Published on March 26th, 2014 | by Rayne22
Laura Jane Grace vs TERFs
(This article is quite long – just saying. Feel free to comment on this article and of course, please like my facebook page if you want more content. Trigger Warning: Trans*phobia, transmisogyny, cissexism, rape, assault, violence, harassment.)
And it all started with this:
Laura, in all her punk glory responded thusly:
Well, that’s horrible. Supporters of GIDWatch openly admitting to wanting to police sex (and by extension the gender a person can identify as). This particular supporter states that it is necessary for “females” (I assume they mean cisgendered/non transgender women) in order to escape violence perpetrated by men. This was one of the main points presented by Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford in their letter the the UN – to read the letter itself and an in-depth analysis of the letter, click here. Basic synopsis: If we allow transwomen into “women’s only” spaces – it will lead to the potential for violence against women.
From the letter to the UN (bold is mine for emphasis)
….”This definition of “gender identity” does not require any objective proof. Rather, it merely requires the person seeking protection to assert that he or she identifies as the sex opposite his or her sex at birth. Further, because Title 11 only permits discrimination in sex-segregated facilities based on sex, a person asserting gender identity as a basis to avoid “discrimination” must be permitted to use the rest room or bath house of their chosen “gender identity” – without regard to any action taken on the part of that individual to change their physiology to “become female” (i.e., sex reassignment surgery.)
The other states that have adopted protections based on “gender identity” have similarly broad definitions that not only incorporate stereotypes about males and females into law, but also allow any one asserting claim to a “gender identity” – including non-transgender and non-transsexual people – to invade all space rationally segregated by sex.
These definitions – like the Rhode Island definition and like the definitions cited in the endnotes to this communication – provide no objective standard by which to assess the legitimacy of the “gender identity.” These definitions would allow all males – including registered sex offenders or males subject to a domestic violence order of protection – to assert “gender identity” as a means to invade female-only space. Indeed, these laws provide a legal basis for males to be in sex-segregated space. It is well-documented that males as a class have a demonstrated history of harming females as a class by exploiting female biology (i.e., rape, sexual violence, unwanted pregnancy). Accordingly, definitions of “gender identity” that permit the individual to “self-identify” without any duration or medical documentation requirements present the potential for a human rights violation against all females”….
To recap: If we let transwomen (especially pre-op) into women’s bathrooms, that will pose a threat to women because whats to stop a cisgender male sex offender from dressing up as a woman and going into a woman’s public bathroom and raping her? Nothing in this letter surprises me seeing as Cathy Brennan once tweeted “because everytime you tell lesbians “transwomen are women”, you support corrective rape“. She also once wrote a letter to all women stating that they should change their sexuality to lesbian because men are oppressors.
I’m still not certain as to how Laura is being misogynistic in her album but it’s an argument that radfems and TERFs like to parrot quite frequently. The existence of transwomen is misogynistic. I’m still trying to figure that one out.
This is an interesting tactic that is prominent on Twitter. Radfems and their sympathizers effectively playing the “victim card”. Deborah Lipstadt in her book “Denying the Holocaust” which examines the phenomenon of Holocaust denial states:
…”However, their efforts to diminish the magnitude of the deeds and roles of the central players are critically important aspects of Holocaust denial. There is a psychological dimension to the deniers and minimizers objectives. The general public tends to accord victims of genocide a certain moral authority. If you devictimize a people you strip them of their moral authority, and if you can in turn claim to be a victim – that moral authority is conferred on or restored to you”…
You may come across this tactic further down the article. A radfem will say something offensive and a person will respond to the offensive comment. The radfem will in turn attempt to cry abuse or harassment. Granted some people will take it too far and respond offensively back to the radfem however the tactic in this case boils down to “I said something offensive and I’m getting called on it and I don’t like that they’re yelling at me”.
GIDWatch openly admits that they don’t include transgender people in their brand of feminism. Why would they? The supporters of GIDWatch have already admitted that policing sex (and gender) is the aim of the game – why would they support inclusive feminism that supports a persons right to choose to be who they are comfortable with?
Telling a person to “Get fucked” is akin to telling someone to “Get raped”? I couldn’t figure that one out either until I found this blog post entitled “PIV is always rape, ok?” by a radfem called “witchwind”. For those of you who don’t know “PIV” means ‘penis in vagina” (bold is mine for emphasis).
…”Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.
This is a developed recap from what I’ve been saying in various comments here and there in the last two years or so. as a radfem I’ve always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly. How can you possibly see it otherwise? Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free? That makes no sense at all.
First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not – which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances – it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence”….
Wait – there’s more:
…”As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. The purpose of men enforcing intercourse regularly (as in, more than once a month) onto women is because it’s the surest way to cause pregnancy and force childbearing against our will, and thereby gain control over our reproductive powers. There is no way to eliminate the pregnancy risk entirely off PIV and the mitigating and harm-reduction practices such as contraception and abortion are inherently harmful, too. Reproductive harms of PIV range from pregnancy to abortion, having to take invasive, or toxic contraception, giving birth, forced child bearing and rearing and all the complications that go with them which may lead up to severe physical and emotional damage, disability, destitution, illness, or death (See factcheckme.wordpress.com for her work on the reproductive harms of PIV, click on the “intercourse series” page or “PIV” in the search bar). If we compare this to even the crappiest online definition of violence: “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something”. Bingo. It fits: Pregnancy = may hurt, damage or kill. Intercourse = a man using his physical force to penetrate a woman. Intention / purpose of the act of intercourse = to cause pregnancy. PIV is therefore intentional harm / violence. Intentional sexual harm of a man against a woman through penile penetration = RAPE.
(Authors note: Trigger warning) If we look at the act in more detail (skip this parag if you can’t take it), PIV is a man mounting on a woman to thrust a large member of himself into her most intimate parts, often forcing her to be entirely naked, banging himself against her with the whole weight of his body and hips, shaking her like he would stuff a corpse, then using her insides as a receptacle for his penile dejection. How is this a normal civilised, respectful way to treat anyone? Sorry for the explicit picture, but this is what it is and it’s absolutely revolting and violating”…
I think the author is forgetting something here, oh right – the right to choice. Women have this thing called “body autonomy” which means they have the choice to engage in consensual sex with men (or whomever they’re attracted to). But the above attitude doesn’t surprise me coming from the same people who believe policing of sex and gender is the way to go. Yet how does witchwind get around the concept of choice and consent that blows a giant vagina shaped hole in their line of thinking?
…”There’s a reason men need to groom us into it, and why this grooming takes so long- because it’s so grossly violating and traumatising that we would otherwise never submit to intercourse. The only reason we may now not feel raped or have the impression we desired or initiated PIV, is because men broke down our barriers very skillfully and progressively from birth, breaking down our natural defences to pain and invasion, our confidence in our own perceptions and sensations of fear and disgust that tell us male sexual invasion is painful, harmful and traumatic.
Through an all-pervasive and powerful male propaganda, they stuff our minds from infancy with the idea that PIV is normal, desirable and erotic, before we can even conceive of it as something horrifying, and make sure we never see any alternative to their lie – or that if we do, we can no longer take in the information, are punished for thinking and saying otherwise”….
And from this post on the same blog:
…”My previous post of the series was about how emotional/sexual attachment to men (‘heterosexuality’) exists only within the context of OPPRESSION, GENOCIDE or globally organised violence against women by men as a class. Which means that this emotional bond to men can’t be anything else than an uncontrolled chemical response to that inescapable violence and oppression. A response to which men have conditioned us through a fine-tuned system of repression, deprivation, constraints and reward, grooming and brainwashing – aimed to modify our behaviour to ensure our long-term submission. Within this inescapable subordination to men, we can only fear them or trauma-bond to them: therefore love does not exist towards men.
One aspect I haven’t talked yet about men’s heterocage is the role pleasure plays in securing our sexual submission. In other words, how sexual pleasure with men is manufactured – it’s not pleasure but dissociation from the invasion, pain or fear.
Before I go any further I just want to pull up again some basics on consent, violence and oppression, because that applies to every situation of violence: no matter how much you think you want, enjoy or choose to submit to an act of violence, violence excludes choice by definition, so it’s never something you could have chosen.
Back to the topic of sexual pleasure in intercourse that so many women claim to have and which is often the only reason that keeps us into it. As radfems, we always say that whether or not we take pleasure in intercourse, it’s irrelevant to the point that PIV is inherently harmful: but that’s partly incorrect, because the pleasure is part of the intended harm too. Here’s why:
#1. The pleasure we experience during intercourse isn’t natural, but groomed. Men teach us how to instantaneously associate the fear, pain and/or invasion of the penetration to clitoral stimulation, so we dissociate from it – cut it off – and think it’s pleasurable. Clitoral stimulation may function in the exact same way as dissociation in a situation of sexual violence because it sends dissociative drugs to the brain. Dissociation is a drug, so this reaction to PIV may become an addiction, a rush we crave for like cocaine.
#2. This groomed chemical response to intercourse is harmful because it deliberately diminishes our capacity to identify rape/PIV as violence and get away from it. It confuses us into thinking we wanted it and enjoyed it. In BDSM for instance, it is very common for men to ask women to rub their clitoris during the acts. They know it will confuse their victim, letting her believe she likes being raped and humiliated and that she is a slut after all, exactly what he told her. It will make her feel more ashamed. It’s intentional. The best way for a man to obtain long term sexual subordination from a woman is for him to get her to believe she likes it and wants it, as he would do for pimping, marriage and any form of sexual slavery. It reduces his efforts in having to control her while maximising his use of her.
#3. So this so-called sexual arousal isn’t about pleasure at all and was never intended to be: it’s about power-over and domination, it’s a way for men to obtain obedience”…
Well that was a few moments of my time reading that I will never get back. Witchwind made their point – sex with men is violence against women and women have no choice in the matter. Absolutely no ability to consent or body autonomy due to widespread brainwashing. The “policing of sex and gender” line of thinking isn’t so shocking when GIDWatch and their supporters believe that all sex with men is rape and women cannot consent. It’s all very George Orwell’s “1984” – we’ll police you because you can’t look after yourselves.
I’m not sure what GIDWatch means here either. As I’ve blogged about before – radfems don’t see female-to-male transgender people (transmen) as men. They see them as women because they may still have their vagina or they see them as traitors to women everywhere.
Apparently “that female-to-male trans*people are only trying to buy into male privilege”(featured in Sheila Jefferys article ““FTM Transsexualism and Grief“).
Also I’m not certain how but “FTM transsexualism destroys the lesbianism not just of the woman who ‘transitions’ but that of her female partner too.” (also featured in Sheila Jefferys article ““FTM Transsexualism and Grief“)
This much is evident. Again GIDWatch is stating that there “is no right be yourself” which combined with “policing sex is necessary to protect against male violence” and “PIV is always rape” – makes for a very confusing and nasty community that are targeting transwomen and transmen.
“Rapey” is a word that radfems like to throw around a lot. Which is quite insulting to not only trans people but to rape survivors in general. The use of the word stems from a conspiracy theory that radfems promote that all transwomen want to rape (cisgendered) women. Completely forgetting the fact that transwomen can be straight or gay or bisexual or however they want to identify. The origins of the conspiracy stem from a school of thought called the Cotton Ceiling.
In talking to a number of cisgendered lesbians who have bought into TERF/radfem thinking, one statement is parroted back to me constantly “The Cotton Ceiling is rapey because it forces cisgendered lesbians to have sex with people they don’t want to”.
If I were to hazard a guess based on the TERF/radfem tendency for scare tactics and appeals to emotion – the idea that the Cotton Ceiling will make sex with transwomen compulsory is an outright lie on the part of the TERF/radfem brigade. If we go back to the origins of the Cotton Ceiling – the Cotton Ceiling was designed to start a dialogue between same sex attracted transwomen and cisgendered lesbians as a method to dispel myths and lies about transgender people – dispelling myths and lies around sexual matters and dating transwomen doesn’t mean it will be mandatory to date or fuck anyone. This thought process seemingly stems from the minds of bigots who are terrified of the fact that a transwoman may want to sleep with them (apparently that thought is scary). This is a rather arrogant thought because honestly, who wants to fuck a bigot? It seems that TERF/radfem ego means they have a few undeserved tickets on themselves. Newsflash: Bigotry and spreading lies is not sexy.
Between you, men and the gatepost – I’d probably tell someone to fuck off and to suck my strap-on with the way the radfems have been acting. Probably not the best way for Laura to respond but I understand where she is coming from.
I’ve never seen an accusation of sexual assault against Laura – I’m not sure why this radfem is calling her a rapist or is the radfem calling Laura’s defender a rapist?
I may have this incorrect but what I’ve taken away from the above exchange is that anyone who tells anyone to “get fucked” is a potential rapist because telling someone to “get fucked” is akin to telling them to go “get raped” – largely in part due to the radfem belief that all sex with men equals rape and seeing as radfems believe transwomen are just cisgendered men – radfems see this as a cisgendered man telling a cisgendered woman to get fucked – meaning they’ve just been told to get raped.
The entire exchange with the radfems on Twitter lasted quite a number of hours. It resulted in this post on the infamous “Nametheproblem” website – a website that non-consensually posts pictures of transwomen with some of their details in order to “out” them to the general population, which is something the radfem site “Pretendbians” does also. Also the website “Pretendbians” has had a history of reporting the online dating profiles of transwomen in an attempt to get their accounts deleted.
Let’s briefly recap what we’ve learned about Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists:
- – All trans women are men who want to become women to get into women’s only spaces and rape them (featured in Cathy Brennan’s Letter to the UN).
- – That allowing gender identity to be recognised as a legitimate concept, it will allow any man to step into women’s only spaces and rape them (featured in Cathy Brennan’s Letter to the UN).
- – That all women (straight and bisexual ones) should stop having sex with men and either become lesbians or celibate (featured in Cathy Brennan’s article “When I Grow Up, I Want To Be A Lesbian” – original article found here).
- – Further to that, all women should stop having sex when men and become political lesbians because “because women shouldn’t sleep with their oppressors.” (featured in Sheila Jefferys book “Unpacking Queer Politics“).
- – Apparently “that female-to-male trans*people are only trying to buy into male privilege”(featured in Sheila Jefferys article ““FTM Transsexualism and Grief“).
- – Also I’m not certain how but “FTM transsexualism destroys the lesbianism not just of the woman who ‘transitions’ but that of her female partner too.” (also featured in Sheila Jefferys article ““FTM Transsexualism and Grief“).
- – According to a TERF on Twitter I tangled with, the only people who can commit violence, particularly sexual violence are “males” (her words not mine, screenshots here).
- – According to the above TERF, she’s sick of women telling lesbians how violent we are (do TERF’s really want to sweep sexual abuse and violence by women under the rug? We all know how that turns out).
- – It seems Cathy Brennan believes that sexuality can be changed, she recently aligned herself with the Pacific Justice Institute to aid them in their efforts to out a transgender student. The PJI also believes in Ex-Gay conversion therapy.
All in all radfems and Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are not nice people that you shouldn’t hang around with. In fact, one lesbian radical feminist got thrown out of a trans friendly bar she was attending due to her open online harassment of transwomen – including contacting the employer and doctor of a transwoman in an effort to discredit her name. TERFs and radfems often engage in an activity dubbed “Klan Fallacy” where they take a few horrible people from a community and generalise them to an entire community of people (in this case transgender people) in an attempt to discredit the community and present them as a danger to the world. As Cristan Williams of the Transadvocate states:
“The issue I’m writing about today is that all 3 of these groups regularly deploy what I’m going to call the ‘Klan Fallacy’ against transwomen. The most recent incarnation of this particular fallacy is the (now thoroughly DEBUNKED) Colleen Francis meme. The central rhetorical weapon the Klan has historically used (and continues to use to this day) is the ‘someone in your group is an asshole; therefore, everyone in your group is a potential asshole’ fallacy. If someone in the black community turns out to be a sick fuck, then the Klan will encourage you to stereotype black people – collectively as a group – as being potential sick fucks. It’s their one-trick pony and if they can con you into viewing black people – collectively as a group – as a possible risk, the process of dehumanization has begun… and for the Klan, that process serves but one goal: segregation.”
Hopefully Laura has moved passed her ordeal with the radfems on Twitter and hopefully Laura’s fans who adore her will know now who and what TERF/radfems are and how to avoid them. Hopefully the world can see what transpeople are up against and support them in dealing with this small yet disturbing group of abusive separatists.
Links to check out:
TERF Quotes 2.0
TERF Hate Sites
TERF: Where the term comes from
TERFs & Trans Healthcare
What TERFism Looks Like
The TransAdvocate Facebook page
If you like some of the things I say – feel free to add me to your RSS feed, comment or email me: email@example.com. I now have a facebook page! Feel free to like my page by clicking here!