#trans radical activism

[hjellacott]

If real women putting themselves first bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't invade women's pubs, bars, dating sites, bathrooms, locker rooms, swimming pools, prisons, schools, competitions, institutions, organisations...

I mean, I don't like spiders, so I don't go around poking spider-webs and then complaining the spiders bite me and don't want me to bother them.

[baileyjayy1]

Say Hello to me and my big friend down there 😉🍆

[yurdior-blog]

@annoyingradfem finally convinced me to join this app. Hi radfems. My TikTok is RadicalVenus and I have a radfem discord I’ll be sharing later.

[lilithism1848]

[nando161mando]

Portland!

Anti-trans bigots and hate group Women's Declaration International (WDI) are coming to town this Nov. 19th.

Save the date to give them the welcome they deserve :)

@antifainternational @anarchistmemecollective @kropotkindersurprise @radicalgraff

[butch-reidentified]

as you can see, reblogs and replies are now turned off for this mind-numbingly braindead post, but I couldn't resist sharing some of the batshit content in the notes.

typing in color so it's easier to tell my commentary apart from the screenshots

radfems are insane because... we think "all women matter" doesn't include males. incredible insight. I also love "leave my sisters alone. and leave me and my brothers alone, fuckers," as if that's the direction the harassment is typically occuring in. as if radfems are hunting trans people for sport simply by not believing in or supporting the gender construct. yes. we are clearly the insane party here.

more evidence we're the insane ones, as this person claims men aren't an oppressor class and that somehow believing that they are will lead to... believing butch lesbians are an oppressor 💀 this is your brain on gender - completely unable to even consider sex, only "masc presentation," which is how they come to the batshit conclusion that acknowledging men are an oppressor class will ultimately come to include butch lesbians.

... girl. what.

however........ there's one reblog that really stands above all others. It is so long and so unhinged that it surpasses tumblr's image cap, so I'm going to have to do a part 2 of this post. but here's a sneak peek:

Gender worshippers learn what gender essentialism & bioessentialism actually mean challenge: impossible

Seriously. Y'all loooove redefining shit so much, but these terms were created for specific reasons and you can't just rewrite any word or term you want to suit your beliefs. Gender essentialism refers to the commonly held belief that gendered traits are biologically determined by sex rather than learned. The idea that women are "naturally" or "biologically" homemakers, more nurturing, less confrontational, and more emotional, that little girls "naturally" or "biologically" prefer dolls over toy trucks, that women "naturally" or "biologically" feel driven to have babies and there's no such thing as a happy childfree woman, that sex is inherently more emotional and meaningful for women, that men are more logical, better at STEM subjects, better drivers, that it's "natural" for men to cheat but not for women to, that men are "naturally" or "biologically" more aggressive, that paintball and Call of Duty are naturally "for boys," and a thousand other ridiculous things way too many people believe.

But oh shit, what's that? The people who really started fighting back against gender essentialism and arguing that gender is a social construct were... second wave feminists???!!! the very movement radical feminism is born from and shares most of its tenets with???!!! it's... it's almost like... radfems are the literal opposite of essentialists 😱

Meanwhile, today's trans community will tell gender-nonconforming people they're "eggs" and "totally going to come out as trans any day now" while simultaneously claiming not to define gender by stereotypes 🤡 like, OK...

check notes for Part 2!

[stillarandom-radfem]

I said this once on my old account, and I'm going to say it again: even if a TiM in a women's shelter isn't actively misbehaving towards the women in the shelter (and momentarily ignoring the fact, of course, that many of them do), by being there, he is still taking a bed away from actual biological women who have nowhere else to go. About 99% of biological women who are homeless become so due to domestic violence, and going back home could mean death for them. Meanwhile, most TiMs have experienced a male puberty, and could more than handle themselves in a male shelter. Yes, even TiMs who are on cross-sex hormones and have had cosmetic surgeries in hopes of "passing" as a woman. You are still significantly physically stronger than most women are; you'll be fine in the men's shelter. And, if they feel that there aren't enough shelters for guys, or that they want ones explicitly for trans people, they can always go out and build them. You know, like women did for ours? It's not our sex's job to compensate you with our beds and shelters that we took the time and effort specifically to set aside for ourselves. Not when our lives are on the line, and the only thing you risk injuring is your ego. That's not our problem. You deal with it, and then go find a bed at a men's shelter. No, I am not sorry for you. Go cry to someone who cares.

[bog-bitch]

Heartbreaking: The Feminist Post You Were About To Reblog Was Made By a TERF

[nothing-makes--sense]

Fact Check: Fact Check: 216 Instances Of Factual Errors Found In Right-Wing "WPATH Files" Document

In response to the WPATH files being dropped, transgender activist Erin Reed made a response, fact checking the claims made in the editorial of the original document, written by Mia Hughes. Reed claims that there are 216 “instances of factual inaccuracies, erroneous citations, misinterpretations of what is “leaked,” and purposeful omissions contradicting the authors central editorialized claims.”

The introduction is spent discrediting the organizations involved as “right wing” and “anti trans.” Reed alleges that the quick rate at which the files were spread was a “coordinated and organized embargo campaign, leaving those in support of care with scant time to review the voluminous documents and respond.”

The first claim that Reed alleges to be false is the claim that the Beyond WPATH declaration was signed by many people who were not doctors, pointing out signatures with occupations such as “DJ” and “yoga instructor” as well as comments like “concerned parent.” The original document does not claim that all signatures were from doctors, with the exact quote stating that it was “now signed by over 2,000 concerned individuals, many of whom are clinicians working with gender diverse young people.” (bold text mine). Nowhere does it imply that only doctors were able to sign it, it simply acknowledges that many people who signed the petition were doctors. One important thing to note is that the creator of the petition, Dr. Joseph Burgo, alleges that the petition was hijacked by trans activists adding fake signatures. (timestamp: 16 min)

Here is a screenshot of the top signers of the petition. Highlighted are all medical professionals.

Note that one of the signers, Stephen B. Levine, was a former president of WPATH who left due to the organization becoming less evidence based and more focused on activists.

Next, Reed criticizes the quality of the citations, stating, "When addressing supposedly "scientific" citations, the report's performance is equally lacking." One example given is an article from The Guardian from 2004, and another being “a conservative site called "The New Atlantis, " Upon visiting the link to the New Atlantis’s “about” page, they explicitly state they are a nonpartisan organization. That being said, other sources do allege this particular publication is right wing. However, this attempt to frame any opposing source as "right wing" or "conservative" is a significant part of Reed's argument on why the information is unreliable.

Reed accuses many of the studies cited to be misrepresented. One study cited in the WPATH files is a Swedish study which is quoted as finding, “rates of completed suicide post-surgical transition to be greatly elevated over the general population.”

Reed links to an article from a site called Trans Advocate, which contains an interview with the author of the Swedish study on how her work has been misinterpreted. In this article, the study is quoted as saying, “no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality.” The study does not conclude that sex reassignment surgery works, but there is also no reason to suggest it causes people to be more suicidal than they were pre-transition. Hughes does imply that suicide risk can increase after transition in cases where certain mental health conditions such as BPD are left untreated, and the patient comes to regret transition later, but this is not cited as scientific fact (42).

On the page before the Swedish study is referenced (42), Hughes discusses the mental health issues commonly found in trans-identified youth and how those issues may account for the higher rate of suicidality. Reed fails to acknowledge the Amsterdam study that concluded “the suicide risk in transgender people is higher than in the general population and seems to occur at every stage of transitioning.” While some parts of the Swedish study may have been misinterpreted, there are other studies with similar findings. The point is not that suicidality increases after transition, but rather that there is little evidence to suggest that transition has a long-term benefit on a person's other mental health issues.

Reed links to three studies disputing both the 2009 study and the Swedish study, implying that all of this “much newer research from peer-reviewed articles,” completely invalidates the findings of the other studies. The first study that Reed gives as a rebuttal does not actually come to the conclusion that there is a “substantial improvement in the quality of life for transgender individuals.” This 2017 study concludes that, “Our results show that transgender women generally have a lower QoL compared to the general population. GRS leads to an improvement in general well-being as a trend but over the long-term, QoL decreases slightly in line with that of the comparison group.” Basically, it claims that quality of life increases shortly after surgery, but later declines after about 5 years. They acknowledge that this is the case in the general population as well, and they state that there is still little consensus on trans identified people’s quality of life.

The second study Reed cites looks at the quality of life of patients who have received phalloplasties. Only 32 patients were part of this study, and they found that “88% of our patients were very satisfied with the aesthetic result, 75% have had sex after surgery, and 72% were very satisfied with sexual function after GAS. Eighty-one percent had a strong improvement of QOL, and 91% would undergo the same treatment again.” However, there is more evidence that phalloplasty is a dangerous procedure, and Reed fails to acknowledge any of those studies, such as this study of 1731 phalloplasty patients, finding that the "Overall complication rate was high at 76.5%"

The third study was a survey of 27,715 trans identified adults from 2015. The introduction of the study admits that “Mental health effects of gender-affirming surgery thus remain controversial.” In this survey, only 25% of participants had undergone surgery. This study was only a secondary analysis of these survey responses, comparing results of those who did not undergo surgery with those who had.

Reed implies that the 2% fatality rate of the vaginoplasty performed on males who had previously been on puberty blockers is irrelevant because the death “occurred from a wound infection, a potential complication for any surgery.” Hughes acknowledges that the patient died of necrotizing fasciitis, (19) and the case report that Reed links states that the patient, “developed septic shock and multiple organ failure on the basis of an extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli. A severe progression of the necrotizing fasciitis was lethal, despite repeated surgical debridement, intravenous antibiotic use, and supportive care at the intensive care unit.” The study that Reed then links to prove this treatment is successful contains extremely graphic images detailing the surgery without any warning. This does not discredit the study, but for that reason I cannot really look at it.

Reed attempts to debunk the accusation that those who took puberty blockers cannot orgasm, by alluding to there being two studies disproving this. However, it appears that Reed linked the same study twice within this quote, "To ensure factual accuracy, studies have shown that those who took puberty blockers are capable of orgasm" Only the abstract is available to me for this study. Because this study is behind a paywall, it is difficult for me to verify Reed’s claims about their results. The study is a survey of group of 31 primary total laparoscopic intestinal vaginoplasty patients, and is a survey about general quality of life one year after the surgery. It states that the group was “relatively young,” and states that the, “median age at time of surgery = 19.1 years, range = 18.3–45.0.” However, it gives no indication of when the patients began transition. It does imply that patients were on "Puberty-suppressing hormonal treatment”, but does not make any mention of when the patients started puberty blockers. Marci Bowers, head of WPATH, has explicitly stated that “I’m unaware of an individual claiming ability to orgasm when they were blocked at Tanner Stage 2.” Tanner Stage 2 is around the age of 11. It is possible these patients began blockers later on, but that evidence is not available to me either way. Another important thing to note is that the conclusion of the second study states, “This group of relatively young transgender women reported satisfactory functional and esthetic results of the neovagina and a good quality of life, despite low Female Sexual Function Index scores.” (bold text mine) “The mean Female Sexual Function Index total score of sexually active transgender women was 26.0 ± 6.8.”

This study is a survey relying on patients to self report their satisfaction, and Hughes does acknowledge the flaws of self reported studies on page 33, stating that measurable studies showed less positive results than surveys. Many of the studies Reed cites as rebuttals rely on self report.

Finally, Reed criticizes the idea that gender dysphoric youth would eventually desist post-puberty. One of the links provided as evidence against this claim leads to another article of Reed's. The criticism of Kenneth Zucker's research from the 90s appears to be that it classifies children with "gender identity disorder" as those who are simply gender non-conforming. The article uses this graphic to illustrate the difference between gender identity disorder and the current DSM-5 diagnosis of gender dysphoria, implying that the latter has stricter requirements.

Reed dismisses any correlation between social transition and desistance rates and accuses Hughes of implying that, “social transition prevents this “natural” desistance, a hypothesis that has not been validated.” While there may have been some flaws in Zunker's original study, this massive difference between then and now certainly raises questions on how the impact of social transition affects a child.

In the next section, Reed claims that the “leaked material” is frequently misrepresented, yet only provides three examples of this occurring. It does appear that Hughes left out the part about the orgasm in the first example, which would have been important context to include (28). In the second example, Reed accuses Hughes of leaving out the fact that it was a detransitioner who used the phrase “gender journey” and not a clinician. In reality, Hughes does not specify who said this, simply stating “There is talk about detransition being just another step in a patient’s “gender journey.” (31) However, we only have the clinicians word to go off to prove that the patient used that phrase, and there is evidence of another clinician pushing patients to identify with their language. This doctor decided to label a patient as “eunuch identified,” despite him not claiming that label himself (51). The third example of a misrepresentation consists of a patient developing a hepatic adenoma (liver mass) after taking testosterone. Reed is correct that hepatic adenomas are benign and that they are linked to both contraceptives and hormones. However, Reed accuses the document of leaving out the fact that the patient was on both oral contraceptives and testosterone. Hughes does in fact state that the patient was on norethindrone acetate, which is a contraceptive. In the WPATH document, the doctor specifically suspects that the hormones are the cause of the liver masses as opposed to the contraceptive.

Reed alleges that Stella O’Malley and Genspect “teased a young trans girl testifying in front of a school board.” The linked tweet reads: “US-UTAH: 11 yr old “Alison” came out as trans at 8 after having a vision of wearing a long white dress in a field. Dad says his “daughter” must be “validated in who she is” & allowed to use girls spaces bc many trans-identified people consider suicide.”

Overall, Reed’s fact checking only provides a few examples, nowhere near the 216 claimed.  Many of the studies linked as rebuttals do not come to the same conclusions as Reed implies. In my opinion, it appears that Reed did not expect the audience of this article to go and read the WPATH files for themselves, or for that matter, even check the links thoroughly. The few good points that are made here do not discredit the entirety of the report, and Reed fails to address the main claims in the report; such as WPATH members admitting that children do not have the capacity to consent, their disregard of proper scientific protocol, the experimental approach to healthcare, disregard of patients' other mental health issues, and lack of ethics.

If anyone wants to add things to this or expand on anything, please feel free to do so. There were a couple sections where my understanding was a bit limited, such as the limitations of the trans youth desistance study, and the puberty blockers/vaginoplasty study.

Edit: Moving this disclaimer down here because a TRA quit reading immediately after they saw this. I would like to acknowledge that I am not a doctor or any type of medical professional (neither is Reed) and some scientific studies may be difficult for me to interpret.

Edit 2: Removed the part about the New Atlantis because I have seen mixed info on it's political leanings.

[marblecakemix]

One crustal thing I see a lot of TRAs not getting is that most of the younger radfems (like me) were first subscribed to the gender ideology and were somewhat believers of the "woke" trans agenda.

Most radfems know from experience what your believes are. And this is the same reason why I'm no longer subscribed to that bullshit.

[museumofferedophelia]

So TRAs believe that you are "terfy" if you aren't attracted to penises. Then consider that TRAs threaten, doxx, shame, harass, and physically attack women they declare terfs.

It's not too hard to see the implicit threat in that, right? That harassment, social exclusion, and violence hangs over homosexual women who refuse to have sex with penises?

"Oh, but it's not sexually coercive, we're not telling anyone to do anything."

No, you're just associating them with a group who you unabashedly threaten to silence, to expose, to attack, to socially ostracise, to kill, then you wait to see if they'll change their mind when met with these implicit threats.

If you shame women for "genital preferences" (ie. innate, immutable female homosexuality), then you are practicing sexual coercion. Any woman who has sex with you following this rhetoric was threatened into doing so, and you are a rapist.

[hjellacott]

I also used to shout #TransWomenAreWomen. I had a whole blog about it. A transgender woman (believe it or not) confronted me and said that isn't true, that it's deeply disrespectful to women and to the very different and harsh reality trans people face. That saying Trans Women are Women denies the very unique journey they've gone through that women like me haven't. This person asked me to educate myself. So I did.

Now I have two university degrees, specialising in fields of study such as psychology, sociology, PR, advertisement, media, film, TV, acting. I also read a ton of research about transgenderism, feminism, and gender dysphoria. And I stopped sprouting #TransWomenAreWomen.

Now Trans Radical Activists keep telling me to educate myself, but the more I do, the more anti TRA I become, and the stronger my feminism gets.

[sometimesraven]

so i did a thing, feel free to slap it all over your local area and/or face

[autistic-and-radical]

So the TRAs like to say stuff like "so in your opinion, infertile women aren't real women?!???11!!!":

Not properly functioning female anatomy is still female anatomy :))

[burningtheroots]

If the trans community isn’t misogynistic as they claim, then why don‘t they speak up against this just like her? Why do they don‘t bat an eye when this woman speaks up, or even supports the people who want to punish & silence her?

[pronoun-fucker]

Perhaps it makes sense that women — those supposedly compliant and agreeable, self-sacrificing and everything-nice creatures — were the ones to finally bring our polarized country together.

Because the far right and the far left have found the one thing they can agree on: Women don’t count.

The right’s position here is the better known, the movement having aggressively dedicated itself to stripping women of fundamental rights for decades. Thanks in part to two Supreme Court justices who have been credibly accused of abusive behavior toward women, Roe v. Wade, nearly 50 years a target, has been ruthlessly overturned.

Far more bewildering has been the fringe left jumping in with its own perhaps unintentionally but effectively misogynist agenda. There was a time when campus groups and activist organizations advocated strenuously on behalf of women. Women’s rights were human rights and something to fight for. Though the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified, legal scholars and advocacy groups spent years working to otherwise establish women as a protected class.

But today, a number of academics, uber-progressives, transgender activists, civil liberties organizations and medical organizations are working toward an opposite end: to deny women their humanity, reducing them to a mix of body parts and gender stereotypes.

As reported by my colleague Michael Powell, even the word “women” has become verboten. Previously a commonly understood term for half the world’s population, the word had a specific meaning tied to genetics, biology, history, politics and culture. No longer. In its place are unwieldy terms like “pregnant people,” “menstruators” and “bodies with vaginas.”

Planned Parenthood, once a stalwart defender of women’s rights, omits the word “women” from its home page. NARAL Pro-Choice America has used “birthing people” in lieu of “women.” The American Civil Liberties Union, a longtime defender of women’s rights, last month tweeted its outrage over the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade as a threat to several groups: “Black, Indigenous and other people of color, the L.G.B.T.Q. community, immigrants, young people.”

It left out those threatened most of all: women. Talk about a bitter way to mark the 50th anniversary of Title IX.

The noble intent behind omitting the word “women” is to make room for the relatively tiny number of transgender men and people identifying as nonbinary who retain aspects of female biological function and can conceive, give birth or breastfeed. But despite a spirit of inclusion, the result has been to shove women to the side.

Women, of course, have been accommodating. They’ve welcomed transgender women into their organizations. They’ve learned that to propose any space just for biological women in situations where the presence of males can be threatening or unfair — rape crisis centers, domestic abuse shelters, competitive sports — is currently viewed by some as exclusionary. If there are other marginalized people to fight for, it’s assumed women will be the ones to serve other people’s agendas rather than promote their own.

But, but, but. Can you blame the sisterhood for feeling a little nervous? For wincing at the presumption of acquiescence? For worrying about the broader implications? For wondering what kind of message we are sending to young girls about feeling good in their bodies, pride in their sex and the prospects of womanhood? For essentially ceding to another backlash?

Women didn’t fight this long and this hard only to be told we couldn’t call ourselves women anymore. This isn’t just a semantic issue; it’s also a question of moral harm, an affront to our very sense of ourselves.

It wasn’t so long ago — and in some places the belief persists — that women were considered a mere rib to Adam’s whole. Seeing women as their own complete entities, not just a collection of derivative parts, was an important part of the struggle for sexual equality.

But here we go again, parsing women into organs. Last year the British medical journal The Lancet patted itself on the back for a cover article on menstruation. Yet instead of mentioning the human beings who get to enjoy this monthly biological activity, the cover referred to “bodies with vaginas.” It’s almost as if the other bits and bobs — uteruses, ovaries or even something relatively gender-neutral like brains — were inconsequential. That such things tend to be wrapped together in a human package with two X sex chromosomes is apparently unmentionable.

“What are we, chopped liver?” a woman might be tempted to joke, but in this organ-centric and largely humorless atmosphere, perhaps she would be wiser not to.

Those women who do publicly express mixed emotions or opposing views are often brutally denounced for asserting themselves. (Google the word “transgender” combined with the name Martina Navratilova, J.K. Rowling or Kathleen Stock to get a withering sense.) They risk their jobs and their personal safety. They are maligned as somehow transphobic or labeled TERFs, a pejorative that may be unfamiliar to those who don’t step onto this particular Twitter battlefield. Ostensibly shorthand for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist,” which originally referred to a subgroup of the British feminist movement, “TERF” has come to denote any woman, feminist or not, who persists in believing that while transgender women should be free to live their lives with dignity and respect, they are not identical to those who were born female and who have lived their entire lives as such, with all the biological trappings, societal and cultural expectations, economic realities and safety issues that involves.

But in a world of chosen gender identities, women as a biological category don’t exist. Some might even call this kind of thing erasure.

When not defining women by body parts, misogynists on both ideological poles seem determined to reduce women to rigid gender stereotypes. The formula on the right we know well: Women are maternal and domestic — the feelers and the givers and the “Don’t mind mes.” The unanticipated newcomers to such retrograde typecasting are the supposed progressives on the fringe left. In accordance with a newly embraced gender theory, they now propose that girls — gay or straight — who do not self-identify as feminine are somehow not fully girls. Gender identity workbooks created by transgender advocacy groups for use in schools offer children helpful diagrams suggesting that certain styles or behaviors are “masculine” and others “feminine.”

Didn’t we ditch those straitened categories in the ’70s?

The women’s movement and the gay rights movement, after all, tried to free the sexes from the construct of gender, with its antiquated notions of masculinity and femininity, to accept all women for who they are, whether tomboy, girly girl or butch dyke. To undo all this is to lose hard-won ground for women — and for men, too.

Those on the right who are threatened by women’s equality have always fought fiercely to put women back in their place. What has been disheartening is that some on the fringe left have been equally dismissive, resorting to bullying, threats of violence, public shaming and other scare tactics when women try to reassert that right. The effect is to curtail discussion of women’s issues in the public sphere.

But women are not the enemy here. Consider that in the real world, most violence against trans men and women is committed by men but, in the online world and in the academy, most of the ire at those who balk at this new gender ideology seems to be directed at women.

It’s heartbreaking. And it’s counterproductive.

Tolerance for one group need not mean intolerance for another. We can respect transgender women without castigating females who point out that biological women still constitute a category of their own — with their own specific needs and prerogatives.

If only women’s voices were routinely welcomed and respected on these issues. But whether Trumpist or traditionalist, fringe left activist or academic ideologue, misogynists from both extremes of the political spectrum relish equally the power to shut women up.

Link | Archived link