their case as one of the worst he had seen.
    A TRANSVESTITE taxi driver faces a prison term after he was convicted of raping a drunken woman in the back of his car. Qasim Anwar, 30, carried out the attack dressed in make-up, a wig, women’s clothing and high heels, Manchester Crown Court was told. A jury heard the victim had drunk so much she was virtually `comatose’ and Anwar filmed the attack on his phone.
    Even though this woman was so drunk she was virtually comatose, the woman who was raped by this transvestite should have woke up and jumped out of the car in order to avoid him. Isn’t that right Mr. Stone?

  13. I think MG ended on that line for a reason, the same reason she ended w/ Mikki Kendall indicting herself in the toxic twitter feminism article: She can’t come out and say “these people are crazy misogynist” so she lets them say it themselves.

      1. I like this phrase I came across in an unrelated article: “political tactic known as jiu-jitsu: take your opponent’s feral vehemence and roll with it”

    1. Plus, many women have never heard of radical feminism, only liberal feminism. Women who found libfem lacking might want to find out more.

      1. I stopped calling myself a feminist fifteen years or so ago when I realized modern feminism is all about my “freedom” to be sexually used and abandoned while the men who used me got off scot-free, and no one judged them or considered them irresponsible for it. I stopped calling myself a feminist when I realized modern feminism tells young women that it’s awesome and liberated to expose themselves in public–even to have sex in public–and their natural modesty is wrong and something to be overcome (interestingly, I hadn’t until this very moment considered this aspect of the whole “let the men into the ladies room/locker room” thing: the aspect that is about training young girls and women to stop desiring privacy or expecting that they should be protected from the predatory male gaze, and teaching them that they should be happy to disrobe anytime, anywhere, for men to see).
        *Possible trigger warning*
        I stopped calling myself a feminist when I realized–and I am /not/ making a political point here, I am /for/ reproductive rights, I’m just sharing my personal experience–that in fact I *did* care about the abortion I had, that it had made me feel traumatized and sad, and that the same feminists who had told me over and over that I would feel nothing but relief and it was no big deal had not only lied but were absolutely unwilling to hear my experience or allow me to speak of my regret; that the minute I said, even in the most timid and conciliatory fashion, that I wished I hadn’t done it I was called a liar and a troll and a propagandist for the religious right. None of them were willing to offer me support or a sympathetic ear or even allow that my experience was real and that I might have some negative emotions about it. You want to make a bunch of modern feminists start screaming at you and calling you names? Just tell them you regret an abortion. I stopped calling myself a feminist when I realized that this sort of thing went hand-in-hand with promoting the “rights” of men to impregnate women and trot away while the woman was expected to abort the pregnancy, and if she chose not to she was obviously evil and just trying to “trap” him, because of course there could be no other reason she’d choose to have the baby. And of course how that also enables men to abandon their children without any consequences to the men and leaves women struggling as single mothers.
        (Rather nonsensical aside: Anybody remember the old Salt ‘n’ Pepa song “What A Man?” There’s a line in it, as it lists all the reasons why this particular man–the singer’s new boyfriend–is such a mighty good man, that actually says, “He spends quality time with his kids when he can.” Because in the world of modern feminism, he’s a mighty good man if he takes time from his busy schedule of shopping and dating once in a while to drop in on the children he made. And of course it’s assumed that he’s made them, because duh, why should he be expected to have kept it in his pants or forgo the chance to impregnate other women in order to take an equal share in parenting duty? He spends time with them when he can, thanks to the mother of these children who does not have the opportunity to pop in and out of her role as parent but must do the actual day-to-day work. I wonder if she also thinks he’s a “mighty good man” as she sits alone with a screaming baby in the middle of the night.)
        I stopped calling myself a feminist when I realized how modern feminists were selling out other women, deliberately and without the slightest bit of shame: when they excused the sexual harassment of numerous women because they themselves liked the male harasser; when they refused to condemn things like FGM because “we can’t judge other cultures”; when they shamed and shouted down women who didn’t want to be turned iinto public depositories for whatever bodily fluids men might want to expel on or in them; when they insisted that all women love to watch pornography and that if a woman does not enjoy seeing other women used as emotionless sex zombies on film they must be repressed prudes; when they decided it was awesome and sexy to play Lesbian for the male gaze, thus reinforcing the idea that lesbianism is not a genuine sexual orientation but a choice all women can take or leave and that lesbians only exist so men can watch them make out on stage (fuck you, Madonna). And when they insisted that none of this leads to or contributes to a culture of objectification.
        I stopped calling myself a feminist when I realized that rather than equality, modern feminism is about women being always secondary in every aspect of life, and that even the sole power held by women and women alone–to grant or deny (hetero) men sex and to gestate and give birth to children–was being turned into something worthless by the insistence that every woman should allow herself to be treated like a sex toy and thus run around begging men for attention and approval, and that men were no longer expected to take even the slightest responsibility in exchange. It’s not remotely a surprise to me that MRAs sound in many ways exactly like modern feminists.
        I’ve just written a very long screed here, and I’m sorry. My point is that for years I have not called myself a feminist or identified with feminism in any real way, and now I realize that it’s not that I left feminism so much as feminism left ME. I am surprised and pleased to see that there are actually still women out there with whom I can agree on many matters and subjects pertaining to women and our rights, even if there are still other things on which we disagree. Thank you all so much for that.
        (PS Seriously, I do not want to offend or upset anyone with my comments about abortion, and it’s not at all an attempt to derail the conversation. I want to reiterate that I am pro-choice and FOR reproductive rights. I am not in any way saying all women would/do feel the way I felt. I’m just relating my own experience and the shock I went through when I realized that not only had I been misled, but that modern feminists acted like I was an evil traitor for not feeling the way they told me I would and should, and they turned their collective backs on me in an instant.)

      2. Dorothy, that’s a good list of so many things wrong with liberal feminism. I never think of it as real feminism, and it just seemed further and further away from my own experience. To my relief I found there were radical feminists online saying many of the things you summarize.
        I do think that abortion can be experienced differently for different women and it’s sad that so-called feminists shut you out rather than supporting you.

      3. @WordWoman- That’s true. I’ve come across many younger funfems who think radfems are evil cause, yanno, some misogynist said so. And what ever an angry man says, well, it must be true! Don’t question.
        It’s like this layer of:
        As a woman, she doesn’t know what feminism is. All she knows is that it’s evil toward men.
        As a feminist she doesn’t know what radical feminism is. All she knows is that it’s evil toward MtT [Surprise, surprise: Men again!].
        @Dorothy- Thank you for sharing that! While I may not have exactly went through that, I do know exactly what you’re talking about and have encountered funfems doing this to other women.

      4. Wordwoman, thank you so much for your kind reply. I confess I was very worried/afraid of what kind of response I might get.

      5. @FabFro: Many thanks to you, too. Again, I was very worried what the response would be.
        Thanks, too, Gallus Mag, for allowing my comment.

    2. “It’s your place to stay out of spaces where transgender male-to-female people go. It’s not our job to avoid you.”
      First, we have the obvious reversal, which implies that M2T have spaces and it is the nasty feminists ‘invading’ them. M2T don’t avoid, they deliberately and with malice aforethought confront.
      Also, note that nasty feminists have a ‘place’, whilst M2T have a ‘job’! Typical public/private, male/female, active/passive dichotomy shite. Really fascinating how much you can get out of two sentences! And how much two sentences can reveal about the writer!
      I think/hope that this quote was left in for a very good reason, because, after all, who can complain about being quoted at length? But the madness soon leaks out!

    3. I thought the same thing, because the article stopped so abruptly. I think the author is more sympathetic to our position than most of the other commenters here seem to think.
      While the article is certainly not as positive as we might wish, it will blow many ‘mainstream’/straight people’s minds that there are ‘lesbian’ male transsexuals! The majority of even sympathetic straight people see transitioning as a cure for gayness — I can’t count how many times I’ve seen the comment “what’s the point?!” from people encountering ‘gay’ FtTs and ‘lesbian’ MtFs for the first time.
      Just an explanation of the term autogynephilia in one of the leading magazines in the country is a huge step forward, given how ‘blacklisted’ its been as an explanation in most progressive-ish circles.

      1. I remember when I watched the movie Jeffrey almost 20 years ago, I was in an audience of mostly gay people. There was a scene where Olympia Dukakis and her “daughter” were at Pride, and the daughter was a trans “lesbian”. At that part, the part where a heterosexual man called himself a lesbian, everyone, and I mean *everyone*, in the audience laughed.

    1. Sounds like he wants to pressure them to fire her without coming out and saying it so he can’t be accused of shutting her down.
      At the very least this is causing trans to think of the backlash of silencing women and invading their spaces. The NYer article is well-timed, coming right before MichFest. I don’t attend but I’ll be interested to know if there is any effect.

      1. Molloy constantly demands the heads of even low-level employees on a plate and then has the gall to claim that his demanding a firing for some perceived offense is “rare”. I’m not sure if I’ve encountered many women who demand that workers be fired unless we’re talking actual criminal behavior. I have run into many men, though, who are entitled enough to make those kinds of demands, especially if the worker is a woman.

      2. Michfest sounds like an awesome event and I do hope this article will have a chilling effect and keep these people away, unfortunately, I fear it will have the opposite effect.

      1. Didn’t take them long to reach the “eating their own” stage, did it? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

      2. They should stick together. All they have is each other and Chad is out of his league on this. Like clock work they just keep proving the point. Could it be any clearer—Chad, Serano et al have an out of control sexual fetish that requires they become publicaly abusive to women and threaten and try to force women into pretending and role play in a male sexual compulsion.
        Oh he stuck his is dick in a hornets nest this time. When NY writers of a certain level—not Huff Po and not Salon get fed up they are able to do real research and are well connected Goldberg has a few books out and is pretty well known and respected. On the other hand, Chad in throes of his fetish says–same things over and over—
        1) twanzphobia, bla bla bla (he shoots a wad)
        2) most marginalized ever (grasps his teddy bear and the astro glide)
        3) Threatens suicide (sexual fantasy kicks in and he pictures his own dead body as an adorable nine year girl and then takes a cum shot of himself on his cell)
        4) Pearl clutches and says off with her head and then begs the “The Advocate that august publication to let him say the same thing over again. And then he drones on and on–The voice of male supremacy and misogyny never bores itself.
        NY writers are not going to sucking him off. Self reported stats don’t fly anymore. Poor Chad could not get a women fired—he is such a hateful prick. Men like him are beyound contempt–who really gives a fuck about him and who belives him? The second these guys are outed as the liars they are they will be dropped like turds on fire.
        So I am betting she is still employed while Chad is busy wiping his last shot of jizz off the screen of his laptop. We should tell the boys to buck up–just hum “Tomorrow” to themeselves. They are just all down in the dumps because all the folks in PC land knowing about their autogyephilia somehow bothers them—which I just don’t get. I mean shouldn’t all male sexual fetishes mean a lot to every body. Shouldn’t male ejaculation be the civil and human rights cause of the century? I mean we need troops on the ground firepower because white men needs women to role-play in the fetish drama. Not exactly a poingant social justice cause–They imagine people breaking into a rousing round of Oh Freedom for their dicks. Men really are insane.

    1. What the fuck is this, McCarthyism? One of the reasons for being suspected of “un-American” activities was actual or perceived homosexuality, and considering that I got called a TERF for just saying I was a lesbian and explain like once that I meant I didn’t like males/their dicks, I guess it is McCarthyism. This was before I became a radical feminist too.

    2. How is this not a modern day witch hunt?
      “Tag those TERF bitchezz so we know who they are and where they are at all times.”
      That was it’ll be easier to find us when we need to be rounded up for “Reprogramming”
      2+2 ≠5

      1. Also very useful for housing, employment, medical and legal discrimination.
        They obviously learned this tactic from A Voice for Men’s registry on “man-hating” women, which includes photos and videos. I assume this will too.

    3. The actual wut?
      But now it’s to the point that if you just sneeze wrong you get called a TERF. Because saying women have vulvas is now TERF [but only if this comes from a woman] and bigot language.
      Really, truth and trans don’t mix. Therefore, truth is a bigoted TERF…So if this went through, truth would be added to their TERF watch list…Hm, interesting.

    4. The TERF Registry Tracker is similar to the anti-choice websites that propose tracking down and (tacitly) killing women’s health clinic staffers like the website:

  14. “Women’s studies” classes for the most part are a fucking joke when the important issue of reproductive rights get derailed with “but what about teh menz”. Or in this case, the “male women”. Do people realize how stupid they sound when they say shit like that? The only “male women” I will acknowledge as women are women with intersex conditions like androgen insensitivity syndrome. Also, it seems pretty silly for a WOMEN’S reproductive rights movement to focus on males or anyone who can’t reproduce. I probably can’t reproduce and I don’t want to, so I wouldn’t expect a movement about ensuring affordable child-care to be all about me. We all know that pregnant trans men are only a derailment tactic because it’s all about autogynophilic males and their jealousy and hatred of women. Unless you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie “Junior”, you can’t claim that you’re “really a man” while trying to get an abortion or carry a pregnancy to term. Medical professionals should not be forced to deny reality with these “because I say so” identity politics and neither should women or anyone else.
    Also, fuck that “pro-choice” group in New York! Making pregnancy anything but a woman’s issue is incredibly demented. Why don’t you all go tell the women in Texas with only five abortion clinics or the women in Mississippi where they have one (I think) abortion clinic about how abortion is not a female/women’s issue and instead it’s about jealous fucked up men who can never get pregnant.
    And as for equal rights, gee maybe I would be a little more supportive if it wasn’t all about erasing sex-based protection in favor of gender identity. I don’t think anyone should be fired from their job for being transgender but gender-identity laws are not the way to do it. Maybe if you’re getting hassled for wearing opposite-sex clothing it should just be a case of sex-based discrimination.
    I laughed at the last part of the article about how it’s up to us women to avoid these males. Well, what the fuck do you think we’re trying to do, Sandy Stone? We try to avoid the shit out of you and have women-only events and do the whole separatism thing, but male transgenders always show up to threaten us with violence and to have a bunch of ex-military psychos patrol the perimeter of Mitch-fest with weapons. Women cannot even be remotely involved in Mitch-fest without being forced to resign from their jobs, but clearly women are way more privileged. There’s no way I will ever go back to ignoring reality and not see that most of these dudes as behaving like the entitled men they are.
    Oh, and were all the women who were assaulted, raped, and murdered by male transgenders and transsexuals just supposed to avoid them? Yeah, it must be their fault. Clearly the women who are in prison or otherwise institutionalized with these men should just attempt a jail-break, even if they have mild sentences.
    @SkyLark Philips: That is a good list. This is why this notion that transgender males are the same as women is total bullshit.
    Well, while this article is definitely biased in favor of male transgenders, I do have to wonder if people will see past the bs pomo language and realize that the article states that only 1/4 of transgender males get genital surgery or want it, therefore the majority of them have their dicks in women’s restroom and locke rooms.

  15. Well, the comments above are so knowledgeable and damning regarding the trans agenda, that I probably shouldn’t even post. I would like to say, though, that I haven’t ever seen a discussion before in mainstream media that even goes this far regarding the radfem viewpoint. And even though it is slanted toward the trans viewpoint, it seems to me a lot of the radfem viewpoint is here for ordinary people to read and agree with.
    Also, I’m proud of Russell, Ivey, and Lierre Keith for their work in presenting radical feminist reactions to the trans agenda over the past couple of years. I know these women and I know they are committed. I have been hoping a way would be found to link their work with Gallus Mag’s and other’s online work. There is a new organization based in the Northwest called WoLF coming out of their work that is fresh and energetic. I want to wish them the very best in the hard work ahead. They are talented and committed enough to carry off some great things.

  16. What a biased, pro-male, female-hating, pile of trans cult propaganda.
    She quotes Lisa Vogel describing the trannies as “spray-painting a six-foot penis, and the words “Real Women Have Dicks,” on the side of the main kitchen tent” at Michigan and still doesn’t get it? That says it all.
    This woman really should not misquote Radical Feminists. No, we do not “reject the notion of a “female brain.” That’s liberal/mainstream pseudo-feminism. Radical Feminists recognize that women and men are extremely different on every level, including brain/mind/spirit/heart, which is why surgery and hormones does not begin to alter a female-hater into a woman.
    No, men have far more rights than woman, so it’s lies about trans getting less rights. The violence? From other men.
    More mind-fuck: “TERF stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist.’” No, ALL Radical Feminists say no to trans. Otherwise, they are again pseudo-feminists. Similar to how the wife of the man claiming to be a Lesbian is not a Lesbian. She’s het or bisexual. (The goal with the trans cult is to mind-fuck and erase reality, define Lesbians and Radical Feminists out of existence.)
    As the Lesbian who Elliott (I refuse to call that prick Beth since he picked a name as close to mine as he could) sexually harassed when I was 17 and later stalked me into the Lesbian community and is STILL stalky towards me, I have to say that Robin Morgan was wrong about him being “hassled” by men thinking he was a woman. Shudder perhaps, but not hassle. (I think she hadn’t seen him yet.)

    1. Comment from soundcloud link:
      > Miss_Sudo: “Goldberg is showing obvious bias i this article and the interview. Why did she not mention MRAs as being the biggest problem with radical feminist conferences?”
      What? She mentions ‘transgender’ like 50 times in that article.

    2. Margaret Talbot had a very trans critical article in the NYer a while back “About A Boy” but she was shrewd enough to make it about a F2T and the doods did not notice it. It shows how much manipulation and money and the whole fad factor that is involved. I suspect anyone writing for a better publication knows these guy are full of crap and beating off to: Themselves in lipstick
      Themselves in some teenage girls bikini top
      Themselves holding a Teddy Bear
      Themselves in the rape fantasy
      Themselves threatening suicide
      Themselves making death threats to women
      And every tweet in between. I keep waiting for someone to tell these guys to STFU and sit down.

      1. I listened to the pod cast and Talbot changed her tune. I was disappointed. But the cocked eyed optimist in me says they agreed to play it that way– it was a good cop less good cop thing going on. Both of them know that women journalists and writers get menaced and threatened by the men every second when the men don’t like what gets said. It will be a cold day in hell when Chad has much impact on Talbots career but it is a headache to deal with compulsive fetish warriors and that moose at the NYT Boylan is viscous and if he is implausible as a women well he’s more so as a writer. T implausible such a good career move for these men.

      2. VERY trans critical………I thought it took a very softly-softly approach, but then anything that dares to disagree with the standard trans line is seen as transphobic.
        But so many of the quotes were just unbearably sad! And stuff like:
        “A handsome Dutch F.T.M. says that he’s decided not to reveal his trans status on Internet dating sites, because it’s better when girls “meet you and see that there’s absolutely almost no difference between you and other guys except for one really shallow kind of thing.””
        Really? REALLY? That in the netherlands, straight girls are so trendy that they’ll be totally unconcerned as to whether the ‘guy’ they think they’re dating has a dick or not? And that it is a SHALLOW kind of thing as to whether they do or not!

      3. @BadDyke: It’s only “shallow” when you’re talking about the depth of a surgically created pseudo-vagina. *rimshot*
        Seriously, though. FFS, it’s a “shallow” thing? Yeah, I know when I was in the dating pool I wasn’t interested at all in such “shallow” things as whether the guy actually had a dick, or the possibility that he could impregnate me. The desire to have children one day is sooooo shallow, isn’t it?
        Not long ago I saw a F2T on some online forum discussing this issue and how silly it was (this was in reference to gay men refusing to date “him,”) because “who really cares what someone’s /penis/ looks like? Is sex all that matters to you people?” (Spoken like a true gay man, right?)
        Who cares what someone’s penis looks like? Straight women and gay men, that’s who: people who enjoy doing and desire to do sexythings with penises care what they look like. We also care what they feel and taste like, and we care that they are functional without the use of bicycle pumps.
        But whatevs, who cares about female sexuality, right? Women don’t like sex; we just lie back and think of babies and shoes while the menz do their dirty business. We aren’t shallow enough to think intercourse–sometimes referred to ironically as “making love”–is important, or to dislike being lied to and tricked into dating a woman with a dildo shoved down her pants.
        (Of course I’m not saying that infertile men [or women] don’t deserve love or that I absolutely wouldn’t, in my single days, have still dated a man who couldn’t reproduce, just that the desire to be with a fully functional man is not “shallow.” What an outrageously offensive and ridiculous thing for that person to say.)

  17. Somewhat OT, but I’ve been wondering what happens to these autogynephiles when they “age out” of being the sexy, “puretty gurll” they so desperately want to be? Will they still be tottering around on their six-inch-high Jimmy Choos and wearing skin-tight bandage dresses when they are 70 or 80, still expecting the world to think they are “sexy”?
    My guess is that they are in for a rude awakening when they realize that being an elderly woman in our society is basically akin to be totally invisible, if not outright dismissed either as “crazy” or a “dear old thing.”
    What happens then? Do they then revert back to being male so that they can be a little bit more visible and valued? I suspect that will be the case, and they will then, of course, expect the rest of us to pay for their “detransitioning.”
    OTOH, maybe they won’t live long enough to be an elderly “woman”, after decades of consuming fake hormones, botox injections, leaking breast and butt implants, and other unhealthy things,

    1. “Will they still be tottering around on their six-inch-high Jimmy Choos and wearing skin-tight bandage dresses when they are 70 or 80, still expecting the world to think they are “sexy”?”
      Having recently left a 36 year relationship with one, I can report their delusions are so compelling and compulsive that when they look in the mirror, the don’t see the ridiculous, grotesque caricature they present.
      Mine saw a virginal teenager in a baby doll nightie with pretty matching panties, or a sexy young college student in skinny girl’s jeans, a tight tee with his bra strap showing ‘just so’ or a fit young thang parading around the pool and beach wearing a frilly bikini bottom (despite his being a retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel Commanding Officer over 60).
      And not only that, they are CONVINCED everyone else sees them as they wish to be seen.
      It’s some sick, twisted shit.

      1. Makes sense that so many get enraged when their delusions aren’t validated by others. I don’t see how a political/social movement that requires outside validation could ever hope to survive.

      2. Holy crap, Ozarkmtnlake. I just…cannot fathom that level of delusion, but it’s there. Did anyone besides you say anything to him about how ridiculous he looked?

      3. My ex-step-FIL loves to tell my husband and me stories about how he and his tranny friends go to bars all the hottest men and women there are attracted to them and send them drinks. Or the time he was having car trouble and was bent over the engine in his minidress and just *so many* men stopped to help him, and were shocked and only realized he wasn’t a born woman when he spoke to them in his deep voice.
        This is a stocky, almost-6-ft-tall man, 67 years old, with a barrel chest and a receding hairline (despite hormones). (He tried to tell me once that he and I wear the same bra size: 34B. He was dead serious. He honestly seemed to think I would believe that his band size was 34. Maybe at the special vanity-sizing tranny store it is, but in the real world one of my bras would barely cover half of the width of his chest.) Suuure, yes, I totally believe men thirty-five years your junior are begging to take you home and nail your open wound because they honestly think you’re the sexiest chick in the place.
        We don’t think he’s entirely trying to fool us; we think he truly believes this. In his mind, looks of disbelief, laughter hidden behind hands, baiting for laughs, and/or sarcastic humoring all translate into admiration and desire. I’ve never seen him in full Lady Costume–as I mentioned before, my MIL forbids it in her presence–but I’ve seen some of the clothes and shoes he insists are so attractive on him. They are all either incredibly inappropriate–for anyone his age, for anyone his body type, for anyone who isn’t a backup dancer for Kanye West–or just plain ugly. Like Dame Edna Everage trying to make some extra cash on the street corner.

      4. Sometimes I wish someone would take a picture of one of these pervs in their sick getup, put it on the internet on some sort of “rate me” or comedy website, watch the laughing, sneering, hateful comments roll in, and then show him. That should disabuse him of the notion that he looks anything like a hot woman. If he really wants to be a woman, he should try taking the constant public criticism of his looks and attire. See how he likes the unvarnished truth we get from strangers, coworkers, relatives, daily for looking anything less than perfect.

      5. My husband is an RN and every once in a while he has an older male patient who has a big belly and is bald, a supremely obvious aging male. And then he’ll see that it says “trans” on the patient’s chart. This is at a Catholic hospital in a small city in a rural, low-population state.
        But what is one of the things I’ve noticed about most people? THEY DON’T SEEM TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO. We’re swamped with animal care, gardens, lawns, firewood, caring for our old house, and food prep and preservation, but we are surrounded by people who drive around aimlessly because they have nothing to do. I figure these old geezers are similar, spending their time on computers looking at porn (the number of men arrested for child porn and molestation is staggering), then decide — at age 60 — they want to be teenage girls.
        Some sick, twisted shit is putting it nicely.

      6. I’d venture that many people just don’t take care of themselves or their property. I would be baffled by how my friends seem to actually have free time, but then I’ll visit their homes, and their homes are filthy and badly maintained. And meanwhile my far more wealthy friends have well-maintained homes, but pay other people to do the work. I’ve heard, anecdotally, that exchange students and au pairs from Europe often have a hard time with how messy middle class American homes often are.
        And then many older American men, if they have wives, don’t have to lift a finger around the house. That leaves lots of time for boredom.

    2. They will then go with their wives to join groups like OLOC, Old Lesbians Organizing for Change, where they destroy the once female-only space and where Lesbians do workshops about how we owe them reparations, and where if we refuse to respond when they approach us, those Lesbians police and reprimand us.
      The one who changed OLOC seems to be in his seventies and is the belle of the ball.
      They will always have women kissing their grotesque male asses.
      I’m guessing the ones wanting to be with men won’t do so well because men don’t put everyone else first and are more ageist.

  18. I’m 56 and I’ve been a feminist for 40+ years. I consider myself a gender critical feminist, though I’ve not before really considered myself a radical feminist. Back when I first became interested in feminism, most mainstream feminists were gender critical feminists and gender critical material could be found in Ms Magazine and in mainstream feminist books. As I recall Gloria Steinem wrote a gender critical article for Ms some time in the 70s, though she has more recently recanted her views on the trans issue, in some sort of misguided politically correct gesture — who knows?
    In the late 70s and early 80s, there were several books written on non-sexist child raising, where the main point of the books was to advocate raising children free of gender stereotypes and sex roles. The best of the lot was by the former editor of Ms Magazine and mainstream feminist, Letty Cottin Pogrebin: “Growing Up Free: Raising Your Child in the 80s”. In the book, Pogrebin was quite clearly critical of the trans phenomenon, even quoting Janice Raymond within her book.
    What happened? Why have mainstream feminists changed and now are mostly drinking the trans Kool-Aid? My guess? In a word: political correctness happened. What started as common courtesy and respect has gone off the rails to nonsensical extremes to where logic, common sense and truth is sacrificed to absurd fictions where we are afraid to speak the truth for fear of “offending” people’s sensibilities, no matter how delusional and/or based on magical thinking they are. People don’t want to be accused of being “haters”, “phobic”, and “intolerant”. So, mainstream feminists caved in and now are afraid to tell the Emperor he’s wearing no clothes.
    And many mainstream feminists believe the T is an integral, inseparable part of LGBT rights; that if you don’t support the T, then you can’t support the LGB, either., which renders you also “homophobic”. Sigh.

    1. To put mainstream ‘feminism” in context — in the 1970s, women referred to radical feminism versus equal rights feminism (e.g., Steinem) — it’s important to remember that women whose main concern was their own access to corridors of male power had no interest in critiques of the state, religion, or capitalism. Back when, I never met a radical feminist who supported economic exploitation, war, militarism — it doesn’t take a great mind to understand that militarism ALWAYS hurts women and children — patriarchal institutions or their henchmen. It doesn’t seem strange that liberal feminists today fall all over themselves supporting trans; it is the result of lacking a serious understanding of patriarchy and its many faces, gender being one of the most significant.

    2. Tl;dr: unintended consequence of 1990s activism (AIDS crisis, queer activism, sex-positivity)
      A lot of mainstream feminist views on anything related to sexuality got squelched in the wake of the AIDS crisis. The “sex-positivity” movement was a direct response to this, and the notion of “queerness” emerged in tandem with AIDS activism. I think it’s sad, but a historical fact, that much of the thinking that’s undermined gender-critical feminism, not to mention the feminist critique of porn and prostitution, comes from this era, and in particular, from within what’s now called the LGBTQIIAA community.
      It happened like this. Once it became clear how HIV was actually transmitted, it became necessary to be able to talk about specific sexual practices in public in a way that wasn’t stigmatizing, so that people would hear the safer sex message, get tested, etc. Same thing with IV drug use. Remember all the explicit discussions of anal sex, fisting, sexual practices involving blood etc., etc., etc., that started to appear in the newspapers right around 1985? That would have been unthinkable even a few short years before.
      That public discussion saved lives; however it also brought about a change in attitudes has had long-range social consequences that are still with us, and that are not entirely good. Because people were dying, there was tremendous pressure during the later years of the AIDS crisis to be 110% non-judgmental about anything and everything pertaining to sex. The reasoning was that shame leads to unsafe sex, and unsafe sex can lead to HIV transmission. It became taboo, within the gay community, to criticize either pornography or sadomasochism, because these were considered forms of safer sex. I remember one activist saying, in so many words, that if you opposed pornography, you had the blood of gay men on your hands. Lesbians adopted this line, too — you had to be sex positive, for the greater good.
      So, what about the women exploited by the mainstream porn industry? What about the young men exploited in the gay porn industry? Shut up, you outdated feminist, GAY MEN WILL DIE IF THEY CAN’T HAVE THEIR PORN. SO WILL LESBIANS BECAUSE THEY CAN [HYPOTHETICALLY] GET HIV TOO I KNOW BECAUSE PAT CALIFIA SAID SO!!!!
      What about the underlying misogyny of sadomasochism, regardless of the gender configuration? Shut up, you outdated feminist, those people are doing a lot for safer sex education. They’re passing out latex gloves and condoms, and publishing little booklets about how to draw blood safely.
      These attitudes did a lot to pave the way for the mainstreaming of porn and sadomasochism among liberal heterosexuals. I’m not saying they haven’t always had their own problems with this — they have — but AIDS-era sexual politics made it more respectable, at least among liberals, and silenced other points of view. It was the old “Andrea Dworkin’s just as bad as Jerry Falwell” battle cry, but with the volume turned up to ten.
      What does this have to do with trans? Along with the sudden respectability of kinky sex as a Noble Political Statement, there was a kind of weird nostalgia for other forms of role-playing in the gay world. A gazillion articles were published in the gay press on how subversive it was to “fuck with gender,” etc., etc., etc.
      This is the era that gave us Stone Butch Blues and Gender Trouble. One’s a novel with a weird revisionist take on butch-femme culture in the fifties, whose main character ends up transitioning, the other’s a badly written and even more poorly understood text that was wildly popular in comp lit departments for about 15 years. Academia has moved on, even the author has moved on, but this book, and SBB, and many, many others like them have had a long half-life in popular culture and are still being cited by trans activists. If you get into a debate with one, they will hand you a reading list, and it will include these titles, along with the other Greatest Queer Theory Hits of the nineties.
      “Queer” used to be a more in-your-face synonym for “gay.” When ACT-UP members chanted “We’re here! We’re queer! Get used to it!” they meant, “We will not accept being ignored and trivialized anymore, we’re dying in an epidemic. We will not accept the government and the public’s inaction like the meek little homosexuals you think we should be.” But the term morphed into a catch-all for “not straight.” Bisexuals who thought “bisexual” sounded sleazy, or who just wanted to distance themselves from the straight swinger image, started using it, and honestly, that’s quite understandable. Trans people became “queer” around the same time. Then heterosexuals who thought they were non-normative in some way started calling themselves queer, and getting really huffy if someone referred to them as straight. (“I’m not straight, my wife and I have a girlfriend and, see, we’ve got these fur-lined handcuffs…”)
      And one morning, perfectly ordinary gays and lesbians (and bisexuals leading de facto gay and lesbian lives) woke up and found that they were now considered members of a big, happy, rainbow pervert family, and expected to toe the line and stand in solidarity with people whose interests are directly opposed to their own.

      1. @Me:btw — I’m not trying to sound as if I didn’t realize you were around for that era, too. Just organizing my thoughts on how the events of that time looked from a particular vantage point. Thanks GM for letting me ramble here.

  19. TERF is not just a slur but also serves as a social control over all women. By comparing the very common sense realizations that women have over this issue to an intentionally devised radical lesbian, man-hating extremist minority a dissonance is created for a woman between what she knows to be true and her background, her status and her experiences.
    There is much here that we should be taking advantage of, not the least of which is Stone’s words at the end. For the first time Stone is exposed as a woman-hater in the mainstream media and in the New Yorker no less. Stone’s words are no longer just in academia or on the internet. They’re going to be in millions of mailboxes around the world and in hard print that you can take to the tub or the toilet at your leisure.
    I am so looking forward to mine tomorrow–

      1. “Every woman knows this is wrong.”
        Then I wish they would wake up and get off their butts.
        The ONLY Women standing up to this ARE the Radical Feminists.
        Where are the non-lesbian and non-feminist women?
        Where are the husbands, dads and grandpa’s who don’t want their wives and daughters to share Women Only Space with men in dresses sporting a hard on?
        I’m not a lesbian but this site and the others like it are the only place I found a voice like my own.
        And I am very grateful to these strong women for carrying the load alone.

      2. Take heart- I read the comments on blogs like Gawker and Slate whenever articles about this topic appear. There is always a hefty percentage of common sense people saying WTF to counterpoint the dogmatists.

      3. @Ozarkmtnlake: I think many non-lesbian/non-feminist/conservative just don’t realize how serious the situation has become. I certainly hadn’t, before finding this site and the others like it. I had no idea grown men were forcing themselves into women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, or issuing rape and death threats to women who dared to even say they’re still men no matter what make-believe games they want us all to play.
        I’ve been reading through the archives here and saw a comment in response to one of the MichFest posts about why the trannies aren’t trying to crash conservative women’s groups. The answer to that one, though, is right in your comment: because they know the conservative women would immediately call their men, and the trannies don’t want to pick on people their own size. They can’t bully or intimidate other men the way they can women, so they force themselves on the groups of women they know will probably not have large husbands/fathers/boyfriends/grandfathers on speed-dial.

    1. “an intentionally devised radical lesbian, man-hating extremist minority”
      That’s not to say that those of us who ARE the radical lesbian, man-hating extremist minority are WRONG!
      Else you risk pandering to the acceptable face of ‘feminism’, or a ‘commonsense’ view. It’s a very obvious ploy, claiming that these views are ONLY held by the stereotypical and scary man-hating lesbians who can be DISMISSED. It’s the LAST part that is objectionable, which is akin to the plea to ‘commonsense’.
      “a dissonance is created for a woman between what she knows to be true and her background, her status and her experiences. ”
      I’d say that MOST women already exist in a state of dissonance anyway, given that we’re all living under the patriarchy. ANd the clever trick is the patriarchy stopping us realising just how true that is!

  20. mm maybe this ‘I’m woman and I don’t shave my legs’ thing is something straight women need to adopt en large – most trannies can’t compete with the unshaven, unmade-up woman. I’m an old hetero spinster so I stopped bothering a long time ago with the hair removal, make-up and jewellery (always found it annoying) thing, so it’s easy for me, but there’s potential there.

    1. I just stopped shaving like a couple of months ago. It’s not an easy feeling and I haven’t shown the leg hair off in public [yet?]. But I don’t wear make-up and haven’t worn make-up except for like maybe twice out of my life time [and it was just a tiny bit of make-up]. I like to keep things simple and natural as possible.
      And, yea, a laydee dood couldn’t do this cause he’d just look like a dood! >_<

    2. If all, or most, women refused to wear make up or shave their legs, then men would either accept women as they are or do without women altogether.

      1. I had a conversation a couple of months ago that got me thinking about how men pretty much have what funfems think we currently have; Men can shave off all body hair and it’s cool beans. Or he can walk around lookin’ like a werewolf and it’s still cool beans. He can wear no make-up, a little make-up and even a lot of make-up and it’s okay. He can go to a party or outdoors and dress up and be high maintenance or dress down to point of looking like he just got out of a fight with tornado [and the tornado won…]. He can pluck his eyebrows or not if he wants to. He can have no beard, a well groomed beard or a bum beard and it’s all still good. He can cover up or show as much skin as he wants and not be labeled as “slutty” .
        [I mean, for real, homebro LITERALLY shows his underwear off with the whole baggy pant look, and could be walking around shirtless and no one would think anything of that-except for maybe it’s tactless, but not him “asking for it”. So a woman shows off her underwear? Asking for it. A man shows off his? Fashion statement. Amazing.]
        But as women, we don’t have that option. Or, well, you COULD do it, just get ready to get some nasty stares or labels. Like, trying showing up to a fancy dinner party in a dress that shows off your arm pit hair and hairy legs and I guarantee you that all of a sudden folk will label you as “unsanitary”. They now fear that somehow your leg hair will fly off your legs, up in to the air and land in their food or drinks.
        But, no one would think it’s unsanitary for a dood to hover his face with full of hair over their food or drinks. Magically now, it’s illogical for his facial hair to contaminate their food and drink. I mean, for crying out loud, there is a reason why men who have beards have to wear a net over that thing when working around food!
        I also started thinking how we don’t see make-up free, body haired women being named as a top sexy women in any magazine or being shown as powerful or desirable. But, as we all know, is how it works for men. When flipping through the top sexy men, you’ll find yourself saying “Now how did he even make this list…”. Simply because men are allowed to come in all shapes and sizes. He’s allowed to be pudgy, nerdy, hairy, hairless, skinny, muscular, etc.
        Because there was this boom of nerd doodz that all looked the same to me [Michael Cera, Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen, Jesse Eisenberg, etc], but I noticed that there are no popular female equivalent to these males. These doodz will even be called “hot” or “Sexy”…*Shudders*…Because “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.
        But when it comes to women, to earn the title of “hot” or “sexy”, one must slather on a tub load of make-up and show off as much as your hairless skin as possible.
        So what we see is this endless option for males to pick from being advertised to us, but the same is not being offered or shown to women.

      2. Actually, I’m a lesbian, so men will do without me whether they accept me as I am or not. There is nothing I care about less than earning the “title” of hot and sexy from men. I like the way I look and other women like the way I look and that’s all that matters to me. I haven’t worn make up since I was literally forced to as a teen and I’ve been told I don’t need it. I do nothing to my hair except get it cut every few months, wash it and comb it out and have been told on more than one occasion, by women, that it is “stunning”. Make up, hair dye and other feminine “beauty” practices physically damage women and thus also damage the way women look. Also, if most women didn’t use the stuff our natural looks would simply be the attractive norm. This is not to say that I think women should never wear make up, shave and dye their hair – I’m not out to dictate, it’s a personal choice. It’s just that so many women think they *have* to or they will be “hideous” that is wrong and tragic.

      3. Oh, well I was actually trying to state that: women just being accepted as we are, no matter what we identify as. I didn’t mean to imply that looking good was just for men only, I just meant that society should show us that any look a woman chooses should be okay, like how men already have that option. Sorry about that. ^_^
        And I agree that if women don’t do these things [slather on make-up, do our hair up, etc], like you said, they would feel hideous. But this goes back to what I was trying to get at: that this feeling is created due to the lack of diversity of women that we see in our media or read about in our books.

      4. What are you talking about, FabFro? There is a woman nerd icon — it’s Zooey Deschanel! She’s totally a sexy nerd too! A thin, pretty nerd with clear skin and a submissive and hyperfeminine persona.
        Those lists never made any sense. If you happen to be an attractive American actress who’s famous this year, you’re somehow on the list of “10 most beautiful women of all time in the world” even though we all personally know ordinary women who are actually more beautiful on a physical level.
        It’s like the lists of “FIFTY SUMMER MUST-HAVES!”. You don’t have any of those things, and yet somehow you’re getting along fine.

  21. Wow, it’s even in the New York Mag. It make me feel really sick. Who ever could have imagined it would come to this? These reactionary, fascist transcismen actually gaining traction. The underlying reasons are far deeper and in a different direction than ever cited. Part of this was long-nurtured by faux-feminists and within the patriarchal gay male supremacist movement while those of us busy with with promoting the interests of women and defending against male-pattern violence considered the trans freak-show so far beyond any reasonable person’s concern that it was discounted – till too late.

  22. If you are male and you’re talking about the ladies restroom, locker room, DV and rape shelters, or other spaces designated specifically for females, than yeah, actually it is your f*ing job to avoid us. Onus on you, doods. Try it, see how it feels, and you might actually learn to some nano-degree, what womanhood feels like.

  23. It was this article in “The New Yorker” that first introduced me to the dispute between the trans community and the radical feminists. For that, I think the article did a good job. Until I read this article yesterday, I generally sided with trans people (as a born-lesbian) and didn’t give much credence to radfem theory (and for that, I apologize – I was unfairly dismissive). I can say with confidence that I probably would have never even ventured onto blogs like this one without that article, so I think it’s good for the publicity factor. And to be honest, with the “feminazi” label being used to describe radfems all too often, I think this article (at the minimum) moved beyond the label and tried to put a human aspect to the movement. All was good……until Stone’s quote in that last paragraph.
    “You have to respect that. That’s their experience of the world.” But the pain of radical feminists, she insists, can’t trump trans rights. “If it were a perfect world, we would find ways to reach out and find ways of mutual healing,” she says. But, as it is, “I am going to have to say, It’s your place to stay out of spaces where transgender male-to-female people go. It’s not our job to avoid you.”
    I’m not very familiar with radfem theory as I am a total newbie, but this came across as very bizarre to me. If I’m not misunderstanding the quote, Stone is basically saying that trans-women people deserve their exclusive space that born-women shouldn’t invade, but born-women are not allowed to have equivalent spaces of their own? Even my relatively-mainstream self can see the issue – so I’m sure that there were other people who read the article who aren’t familiar with the radfem ideology and thought the same.
    I’m not sure if the author of the article is connected to the radfem community, but if she is (or is at least favoring the radfem position), then maybe she purposely ended with that quote? If so, I think that was a brilliant move – it definitely made me go starting looking up more about radfem theory.

    1. I’m glad you’re here, Zahra. And I was like you, once – a lesbian who basically sided with trans people as a fellow minority. But then I began reading of, and seeing examples of, their complete selfishness, arrogance, narcissism, and appropriation of womanhood and our experiences. That put the kibosh on any feelings of sympathy or sisterhood I had for them. Then I found this site, and read of their goals of inhabiting spaces meant for women. I also read of the sneering contempt they have for women, and that was that. And it wasn’t anything written by Gallus that changed my mind; nothing editorial, I mean – it was their own words and actions. (Please don’t take that as any kind of discounting of the work you do here, Gallus! I hope you know what I mean, and I hope you know how important this site is.)

    1. I think the yellow mainstream media like Huff Po and Salon along with funfem blogs are largely to blame for trans becoming so big so fast. They are always looking for troll-ish topics and trans anything is guaranteed to get attention. More attention means more traffic, and more traffic means more money.
      Also, corporations know a cash cow when they see one. They have spent years trying to convince women that they are naturally unacceptable and ugly as they are and that they need to spend thousands on hair and make-up to be presentable to society. They even make women’s clothes without functional pockets because they want to sell us purses. Their entire existence is dependent on making women feel like they have to buy a bunch of crap to feel like a real women.
      Since women as a whole are pretty smart, however, not every female buys into the hype and that leaves these corporations looking for new markets. Trans is the perfect solution: it’s trendy, it’s politically correct, and it is ALL about people basically buying the accoutrements of the other gender whether that is a lace front wig or fake breasts and a…ugh, I just can’t bring myself to type it. You know what I mean.
      Look at Clean & Clear using MTF teen Jazz to sell cosmetics. They are HOPING more and more male kids decide to “transition” because for them that means another lifelong consumer of women’s products. I mean before they could only sell women’s products to women and now their products are in demand by men, too. Win-win for trans-corp, lose-lose for born women.

      1. Heterosexual white men who transition late in life are the best possible market. Can you imagine? People who are *obsessed* with how they look, with passing, with being “real” women and who have loads of cash to burn. Women have the inconvenient habit of being impoverished and having children to care for.

  24. [First time posting–really appreciating this blog! Thank you Gallus!]
    Call me cynical, but I’m not sure I buy that radical feminism’s inclusion in this article is a positive sign. More likely the author was just looking to hawk the trans agenda from a different angle, using us as an “interesting if outdated” ideological counterpoint — and thereby arguing, of course, for the trans position as a fresher, more enlightened, and self-evidently superior brand of feminism. I listened to the followup interview (shared by a poster above — it’s on the New Yorker’s Soundcloud) and the author makes resolutely clear her pro-trans position in this debate, arguing that their convenience necessarily takes precedence over women’s autonomy (“although, of course, I am a little uncomfortable with some of the online death threats against the radical feminists. I think some of that can get a little extreme.”) A discussion follows over whether lesbians must consider themselves “obliged” (yes, that word) to sleep with admittedly intact men, so as not to violate said men’s “rights” (because clearly men do have rights — to us!) My jaw literally dropped when I heard it– could anything be more predatory and misogynistic? I have no idea how any woman could legitimately buy into this sickness.
    And I agree with what others have said before– I’d be laughing at the sheer ridiculous arrogance of Mr. Stone et. al. if their implications weren’t so menacing. By his logic, there is literally no such thing as a women’s space — the second he chooses to walk into a shelter, locker room, conference etc, women must (legally) bow to His Maleness and immediately forfeit it, hurling our own rights and safety out the window in the process. It’s like a timewarp to the ’50s, only more delusional and fetishistic (and with sadder wigs).

  25. Here is a link to a column in Canada’s national newpaper by a columnist who is read by millions of Canadians. Margaret Wente will be dismissed as a right wing transphobe as she has been any time she has mentioned trans in her column but she represents a huge swath of the population (I read her column in the actual paper as I could not stomach the comments screaming transphobe on their web site — Canada has a HUGE problem with Politically Correct Cult censorship and silencing). This New Yorker article while flawed could be the tipping point for the truth about transgender lies to the general public.

    1. ps FYI The trans jihad against gay men in Toronto has won their battle to have the one open gay male critic of trans insanity (the gay male Gallus locally) banned forever from the gay and lesbian (now trans and queer) web site Daily Xtra for continuing to use the word tranny and telling the truth about trans insanity — no other gay male in Toronto including myself will dare take on the juggernaut of hate that a public criticism of trans brings on the writer (indeed there is a web site run by trans whose sole purpose mission is to attack and stop this one man). A trans special snowflake claimed that this older gay mans’s transphoobic presence made the site so “unsafe” that he caused many trans to collapse into near suicide whenever his comments appeared. When he was banned this same snowflake turned suddenly into a Nazi-like thug and crowed about kicking bigot fag ass out of pure trans space. Nasty poisoned people. Just another drop in the ocean of facts about the trans insanity that plagues not only women but gay men who refuse to be queer and trans puppets. ps for those interested in either the trans war on gay men or the trans take-over of gay Toronto look back through my comments on various older posts on Gallus’ brave and important blog.

  26. I just saw over at the Advocate, a rather long and tedious, very predictable rant from Mr. Serano–he is bull moose crazy and boring. It seems the uber mench herr Doktor Serano is not happy with with what Ms. Goldberg said and he is trying to tear apart an actual female and journalist–wow he and Chad, limited minds think alike. Oh, he also suggests that the journalists or all journalist are to to blame when men who “feel like women” and dress like women get beat up or killed by other men. But that is just the pity play-snuffle snuffle–how many actual women killed this week?
    No doubt what is really sticking in Serano’s manly craw is the fact that autogynephila is explained briefly and even that passing reference which is part of an honest overview, but verges on too much truth for him and he knows damn well that for the average person it way more plausible than–lady brain. Peak Trans for so many. So he is upset that the whole world looks at him and sees him chasing his sexual fetish and demanding women role play for his constant arousal demands–ick and ick and ick. But ever intellectually dishonest he says–it has not been scientifically proven. Really–got the skirt on? Got the hard on? Proof enough.
    As if his “lady brain” will ever be proven. I think it is starting to unravel. Let these men keep attacking women and journalists. The NYer has their number. They are men and do not know when to STFU and sit down.

    1. lol. Serano fully admits to being an autogynephile. He just doesn’t like the WORD autogynephile used to describe his sexual orientation (which is admitted autogynephillic). That being said, it cracked me up how many times he repeated the word in relation to himself in his long whiney rant. LOLOL.
      Pretending that transgenderism- for heterosexual/bisexual/asexual males- is not formed in the sexual orientation of transvestic autogynephilia, is a project of erasure that is no longer politically tenable. The more the general public becomes informed about transgenderism, the more they know. You simply can’t fight against that.

      1. I can’t see quite autogynephilia carrying the same currency with the general public for the dudes as the whole damsel in distress. I have no doubt that dressing and feminating is only one aspect the other is to force women, real females into to playing along against their will. Subjugation of women is the heart of it and it is abusive–a form of sadism.

    2. Serano writes: “…that trans women like me are really sexually deviant men who are infiltrating the feminist movement”
      Okay, Serano, now we’re getting somewhere 🙂

      1. I feel like Ed McMahon should be shouting “HEY-oooo!!” right after that statement from Serano. 😉

    3. That paragraph where he makes a comparison between women who have “rape fantasies” and men with autogynephilia…they should have just skipped the whole article, and just used that one paragraph, for its sheer craziness and Serano’s utter unawareness thereof.

    4. I’m not quite sure how anyone could even finish reading that trans/mansplain’ fest! [What a brave one you are if you actually finished!]
      To me, it was like the Energizer Bunny; it just kept going and going and going… I tried reading for a little bit but got bored and decided to get traumatized by [skimming] reading about Cox “schooling” Gayle King and another story about a trans child that pretty much ruined my day because trans logic was involved. That poor child.

      1. Doesn’t anyone in the general public notice the incredible, long-winded, mind-numbing NARCISSISM displayed by autogynephilic men??? Holy shit:
        This guy writes thousands and thousands and thousands of words of clearly disordered thoughts about his feelings and mental health challenges, on and on and on, in what could only be described as an extended display of psychiatric crisis, and the New Statesman publishes it, unedited! I cannot imagine this sort of extended nonsensical disjointed rant being published by any other writer on any topic. But when “It’s TRANS!” somehow we are all not supposed to notice that the paper is publishing extended gibberish rants of the mentally disturbed- more suitable for the trashbin (or the emergency room in a psychiatric facility) than public consumption.
        Did no one think to say to this man “Hey, dude, this is really an insane out of control rant, and we are worried about you”.

        1. Did no one think to say to this man “Hey, dude, this is really an insane out of control rant, and we are worried about you”.

          NO! Because that would be transphobic! )=<
          Seriously though, it is amazing how long turds of an article or post can be published without question when it comes to MtT…And Oh.My.Gosh.
          Homebro dun broke it down into parts!
          Nah, I'm not touching that one. I'll let someone else have all the fun of trying to dismantle that never ending skid mark.
          Okay, fine…I skimmed…But from the skimming I did, um, did he write a story or something?
          "I checked up Buckhurst Road. Seeing nobody, I took the short cut. Then I heard a voice.
          “Don’t you remember me?” He walked up to me. “I’m Gino.”
          I hesitated. He grabbed my face and kissed me. I held him off.
          “What are you doing tonight?”
          “I’m going home.”
          He paused, registering discord between my appearance and my voice. “Are you a man or a girl?” I waved my arm and walked away. He called after me.
          “Can I stick my dick inside you?”
          I quickened my pace without running. Luckily, I was nearly home. I took deep breaths and tried to stop shaking."

          Da actual flocka is that? Is this going to be turned into a trans play? -_-

        2. *Snaps fingers* I know what these long turd articles remind me of! Does anyone remember Lamp Chop’s play along- ‘The song that never ends’?
          Yes, well, just a few adjustments and it pretty much sums up these MtT articles!
          This is the post that never ends, 
          and it goes on and on, my friends. 
          Some people started reading it, not knowing what it was, 
          Therefore they continue reading it forever just because… 
          This is the post that never ends, 
          and it goes on and on, my friends.

      2. It’s apparent to me, and I don’t understand why it’s not apparent to anyone else, that these people have a mental disorder of some type. That entire “article” was totally incoherent and impossible to read. The only thing I’ve ever seen that was even remotely similar was when I read Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto. And even with that I could at least follow the general thread. The fact that publications are publishing this madness unedited is just irresponsible.

      3. That they removed all critical comments then closed it shows how much these media outlets are controlling the narrative. By fanning the flames then deleting criticism they can make it seem as though there is far more support for trans than there actually is.
        The big problem with this is that actual laws are being passed based off momentum gained by these trollish media pieces. It’s a money/outrage game to the media, but their playing this way has measurable, detrimental impact for real everyday women.

      1. What a ridiculous hysterical woman that Michelle Goldberg is, to think threatening women with rape and assault and death because they disagree with you is crossing a line! And she expects people to agree that it’s crossing a line and wants to stand up for those women! THIS CANNOT STAND!
        Even worse, she’s stupid enough to think threatening someone with assault, rape, and/or death is equivalent to trying to *censor* them! We laydeez aren’t trying to *censor* them, we’re just letting them know that if they open their big fat mouths to disagree with us in any way we will kill them. Hardly the same thing at all, amirite? I mean, they still have the CHOICE to speak and thus be beaten, raped, or killed. If they CHOOSE to keep their fishy, unfeminine mouths shut to avoid being beaten, raped, or killed, then hey, that’s *their* decision and they should take responsibility for it and quit whining. And if they CHOOSE to speak up anyway? Then they are clearly also CHOOSING to be assaulted, raped, and/or killed.
        It’s not like we held a gun to their heads… Well, okay, it sort of is.*chuckle* But to call it “censorship” is just totally wrong.
        Stupid filthy cis bitches. They should be feminine, like us.

    1. I think SF is doing good work–I do. I think he will be heard and listened to before women in some quarters.
      I read the link. One thing that struck me was how is any part of feminism or women for that matter supposed to offer up an explanation for why some males feel disphoria. I suppose a coherent and honest analysis of gender might offer begin to identify possible factors but that begs the question. . . when will women . . .? I wonder if Ms. Goldstein is getting death threats. I can just imagine the editors at the NYer opening their email to some word cholera from Chad.

      1. Truthfully I think the “… but we need to consider dysphoria” argument is a desperate attempt to save some parts of trans ideology from examination, while recognizing that other parts have gone off the rails.
        Anorexics experience dysphoria, but we discuss it in terms of the cultural environment and personal history – why does this person come to experience their body this way? – rather than just taking it as a given: “She has dysphoria, so you can’t question her experiences.”

    1. Ah, yes. The “founding fathers” who owned and raped slaves. This is some real MRA bullshit right here. “Males are oppressed by women, we must kill them!”

    1. Gallus, if you include these dude’s names in the tags to this post, are these threats by them more likely to show up as a search result if someone Googles their names? I’m not computer savvy enough to know. I’m just wondering if that would keep these threats out there for the world to see, in case these violent males end up deleting these threats…which I doubt they ever will, because that’s how they roll. Exactly how they roll.

    2. For both those “Lisa” and “Barbara” posts…
      I just…Yea, it’s just one of those things where words can’t…
      It’s just so much wrong.

    1. New Reader, sounds like you already know that Barbara Kay was a featured speaker at the recent A Voice for Men conference. I think it’s fair to describe her as anti-feminist and aligned with the mens rights extremists. AVFM is the most well-known of the virulent misogynistic sites online.
      But she seems to have read the New Yorker article with understanding, and I give her credit for her frank admission that it is radical feminists who have been standing in the road pointing out that the transemperor has no clothes, and that she agrees with us.

  27. If these autogynephiles are just sexual fetishists, why should their particular fetish be privileged over someone else’s?
    What about plushies and furries? Shouldn’t they have the “right” to prance around in public and at their jobs dressed like the Velveteen Rabbit without being discriminated against? Shouldn’t they have the “right” to demand that normal people wear bunny suits and have sex with them so that they can satisfy their innate “sexual needs?”
    How about necrophilliacs? Shouldn’t they have the “right” to invade funeral homes or morgues so they can “satisfy” THEIR”needs?”
    How about shoe fetishists? Shouldn’ they have the “right” to invade women’s shoe stores and stand their masturbating while watching us try on shoes in order to satisfy their sexual “needs?”
    Why are THESE people being discriminated against? Surely they have the same “rights” as the autogynephiles. It must really be hell on earth to be a plushie who can’t wear his or her bunny suit to work. And think of the suffering of the poor necrophilliacs who are being unfairly denied access to morgues. . .

    1. “How dare that veterinarian not treat me! I’m a tabby cat on the inside! I have cat brain! Not like you humans with your CISPECIES PRIVILEGE!”

      1. Just on a little bit of a tangent: I use one of those little toy dog carriers for my cat, one of the ones that looks like a purse, because it was much easier to carry around back when I didn’t have a car. So for her first vet’s appointment, I set her down on the bench next to me and waited to be seen. When the vet assistant came out she looked confused, she thought the carrier was just a purse. And that prompted me to think, what would a vet do if they were presented with a delusional human with an invisible pet? Humor the person? It feels like that’s what we’re expected to do for basically any non-passing transwoman.

      2. @Kesher,
        Let’s take it further.
        How about a doctor with a doll?
        Is a physician supposed to fully acknowledge and accept a doll as a human infant?
        Where does the insanity stop?

      3. lol. I feel like this is really the next step, though, with all these otherkin/plantkin/whatever the hell they come up with next.

      4. kesher… you really need to be more sensitive to your dog’s feelings and stop mis-species-ing your dog. Your dog has clearly chosen to use a dog carrier. Your dog is clearly expressing to you a species preference for DOG. Your pet has a dog brain. To ignorantly and abusively continue to insist that your dog is a cat is doing your dog irreparable harm. If you continue to do this I shall be calling PETA, Special Ttrans-Speciesism Division.

    2. That Dear Prudence columnist, who is trans positive because she experiences everything in life third hand and — I imagine — just follows whatever Wikipedia advises on topics, recently published a letter where some woman was horrified by her employee with a neckbeard and how he brings business relations with other companies to a screeching halt due to looking like a freak.
      Prudy concurred.
      I’m like, oh damn, Prudence just agreed that Transmen shouldn’t be hired for any job, ever. Because she didn’t realize that her advice sanctioned discrimination against every transman over 30 since she needs to be spoon fed info on which topics possibly affect the groups she needs to coddle to keep a job at Slate.
      But yeah, trans often do and look ridiculous because they don’t have a choice because of brain sex theory and thus can’t be blamed for what are clearly specific decisions. Decisions they made to prevent their deaths! (But also cause them to be targeted and killed, mostly by female music fans…)
      Everyone else has a choice and we don’t have the luxury or the right to look ridiculous at work. The *rest* of us are still subject to employment discrimination and trans don’t give a fuck about that.

      1. I gave up on Prudence when she went past trans positive to trans foolish. An MTF had never gotten around to telling his boyfriend about his status, so his sister broke the news, and now the family was mad; Prudence called the sister’s action a terrible betrayal. (Not the MTFs, though, because they can do no wrong!)
        Then one of these Munchausen-by-proxy parents had sent their little boy to school as a girl, and the principal was 99% supportive … except for letting him use a changing room with girls, some of whose parents had complained. Prudence of course felt that the bigots could change somewhere else. The only bodies that deserve respect are male bodies, and the only parents’ wishes that matter are trans positive parents!
        (I actually agree with part of the advice – we should let all the girls who don’t want to change around boys change somewhere else, where there are no boys. We can call it “the ladies’ room”.)

      2. Hah, the latest Prudie made it to fark where a Real Trans spoke up about how offensive cross dressers are
        “there are responsible ways to transition. All of them involve medical care, therapy,and a cautious long term transition that avoids traumatizing the sufferer or others in society.
        this person is more than likely an AGP fetishist with a severe social/mental disorder rather than a transgender individual.they are using the popular trope of transgender victimhood to satisfy their sexual urges at the expense of their friends parents feelings and it’s actually quite shameful. Like a lot of socalled transgender MtFs, this person sounds narcissistic and viciously callous and is hiding under the social justice outrage circus instead of owning up to being an asshole.
        They also demean those that actually do have serious dsyphoria and need treatment.”
        I’d be more sympathetic to such arguments if they weren’t just projection; I’ve seen all the reasonable trans hold it together for just long enough to do serious damage when they eventually implode and do all the shit they accused non HBS or whatever of.

  28. Hi,
    I just wanted to say that I am a straight woman and I agree with everything you have written about m2t transsexuals. It has always made me uncomfortable that there are men claiming to be women. It bothers me because it seems to me like they are delusional and we are suppose to believe their delusion or at least pretend like we do and if we don’t we get a bunch of crap from people that think we are not tolerant.
    In fact I find it quite insane that people who seem rational are falling for this whole “I’ve always felt like a woman thing so therefore I am one”. It bothers me because I am a woman and I know real woman and the last thing we need is some guy telling us that they are one of us and if we don’t believe it we are ignorant.
    I’ve never known anything about feminism (I know that’s bad) but I’ve always been quite instinctual and I know when something feels wrong.
    I feel like I keep seeing people trying to brainwash me to believe that these are indeed women, when I know that they aren’t. It bothers me and in a way it feels like a genocide of real, born, biological women. Maybe I’m being dramatic but the fact that I have to use to words like “real”, “born”, “biological” is a sign that they are already winning in this massacre. When referring to myself and the female sex I should be able to just say woman, I shouldn’t have to say biological woman. These m2t transsexuals are not women and the fact that they so bluntly claim to be is so disrespectful to the sex they so desire to be. It’s a lie and never in my life have I seen a lie so accepted by society.
    I look around me to all the women in my life; my mom, my sisters, nieces, aunts and grandmothers and I see women. I could never look at a man and see a woman, I refuse to, no matter how much the media tries to put it in my head. Just cos they’re the crazy ones doesn’t mean I have to keep up their delusions. These people need to take a long and hard look at themselves and look at all the damage they are causing. They need people like you who will be honest and tell them what they really are, not psychologist and doctors who cater to all their crazy thoughts or else what’s going to happen to society if everyone just keeps saying “yes” to everyones crazy thoughts. It takes someone strong with no bs to just call it what it is, if you can’t handle it than get the f out the kitchen. I’m not gonna lie to a man and tell him he’s a woman so he won’t kill himself, that’s none of my business. Deal with your issues like a big boy and stop guilt tripping people into getting what you want.
    Anyways, I find it so effed up that these m2t want to join female only places and that people are actually defending them, it makes me wonder, if everyone is crazy too? Why don’t they make their own spaces, why do they have to join female spaces too. Just cos everyone else is catering to their delusions doesn’t mean they can bully females into giving it to them. I find it so strange how hateful these m2t are towards females, yet they claim to be women, how insane.
    I hope you and all the radical females remain strong and don’t ever give in into this lie because lots of people are on your side, lots of women and men too and I’m talking about the ones actually born that way not the bad imitation.
    Bye and take care,

    1. I think those of us who are “outside of” the radfem world (so to speak) really need to start speaking up more and talking to our friends and other women about this, and writing to our local representatives, instead of keeping quiet while the men in dresses and their handmaiden funfems steamroll us because we’re too polite and/or scared to tell the truth.

  29. This is my first time commenting here but I have been lurking for a month. I am a straight woman and I didn’t really identify as a feminist until now. I’ve become concerned as I see these M2F being pushed more and more into women’s spaces. Feminists, I guess I can now say funfems, have been really pushing this from what I’ve seen online and the rampant cheerleading confused me because I thought they were for women, why are they calling these men who are men women and advocating for them to basically take the places of real women. Then I discovered this site and I’ve learned that these men are threats to all women, feminist or not.
    I don’t want to have to deal with a man in make up and supposedly feminine clothing coming into the bathroom where I may take my nieces. I don’t want to become the unwilling subject of their fetish. I don’t want them to get what they want and for women to be subjugated even more. I don’t want this world that will be sex and gender obsessed, victimizing women, children, everyone that these sick people want to sacrifice for their fetish. I’m willing to do my part in the fight against it.

    1. That’s exactly how I felt! And I have two little girls; this is just terrifying for me, thinking of what might happen to them/what they’ll have to deal with in future.

  30. Dear. god. Serano has actually published yet ANOTHER multi-thousand word piece complaining about the article. LOLOL.
    How many is that now? Three?

    1. And he’s mad that TERFs are “humanized”. True colors flying high there, dude!

    2. If anyone EVER had a question about whether he was a narcissistic asshole, they should have NO doubt whatsoever after that word vomit.
      And to whine about not being mentioned in the New Yorker article until 4000 words in? Give me a fucking break…if I were a journalist that might ever have had the thought of considering him as a source after that, the thought would quickly leave except to note him on a blacklist.

  31. Wow. You folks are the most hateful group I have ever come across. I was reading the comments because I wanted to see what folks thought about this issue, but I was totally unprepared for the level of venom. There certainly isn’t any room for discussion here!

    1. Oh boy, we’ve been chastised by someone who thinks it’s cute to use the word “bitch” as a screen name. You really don’t get it, do you, Wingate? Sorry to see that justifiably angry women frighten you so.
      And yeah Gallus, what a great thread! I just re-read it all and enjoyed it all over again. 🙂

    2. Commenter says, “You folks are the most hateful group I have ever come across” and “I was totally unprepared for the level of venom. There certainly isn’t any room for discussion here!” So says a commenter who uses a slur against women in the name. Typical.

    3. Translation: “The truth fucking hurts and I hate you all”.
      Don’t let the door hit ya, dude. Toodles. *waves*

      1. I hadn’t read this thread yet, so I’m super grateful attention was paid by the troll. That attention bumped the post up the “Recent Comments” column.
        The comments here are awesome. Mmmm, smell that? It’s called sanity.

    4. I wrote for newspapers for nearly 12 years. Every time one of my editors used the word “folks” in an editorial I recognized it as a feeble attempt to sound earnest, reasonable and down to earth, Mr. Wingate. Nice try.
      Hey dbrunk, **fistbump** 🙂

      1. Yes, I have read a lot of old blog posts here due to trolls and haters bumping them! Thanks, guys! But this one is really a good read with the commentary. It reminds that it is true — more and more women are waking up. That makes me happy.
        Thanks again, Gallus. Shows how much your voice is needed, and the voices of your insightful commenters, which I don’t yet count myself among, but I am learning! 🙂

Comments are closed.