I feel I should put a trigger warning here as rape is mentioned.
(Note: If you have read the article on lesbianism some of it is repeated here.)
When I refer to sex roles here I mean what feminists once called gender or gender roles. The reason I use the terms sex roles is because the term gender has been misappropriated to mean biological sex and that is never how feminists meant it to be used. It has been even more muddled with the advent of "queer theory" and "transgenderism". So to keep things simple I use the term sex roles which means:
Males sex role
boys are raised to think it's appropriate for them to adhere to the following: like the colour blue, playing with Lego, wearing trousers and comfortable loose fitting clothing, not caring about their appearance, be good at maths and science, be more logical, like action/superhero films, like practical hobbies like woodwork, computers etc., like contact sports, be aggressive, assertive, be dominant, take up more space, be confident, be strong, be unemotional, speak up for themselves, be competitive with other men, fairy stories boys are told are: robin hood, Gulliver’s travels, peter pan etc. Stories that are about daring and adventure in order to teach boys to explore and be confident and independent. Boys are taught to objectify women as things to be used, porn teaches boys/men to see women as sexual objects to be used anyway he desires and discarded at will, they are taught to think females are inferior and males are superior.
For males sex roles exist to socially condition boys to be confident in their abilities, dominant, self-assured and to think they are entitled to whatever they want and can be whatever they want to be. And to view women as objects to be used for a practical purpose. In short the male sex role conditions men to think of themselves as superior to women and as the default human beings.
Females sex role
The female sex role on the other hand teaches girls they should: like pink, like playing with dolls and prams, like playing tea parties, like playing with toy irons, toy ovens, toy vacuum cleaners etc. Like glitter, princess things, like boy bands, gossip, like romance films, dress in dresses, skirts and tight revealing clothing, high heel shoes, wear makeup, be overly concerned with their appearance and weight. Maintain their youth, not have any natural body hair (so as to appear prepubescent), be coy, submissive, not talk too loudly. Be accommodating, empathetic, kind, gentle, nurturing. Not to express anger, assertiveness, independence, strength, not take up too much space, be unthreatening and non-confrontational. Put others (especially male needs) before their own, be a wife, be a mother, be flirtatious, be sexually available to men (but not too much or she'll be called a "slut"), don't be too clever, don't be selfish. Be generous, be passive, be submissive, and don’t speak against males. Compete with other women for men’s attention, see other women as the enemy, ridicule and ostracise any other woman who does not preform the women’s sex role. In short to think of themselves as inferior and males are superior.
The female sex role exists to condition women to be dependent on men and get girls ready for a life of serving men in marriage and domestic affairs (hence the toy ovens, irons, even toy vacuum cleaners) and motherhood (which is why girls are given toy dolls and prams). Girls are also encouraged to have crushes on boys hence the boy bands that are marketed at girls (notice that boys are not encouraged to have crushes on girl bands). Girls are told fairy tales like: Cinderella (which is based on Chinese foot-binding), Rapunzel, the princess and the pea, etc. The fairy tales girls are told invariably are about a young woman waiting to meet her Prince Charming and live happily ever after, also they portray older women as wicked stepmothers or evil witches, which is ironic since girls are at a very high risk of being sexually assaulted by stepfathers, not stepmothers. Women are taught to think of themselves and are treated as inferior to males and as incomplete or defective males.
Sex roles are not divided vertically with both sex roles equally valued. Sex roles are divided horizontally, they are a hierarchy with men on the top and women on the bottom, all the social power and privilege are given to men. We all are socialised into our sex roles by virtue of being born one sex or the other. It is an enormous privilege to be born into the sex caste of males, as men are treated as the default, valued humans in patriarchy and socialised as such. Those of us who are born into the sex caste of females are socialised to think of ourselves and each other as lesser, inferior beings who are nothing without a male partner and preferably a family. We are treated as such by this patriarchal society.
The hatred and contempt shown to women is ever present that it is like wallpaper not even usually noticed or commentated on, it is just accepted as the way things are. For instance when would you ever hear someone say "bloody Jew drivers, shouldn't be allowed to drive" without someone saying how unacceptable it is? Or have you ever seen a chocolate bar ad that said "it’s not for black people" with a prohibited sign over a figure of a black person? How many times do you hear a white person say to another white person "god your such an Arab" as an insult? How many other oppressed groups of people are just supposed to put up with being systematically degraded on a daily basis by the whole of society and not say a word about it? There is not a single day in a woman or girls life that she is not constantly reminded of her inferior status in relation to men/boys, unless she stays in bed and doesn't turn the TV or radio on. As an experiment watch a group conversation with men and women involved and see how many times the women interrupt the men and how many times men defer to them. Then notice how many times the men interrupt the women and the women defer to them. This is the result of female and male socialisation seen in practice. Women are valued only in their relations to men, women are born with their fathers last name traditionally, this is to indicate she belongs to him, when a woman gets married she is supposed to take her husband’s name as she now belongs to him and any children she bears will have his name, to indicate they also belong to him. Notice that women have to declare their marital status by using miss/Ms if they are single and Mrs If they are married, whilst men do not and are always called Mr, this is because men’s social status does not change regardless of his relation to women. We now use the term caste as opposed to the older feminist term class as you can somewhat move from one class to another, while you can never move out of a caste you are born into it and socialised into it because you were born a certain sex and stay in it until the day you die.
What Has Led To The "Transgender" Craze.
Gay rights organisations (run almost exclusively by gay men, with a few token women who toe the party line thrown in, with many autogynephiliac "trans" now funding them and in high positions in those organisations) push the "born this way" platform and "queer theory" ideas. This has enabled the "trans" to say not only is homosexuality inborn, but so are sex roles themselves. This is now used in the DSM V to give a diagnose of "gender dysphoria" basically if u don't perform the sex roles as socially assigned to you by your birth sex, you are in the "wrong body", you are mentally a woman trapped in a man’s body or mentally a man trapped in a woman’s body.
Many young "camp" guys & "tom boy" girls grow up to be gays and lesbians (stats bear this out) this is obviously very worrying as "trans" says they are actually really just the opposite sex, trapped in the "wrong" body, not just sex role non-compliant children who more often than not will grow up to be gays & lesbians. This is an erasure of gay & lesbian young people supported by the male medical establishment (psychiatrists & Dr's). It used to be that they would only encourage "camp" gay man to have a "sex change".
In 1948 the sexologist Alfred Kinsey published a study of human sexual behaviour titled Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (he published the companion study Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female in 1953) they are collectively known as the Kinsey reports.
He found there were more gay men than were previously thought, the findings of this, prompted the male medical establishment to actively promote "cures" for homosexuality, with even more vigour than they had previously. In the 1952 DSM I (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders) published by the American psychiatric association, homosexuality was categorised as “sociopathic personality disturbance". Though there had been a small number of gay men who had "sex changes" before (The first two men who underwent complete "genital transformation surgery" in 1931 were diagnosed as "homosexual transvestites") "sex changes" only became widely performed in the 1950's. The most famous man to have a "sex change" operation was again a gay man George Jorgenson in Denmark in 1951. From then on psychiatrists would encourage “camp" gay men, who weren't "cured" of their homosexuality by psychotherapy to have "sex change" ops, indeed it’s on record that Jorgenson's psychiatrist told him “you’re suffering from a condition which affects every cell of your body” and you need a "sex change". What would happen would be a "camp" gay guy would be depressed (as a result of homophobia, both internalised & external) and the psychiatrist would convince him he was really a woman in the "wrong" body and that his suffering (from homophobia) would go away if he would have this "sex change" op. Since the guys were at such a vulnerable point in their lives they were easily manipulated into believing this and so consented to having these mutilating surgeries. Of course the western male medical establishment regularly preformed unneeded hysterectomies on vast quantities of women from the Victorian era on usually labelling them as having "hysteria".
That has changed now with the "gender dysphoria" diagnosis, now not only are "camp" gay men being socially pressured to undergo mutilating surgeries, but so are "butch" lesbians and sex role non-compliant children and young people. There are several things that have allowed this, one being "queer theory". This came about when there was a lull in feminism in the late 1980's - early 1990's (lesbian women put all their resources into helping gay men with the aids crisis) lesbians have always been the vanguard of the radical feminist movement. This meant lesbian feminists didn't have the time to counter the idiotic theory that was coming out of academia at the time.
"Queer theory" is about embracing all sexual "differences" what does that mean? It means that whatever strange sexual things you are into are acceptable (with no clear analysis of how it harms the person performing the act or how it harms others or what may have led to such behaviour in the first place) this includes: S&M, fetishism (including transvestism), prostitution, ad infinitum. "Queer theory" maintains "if it feels good then its ok", the neoliberalism "I’m all right jack" philosophy of the Reagan - Thatcher era was the fertile ground on which this was able to flourish. Is it ok that a person can get their kicks anyway they like without any need for analysis or self-reflection, regardless of whether it hurts someone else or yourself?
As radical feminists we say no. Many people who have been raped or child abused have orgasms when they are being abused it does not mean that rape & child abuse is ok at all (a physical response to something doesn't necessarily mean it is ok or even enjoyable). "Queer theory" is a men’s ideology & actively works against the interests of women. It came about as a sort of "acting out" reaction by gay men to the barrage of hate and discrimination that was directed at them in the 1980's due to the aids crisis. It is somewhat understandable they did this. However we mustn't let our empathy for gay men get in the way of protecting ourselves (as indeed this is what women are used to doing, putting others, usually men’s needs above our own). "Queer theory" (which in reality borrows heavily from libertarian individualism and postmodernism) it is a form of extreme identity politics, it maintains "anyone can be whatever they say they are". So if a man says he is a woman, he is. The concept of material reality is thrown out of window in this ideology. I wonder if a white person suddenly declared themselves to be black if they'd be so accepting of that. My guess is they wouldn't because they know that racial oppression exists and a white person who underwent medical procedures (or not) wouldn't have the same experiences of oppression as an actual black person. They respect that, but have no respect for women or what the material reality of being a woman is and that women are oppressed also. They think woman is just an abstract concept, an "identity" that anyone can assume, or discard at will, those of us that are in fact women (that is biological female humans) know that isn't the case. The material facts of human biology, that we are a sexually dimorphic species (with a small percent of intersex people), just as we are a biped species (with a small percent of people born without a limb), are not of importance according to this nonsense.
The "queer theory" ideology melded together with the "born this way" platform (both of which are at the heart of what gay orgs promote) & the male medical establishments unrelenting pathologizing of homosexuality and sex role non conformity. Along with a massive backlash against feminism, which has always been around, but has reached unprecedented proportions since the advent of the internet. Men’s rights organisations (MRA's) were first formed in the 1970's as a reaction by men to the women's movement (similar to the white power orgs that appeared after civil rights groups were formed) these men have made friends with other men on the net and are leading a backlash against feminism, they often vocally support "transgenderism". All these elements combined have led to this sorry state of affairs.
GID (gender identity disorder) was added to the DSM III in 1980 (it is interesting to note that this was brought in only 7 years after homosexuality was officially removed in 1973, even though, sexual orientation disturbance SOD was the replacement category. Did they bring GID in knowing that SOD would soon have to be removed also? Indeed SOD was removed shortly after in the 1980's and ego dystonic homosexuality replaced it. When Ego dystonic homosexuality was completely removed from the DSM in 1987, GID was already firmly in place and was now the only way to pathologize homosexuality). It is now called "gender dysphoria" in the DSM V. these things have led to the "trans" ideology erasing gays and lesbians from history and indeed from society, as now they are not simply sex role non-compliant gays or lesbians, but "transgender".
The following is from the DSM V on "Gender Dysphoria"
(Highlights mine. Note gynephilc means attracted to women. Androphilic means attracted to men.):
Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults
A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months’ duration, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
2. A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
3. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender.
4. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
B. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.
Development and Course
Adolescent and adult natal females with early-onset gender dysphoria are almost always gynephilic. As in natal males with gender dysphoria, there may have been a period in which the gender dysphoria desisted and these individuals self-identified as lesbian.
Adolescents and adults with the late-onset form of gender dysphoria are usually androphilic and after gender transition self-identify as gay men. Natal females with the late-onset form do not have co-occurring transvestic behaviour with sexual excitement.
Impairment (e.g., school refusal, development of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse) may be a consequence of gender dysphoria.:
It’s hardly surprising that teenage girls (and even adult women) would want to be treated more like men than women, considering how badly women and girls are treated in this society and how men are treated as superior. It is also hardly surprising that teenage girls (and even a lot of adult women) would also assume that if they feel feelings that are part of the men’s sex role they may think they have "manly" feelings or thoughts. As that is exactly what we are told all our lives as little girls and then as women. These things are especially true for lesbian teenagers and young women, the DSM V even admits that most of these girls/women are lesbians (with only a few straight girls/women who understandably also can’t stand the restrictive sex roles that men and women have to play and so prefer to call themselves gay "transmen" and have relationships with gay men). Given the absolute hatred and derision that is given to the word lesbian it is hardly surprising that many girls would do anything to get away from such a stigmatised identity (which of course is why many young girls call themselves gay or "genderqueer", instead of lesbian). It is also not surprising that lesbian and sex role non-compliant girls and women would have "depression” or "anxiety" about social situations considering the amount of shaming, ridicule and social ostracism they have to endure and that can lead to the anxiety & depression which in turn leads to the substance abuse. It is not "gender dysphoria" that causes these things; it is the abuse and shaming they have to face as lesbian girls & women and because of their refusal to conform to the woman’s sex role. It’s also interesting that the reason they gave for removing ego-dystonic homosexuality from the DSM III in 1987 was because "almost all people who are homosexual first go through a phase in which their homosexuality is ego dystonic" and yet here they are again saying, if gays or lesbians have problems accepting their homosexuality, it’s because of a physical problem, "gender dysphoria" not because they are just having trouble overcoming the homophobia of this society, that manifests both internally and externally.
A lot of women who are being "diagnosed" with "gender dysphoria" have also been sexually assaulted as children or raped. The DSM V gives this description as one of the "additional features supporting diagnoses": Older adolescents, when sexually active, usually do not show or allow partners to touch their sexual organs. For adults with an aversion toward their genitals, sexual activity is constrained by the preference that their genitals not be seen or touched by their partners.: Hardly a surprising reaction if you are suffering from trauma, due to sexual assault. And this: Girls may bind their breasts, walk with a stoop, or use loose sweaters to make breasts less visible.: Again hardly surprising if you are a young girl who sees how much women’s bodies are objectified, particularly women’s breasts and want to avoid that objectification. What’s so wrong with wearing loose sweaters as opposed to the figure hugging tops that girls are encouraged to wear to be seen as sexual objects anyway?
Even some young straight women feel like they want to "trans" as well. This is because they don't like the dominating, aggressive male sex role that men are supposed to play & think gay men are more sensitive, cool etc. (they were once called, disparagingly "fag hags") they also do not like the restive sex roles that are enforced on women & so think they can remedy the situation by taking hormones & having mutilating surgeries. They then call themselves gay "transmen". Of course this group is bound to increase in number as the sex roles get more rigid and strongly enforced and as "trans" becomes more and more publicity touted as a legitimate possibility of escaping the confines of the women's sex role. Some of these straight women want to reverse the sex roles and become the dominant partner in sex with gay men; some boast about this, they also show an enormous amount of internalised misogyny.
This is what a self-described gay "transman" (straight woman) sent to a well-known radical feminist blog: "Some trans men were every bit as disgusted as going near a woman sexually as they were with having woman parts, and felt that way before going on t or getting those gross udders obliterated surgically. Heterosexual relationships are an unsexy pit of dominance and submission, and lesbians just imitate this dynamic, albeit with even worse taste in music."
"As a trans man who bangs men up the ass and enjoys a loving, long term, egalitarian relationship with my beautiful feminine gay boyfriend who was born with a penis, I am endlessly curious about you bullies and your masochistic laydee friends."
"Before I transitioned and got to join my hot feminine gay boyfriend in the men’s room, I was way more scared of the mean looking bulldaggers and the lipstick licking pregnancy obsessed bimbos in the wombmoon’s room than i ever would be of a trans girl who just wants to do her business and get out of there. Oh, and even more scary? Cow mothers bringing their already predatory male children in there and letting their boy brats peek under the stalls. Of course, all the silly uterus-brains find chulllldren adorable. Gag."
The Problem Of The Autogynephiliac
There is another problem that has come out of all this and that is the autogynephiliac. The changing of the requirements to have birth certificates changed to the opposite sex under (The Gender Recognition Act passed in the UK in 2004 now enables a man who has "lived as a woman" for two years to have his birth certificate changed to female at present in the UK.) and the adding of GID (gender identity disorder) to the DSM III in 1980, Gender dysphoria has now replaced GID in the DSM V, coupled with the change of laws to guard against not sex discrimination, but "gender" discrimination, has given unprecedented access to these very disturbed men to women’s "safe" spaces.
From the DSM V:
In both adolescent and adult natal males, there are two broad trajectories for development of gender dysphoria: early onset and late onset.
Adolescent and adult natal males with early-onset gender dysphoria are almost always sexually attracted to men (androphilic).
Adolescents and adults with late-onset gender dysphoria frequently engage in transvestic behaviour with sexual excitement. The majority of these individuals are gynephilic or sexually attracted to other post transition natal males with late-onset gender dysphoria. A substantial percentage of adult males with late-onset gender dysphoria cohabit with or are married to natal females. After gender transition, many self-identify as lesbian. Among adult natal males with gender dysphoria, the early-onset group seeks out clinical care for hormone treatment and reassignment surgery at an earlier age than does the late-onset group. The late-onset group may have more fluctuations in the degree of gender dysphoria and be more ambivalent about and less likely satisfied after gender reassignment surgery.
Additional predisposing factors under consideration, especially in individuals with late-onset gender dysphoria (adolescence, adulthood), include habitual fetishistic transvestism developing into autogynephilia (i.e., sexual arousal associated with the thought or image of oneself as a woman) and other forms of more general social, psychological, or developmental problems.
Transvestic disorder. Transvestic disorder occurs in heterosexual (or bisexual) adolescent and adult males (rarely in females) for whom cross-dressing behaviour generates sexual excitement and causes distress and/or impairment without drawing their primary gender into question. It is occasionally accompanied by gender dysphoria. An individual with transvestic disorder who also has clinically significant gender dysphoria can be given both diagnoses. In many cases of late-onset gender dysphoria in gynephilic natal males, transvestic behaviour with sexual excitement is a precursor. :
The autogynephiliacs are straight men who have a sexual paraphilia: they get sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women. These men have always existed, (they were usually referred to simply as transvestites) they couldn't gain easy legal access to women's spaces in the past as the requirements for a change of sex on their birth certificate was in most countries full surgical "sex change", which autogynephiliacs rarely are willing to have (although some do depending on how bad their paraphilia is). These men display chronic narcissistic traits (think they are entitled to whatever they want regardless of how it affects others, have to be the centre of attention and have little to no empathy) they react to refusal to give into their demands of being accepted as women (refusal to call them she, her etc. And/or naming them as autogynephiliacs) by either playing the martyr (I am the most oppressed person in the world, suicide threats etc.) or with narcissistic rage (death & rape threats). Because the object of their desire is not another person, but the idea of themselves as a women they cannot relate to people very well, hence the text book narcissism. Though they sometimes have sexual encounters with other men, they very rarely have relationships with them, as they only have sex with men to reinforce in their mind that they are really women. What turns these men on is doing things that only women are allowed to do, or going places where only women are supposed to be. This is why they like the idea of going with lesbians, they know lesbians only want women, so in their minds if a lesbian will go with them it reinforces they have been accepted as a real woman. "The cotton celling" was a conference organised by these autogynaphiliac men where they discussed the best way of getting lesbians to accept them as sexual partners, the word cotton in "cotton celling" refers to lesbian’s underwear. The name the "cotton celling" was a disgusting rip off of the term the glass ceiling, the term that feminists invented to describe the seen yet unreachable barrier that keeps women from achieving the highest positions in business. This sexual turn on for doing things only women are allowed to do also explains why they insist on constantly being admitted everywhere men are prohibited, like toilets, changing rooms, rape & domestic violence shelters etc. They know they could use the disabled toilet etc. they won’t, as it is a sexual turn on for them to be in those places, as it is forbidden for men to be there, they know this and it gives them a thrill. They usually start having this paraphilia around the age of 11; they usually start off by dressing up in a female family member’s underwear and masturbating in it. The thrill of possibly being caught doing this probably lays the groundwork for the thrill they get from getting away with "passing" when they are older.
Why does women's clothing & re-enacting the women's sex role turn them on so much?
This is because the woman’s sex role, all the clothes & make up we are socially mandated to wear, all the submissive behaviours we are supposed to conform to or face social ridicule, etc. boils down to one thing and that is women as being nothing more than passive sex objects to please men & take care of men’s needs. So a man who believes this (and all men do more or less, they are taught to from birth to death) dressing up in a bra & stockings and a mini skirt is sexually exciting to him, as he can at once see himself as a sexual object (woman) and carry out his male sex role and objectify that very image, as the male he really is.
To have their birth certificate changed to "female" in the UK all they have to do is be over 18 years of age, have a diagnose of "gender dysphoria" have "lived as a woman for two years", pay £140 to be assessed by the gender recognition panel and intend to live as woman for the rest of their life. What does "live as a woman mean"? It means dressing in sex role stereotyped clothes: dresses, skirts, high heels and wearing makeup and enacting all the other same old sex role stereotypes we have tried so hard to move away from as women: being submissive, coy, liking to sew, shopping, liking pink and glitter, etc. . Who knows what these men intend to do when they obtain their free pass into women’s spaces? There is not even a requirement for them to take hormones or have surgery, they could just walk into any woman’s space: toilets, changing rooms, rape crisis centres etc. and expose themselves to women or girls, they could be a rapist or paedophile or get off on taking pictures under toilet doors etc. and no woman can do anything to prevent it legally. Until of course the inevitable happens. As has been illustrated these males are very dangerous & have no place being in women's "safe" spaces. The male medical establishment and "born this way" & "queer theory" ideologies have aloud these very sick dangerous men into women's spaces & are helping to seriously harm sex role non-conforming gays & lesbians by encouraging them to mutilate themselves with hormones & surgeries.
The "Trans" activist groups are run by these autogynephiliac men, the homosexual girls and boys who buy into it are victims of these men’s propaganda. They use (primarily) gay male "trans" who have brought into their propaganda as their figure heads, as very few of these autogynaphiliac men "pass" and look exactly like who they are: middle age men who have a sexual fetish (though there are younger men who have watched too much lesbian porn now calling themselves "trans" as well, in order to gain access to lesbians also). Why do they want to pitch this at children? The autogynephiliacs want to pitch it to children as it makes the autogynephiliacs look more legitimate and not just like sexual fetishists (which of course they are).
They are now pitching this at kids, this is some of what the DSM V says about children they want to label with "gender dysphoria":
For clinic-referred children, onset of cross-gender behaviours is usually between ages 2 and 4 years. This corresponds to the developmental time period in which most typically developing children begin expressing gendered behaviours and interests.
A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months’ duration, as manifested by at least six of the following (one of which must be Criterion A1):
1. A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
2. in boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire: or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing.
3. A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play.
4. A strong preference for the toys, games, or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender.
5. A strong preference for playmates of the other gender.
6. In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities.
7. A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy.
8. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender.
B. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, school, or other important areas of functioning.
Gender dysphoria manifests itself differently in different age groups. Prepubertal natal girls with gender dysphoria may express the wish to be a boy, assert they are a boy, or assert they will grow up to be a man. They prefer boys’ clothing and hairstyles, are often perceived by strangers as boys, and may ask to be called by a boy’s name. Usually, they display intense negative reactions to parental attempts to have them wear dresses or other feminine attire. Some may refuse to attend school or social events where such clothes are required. These girls may demonstrate marked cross-gender identification in role-playing, dreams, and fantasies. Contact sports, rough-and-tumble play, traditional boyhood games, and boys as playmates are most often preferred. They show little interest in stereotypically feminine toys (e.g., dolls) or activities (e.g., feminine dress-up or role-play). Occasionally, they refuse to urinate in a sitting position. Some natal girls may express a desire to have a penis or claim to have a penis or that they will grow one when older. They may also state that they do not want to develop breasts or menstruate. For both natal male and female children showing persistence, almost all are sexually attracted to individuals of their natal sex.:
They seem to have built a disclaimer in it which says: The diagnosis is not meant to merely describe nonconformity to stereotypical gender role behaviour (e.g., “tom boyism” in girls, “girly-boy” behaviour in boys, occasional cross-dressing in adult men).: Wow really, are we reading the same thing? That anyone can't see this targets children who don't conform to sex roles that almost certainly will grow up to be homosexual (by the DSM V’s own admission) must be from another planet. Also does any girl look forward to having her period?
The impact of this on children unlucky enough to be subject to this "diagnosis" in the UK, is that children will be put on puberty blockers at 12 years of age and given opposite sex hormones at 16 and mutilating surgeries at 18. Whilst all the while reinforcing the belief that there is something wrong with these children, which needs to be "fixed" by medical intervention. That these children will suffer from little to no sexual sensation and will be sterile, and suffer long term complications from the hormones and surgeries seems to be of no consequence to those pushing this agenda.
The official "trans" trope is this is a new and a breakthrough moment in the history for human rights, but is it really?
The Pathologizing Of Homosexuality And Sex Role Non-Conformity (and the origins of "born this way".).
Russian physician Heinrich Kaan, in his 1843 book Psychopathia Sexualis offered that what was previously thought of as sexual sins were mental illnesses or defects. To Kann masturbation (which was referred to as onanism) was the cause of sexual deviations and "unnatural" lusts. This medicalisation of what was once called sin (alongside the growing eugenics theories that became popular in the Victorian era) led to the "degeneracy theory" that dominated the discourse of Victorian sexologists.
Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a homosexual, was one of the first Victorian sexologists to write about homosexuality he published 12 writings altogether dating from 1864-1879. His intent was to remove homosexuality as a sin and so remove some of the harsh legal punishments for gay men. He argued that there was a "third sex" who were in born homosexuals, he believed in a suck in the wrong body theory. "A female psyche confined in a male body" he called the men "urnings" and saw them as having a "female element" and the main part of that "female element", was their attraction to other men. He believed that males are naturally attracted to females & females are naturally attracted to males, so if there was a discrepancy between the feelings of attraction and the body the explanation must be that a man is psychically a woman in a man’s body if he is attracted to other men (and women who are attracted to women must be men psychically). He suggested that there was a germ that produced sexual attraction and usually this would make a man attracted to women, he believed that they sometimes got mixed up in the womb and created men who are attracted to men, who he believed were neither completely man nor woman, but a "third sex". He also put forth a theoretical idea of a "fourth sex" which would be women who are attracted to other women (though he hadn't met any at the time). Ulrichs wrote of his and other urnings "female characteristics" that he said could be seen in childhood: "the urning shows as a child a quite unmistakable partiality for girlish activities, for interaction with girls, for playing with girls play things, namely with dolls". Eventually he found that his theory couldn't hold up as it was, as he discovered men who desired both men & women, men who loved men sentimentally, but women physically etc.
He then offered as an explanation a different germ for each of the different attractions he came across, there were 16 different categories implied by Ulrichs system. This theory became ridiculously complex, in part because of Ulrichs assumption that desire for a male must be a "feminine" impulse which led to the ludicrous amount of categories invented. Ulrichs efforts of arguing that gay men were biologically gay and so should be treated less severely, failed to remove the harsh legal punishments of homosexuals in Prussia at the time.
Influenced by Ulrichs writings the German physician Carl Friedrich Otto Westphal wrote about "effeminate" men being attracted to other men and "masculine" women being attracted to other women he also pushed the idea that it was innate. He offered that it should be thought of as a mental illness not as a crime. He coined the term "contrary sexual sensation". The forensic expert Arrigo Tamassia translated it into Italian as "inversion of the sexual instinct" in 1878. The French neurologist Jean Martin Charcot called it "inversion of the genital sense" in his 1882 article about "sexual perversion" and argued that it was a neuropsychiatric degenerative condition like "hysteria" and thought many other "disorders" would be associated with it.
The austo- German psychiatrist Henrich Von Kraft Ebbing published his version of Psychopathia Sexualis in 1886 which was similar to the original one published by Kaan. He continued to update and expand the book which had 12 editions in total. As with all the other physicians and sexologists of the Victorian era he also believed in the "true" man "true" woman philosophy. That the only "true" woman was white, heterosexual, preferably middle or upper class and performed the woman’s sex role, women who were not white, straight and/or didn't conform to the woman's sex role weren't "real" women. He believed that sexual attraction to one’s own sex could be either an acquired illness or "perversion" or could be innate and caused by "degeneracy" (bad genes), being born in the "wrong" body. In other words a birth defect.
The English physician Havelock Ellis published his book sexual inversion in 1897 he maintained just the same as the majority of the sexologists at the time that attraction to one’s own sex was innate and that those that were so attracted were trapped in the wrong body "inverts" and were degenerates who hadn't evolved and were defective by birth. He was heavily into eugenics, indeed he was one of the founding members of the Eugenics Education Society, of London in 1907. He was vice president of this society at one time and wrote about eugenics in his book the task of social hygiene published in 1912. Karl Maria Kertbeny first published the term homosexual in 1869 anonymously. By the mid 1900's homosexual was the most commonly used word.
Magnus Hirschfeld the German physician and sexologist believed homosexuals were neuro-endocrinological hermaphrodites. That homosexuals were a third sex and not "real" men or women (very similar to the view as put forth by Ulrichs in the 1860's-1870's). He was homosexual he tried to get the laws in Germany against homosexuals changed by arguing that homosexuals should be pitied not punished. He along with fellow sexologist Iwan Bloch and several others formed the Medical Society for Sexology and Eugenics in Berlin in 1913. Iwan Bloch, who is primarily credited for inventing the term sexology, was widely praised for opening up sexologists to the possibility of environmental influences being a possible factor in sexual development and not just biology. He was as the rest of the Victorian sexologists were, a proponent of the "real" man "real" woman Victorian belief that "real" women were inherently submissive and masochistic and "real" men were naturally dominant and aggressive, any deviation from sex roles he considered "abnormal".
The Austrian Eugen Steinach, a physician, who became famous for preforming and advocating vasectomies in the 1920's, that he claimed restored youthfulness and vigour to men. He started out by preforming experiments on rats and guinea pigs in 1912. By castrating the males and implanting them with ovaries or re-implanting testicles and removing the ovaries from female rats and implanting testicles. He maintained the juvenile male rats implanted with ovaries reacted and developed as female rats would and that the female rats implanted with the testicles behaved like males rats would (whether this was true or just wishful thinking on his part, is uncertain). However he then applied this "treatment" to homosexual men by removing one of their original testicles and replacing it with a testicle from a heterosexual man. At least 11 men were operated on from 1916 to 1921. The experiments all failed.
In 1935 testosterone was synthesised. Testosterone treatments were given to homosexual men from that time to try and cure them of their homosexuality and supposed "effeminacy". Again this all comes back to the belief that gay men and lesbians (especially those that refuse to perform their designated sex role) are not "true" men or women. All this did was cause the men to have a higher libido and so engage in more gay sex. Eventually they gave up on the idea of giving testosterone to gay men to make them more "manly" and "cure" their homosexuality. Instead they focused on giving them female hormones to reduce their libido, in affect to try and chemically castrate them. Diethylstilbestrol (DES, former BAN stilboestrol) is a synthetic nonsteroidal estrogen that was first synthesized in 1938. This drug was given to gay men to reduce their libido and so "cure" them of their homosexuality, if psychoanalysis alone didn't work, or in combination with it or as an alternative "treatment". Allan Turing the English mathematician and computer scientist who helped break the Enigma code agreed to this hormone "treatment" in order to avoid imprisonment for homosexuality in 1952.
Victorian sexology was intimately associated with the birth of the eugenics movement that emerged after Charles Darwin’s origin of the species in 1859. Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton coined the term eugenics in his 1883 book inquiries into human faculty. Most of the prominent sexologists were members of eugenics societies and the influence of eugenics on their theories and attitudes is indisputable. The idea that some people were genetically inferior is a constant thread throughout the writings of the Victorian sexologists. The word degenerate was used by many sexologists (1485-95; < Latin dēgenerātus (past participle of dēgenerāre to decline from an ancestral standard), equivalent to dē de- + gener-, stem of genus race) its use by the sexologists indicates how deeply invested in the eugenics concepts they were. The obsessive measuring of body parts by many sexologists to try and prove a physical connection between what they saw as a mental defect and some kind of physical defect was apparent. Of course this came about at roughly the same time as they were also trying to prove that people of different races were also "different" mentally and physically than whites and so inferior.
One of the most consistent medical characterisations of the anatomy of both African-American women and lesbians was the myth of an unusually large clitoris. As late as 1921, medical journals contained articles declaring that "a physical examination of [female homosexuals] will in practically every instance disclose an abnormally prominent clitoris." Significantly, this author added, “This is particularly so in colored women."
They also said lesbian and black women’s labia minor were bigger or implied the labia majora looked like a males genitals. As there was no "normal" mean to hold this against it is curious how they came to this conclusion. We have to assume that they came to this conclusion as this is exactly what they wanted to believe and so that is exactly what they found.
Havelock Ellis said that since the “beginnings of industrialism," "more marked sexual differences in physical development seem (we cannot speak definitely) to have developed than are usually to be found in savage societies." In this passage, Ellis drew from theories developed by biologists like Patrick Geddes and J. Arthur Thomson. In their work The Evolution of Sex , which traced the role of sexual difference in evolution, Geddes and Thomson stated that "hermaphroditism is primitive; the unisexual state is a subsequent differentiation. The present cases of normal hermaphroditism imply either persistence or reversion." As we have seen homosexuals were often seen by sexologists and the physicians of the Victorian era and early 20th century as hermaphrodites not just because of their homosexuality, but also because of their sex role non conformity.
The Victorian sexologists reflected the widely accepted notion popular at the time of "real" women and "real" men. To be a "real" man or "real" woman meant to be white, heterosexual and comply with the sex roles ascribed to your sex. Any deviation from this and you were considered to not be a "real" woman or man. You were considered less than or less evolved. The examinations and cataloguing of the so called physical differences of lesbians and black women were carried out to try and prove that black and lesbian women were not "real" women, that they were "degenerates", throw backs, not as evolved as straight or white women. The findings of these examinations and experiments were then used to add "scientific" weight to arguments that sterilisation of these individuals was in the best interests of the nation or "race".
Havelock Ellis wrote in The Problem of Race Regeneration, a pamphlet advocating "voluntary" sterilisation of the unfit as a policy he believed was in the best interest of "the race." In a letter to Francis Galton in 1907, Ellis wrote, "In the concluding volume of my Sex 'Studies' I shall do what I can to insinuate the eugenic attitude." As Mark Haller has pointed out, "Racists and [immigration] restrictionists... found in eugenics the scientific reassurances they needed that heredity shaped man's personality and that their assumptions rested on biological facts." Nancy Stepan and Sander Gilman have noted, "The concepts within racial science were so congruent with social and political life (with power relations, that is) as to be virtually uncontested from inside the mainstream of science." They started off by focusing on how different races supposedly showed differences that justified their inferior status and treatment by whites and concurrently used exactly the same methods to justify women’s inferior status and treatment by men. Although the methods of science were considered to be outside the political and economic realm, in fact, as we know, these anatomical investigations, however professedly innocent their intentions, were driven by racist, misogynistic and homophobic beliefs that were already accepted as facts by those carrying out these investigations.
These eugenic ideas so popular at that time eventually came to include poor people, prostitutes, drunks, the "feeble minded" and every race and ethnicity who all were considered to have inferior genetics, thousands of these people were routinely sterilised, sometimes with their consent and sometimes without. These eugenic concepts were eagerly adopted by Hitler (eugenics were already popular in Germany, when Hitler came to power. Indeed a eugenics society was already in place, it was cofounded by Magus Hirschfield.) The zealous carrying out of eugenic ideas by the Nazis eventually led to the holocaust in Germany. Ironically some Jewish and even homosexual physicians were involved in the eugenics movement and sexology at one time. Let’s not forget that it was Ulrichs a homosexual who first devised the theory of gay men having a woman’s mind stuck in a men’s body theory for homosexuality. And magus Hirschfield a homosexual (who also was Jewish) subscribed to the belief that homosexuals were "neuro-endocrinological hermaphrodites". Both these men mistakenly believed that maintaining a biological cause for homosexuality would bring less harsh legal punishments for gay men, both were proved wrong. That they could not see the danger (even to themselves) in promoting these ideas until it was too late is a sad fact of history. Which gay rights orgs who promote these concepts through "born this way" and "transgenderism" would do well to remember.
Of course today the (predominantly) white, male medical establishment seems to have abandoned trying to prove differences between the races, to prove the inferiority or superiority of different races and justify their inferior or superior statuses. Unfortunately they haven't abandoned trying to do just that with even more zeal with women and homosexuals. Hence the search for a "gay gene" and "gay brain" experiments (carried out by a gay man), the theory that differences in the lengths of lesbians fingers indicates her homosexuality. And of course the "brain sex" theory. All promoted and carried out by and in the name of so called modern "science", just as it was in the Victorian era and early 20th century. Now, as then, these experiments have a political motivation and are used to prove and maintain that women are inherently inferior and to justify our inferior status and to prove that homosexuals are not "real" men or women, especially if they don't perform their designated sex role. They may not use the term "degenerate" anymore, maybe the term "born wrong" would be more aptly used today, as in "born in the wrong body". Today they are put in a 3rd category which symbolises they are not "real", "normal" men or women: "transgender". They are then encouraged to have surgery and take hormones to "cure" them and make them appear more like "real" "normal" men or women. Of course children who are given puberty blockers, then go on to cross sex hormones, cumulating in genital surgery will become infertile. In affect they will be sterilised.
It is interesting to see that very similar experiments to the “brain sex" experiments used now to justify the differences in behaviour of men and women (to prove women’s "natural" in born submissiveness and heterosexuality and males "natural" in born dominance and heterosexuality. In other words that sex roles are innate, was also used to prove black people’s behaviour was innate and that they were inherently inferior due to biological "differences". Anthropologist Robert Bennett Bean published in the American Journal of Anatomy his 1906 paper titled SOME RACIAL PECULIARITIES OF THE NEGRO BRAIN.
His findings of differences in the brains of African American cadavers conformed what he wanted to find, that is African American brains are inferior to white men’s brains and have certain in born characteristics that dictate their behaviour:
"1. The brain of the American Negro is smaller than that of the American Caucasian, the difference being primarily in the frontal lobe, and it follows that the anterior association center is relatively and abso- lutely smaller.
2. The Negro brain can be distinguished from the Caucasian with a varying degree of accuracy according to the amount of admixture of white blood.
3. The area of the cross section of the corpus callosum varies with the brain weight. However, in the Negro its anterior half is relatively smaller than in the Caucasian, to correspond with the smaller anterior association center ;the genu is relatively larger and the splenium relatively smaller.
4. Prom the deduced difference between the functions of the anterior and posterior association centers and from the known characteristics of the two races the conclusion is that the Negro is more objective and the Caucasian more subjective. The Negro has the lower mental faculties (smell, sight, handicraftsmanship, body-sense, melody) well developed. the Caucasian the higher (self-control, will power, ethical and Esthetic senses and reason). "
Of course the science of the Victorian era and early 20th century that these "experiments" were based on was taken as truth, an undisputed fact without any question of the motives behind the experiments, just as the "brain sex" theory and "gay gene" etc. is now. As "science" is beyond reproach. Both racist, misogynistic and homophobic "experiment" findings are based on junk "science" where the methods employed ensure the desired out come of the scientists and physicians carrying them out. They are undertaken (despite assurances of the contrary) with deeply political motives carried out by a male medical establishment riddled with racism then and today that is riddled with misogyny and homophobia.
It is interesting to note that all the "studies" and "experiments" carried out on homosexuals after the adding of GID to the DSM in 1980 have focused almost, if not exclusively on biological "causes" for homosexuality. As the following demonstrates.
The first major study linking male homosexuality to family inheritance was published in 1986. James Weinrich and Richard Pillard found that the straight men in the study had far fewer gay brothers than the gay men had. From this, they declared, “there is a significant familial component to male homosexuality". Other studies with similar designs have confirmed Pillard and Weinrich’s general observation including those that show a higher rate of homosexuality among sisters of lesbians. It is difficult to conclude with certainty that because a trait shows up more often among biologically-related siblings, it is inherited. In fact, many such traits appear to be linked to distinctly non-biological factors. Diet, drug addiction, religious and political orientation, and career paths are just a few of the behaviors that cluster in families due to shared social influences. Indeed, a shared environment can often produce a clustering of all types of behavior patterns. It is doubtful that any study could be designed with sufficient sensitivity to exclude this possibility. A study in 2000 of 4,500 twins from the Australian Twin Registry by Bailey and colleagues showed only a 30% rate of homosexuality shared between both male and female identical twins.
In 1991, neurobiologist Simon LeVay claimed he found a region at the base of the brain was substantially smaller among gay men compared to heterosexual men, and comparable between gay men and heterosexual women. Though it is unclear how he determined sexual orientation in the first place, LeVay stated in his book The Sexual Brain, that the differences he observed were the result of structural differences in the brains of gay men due to disruption in the development of “separate centers within the hypothalamus for the generation of male-typical and female-typical sexual behavior and feelings". It was revealed that sexual histories were unavailable for 14 of the 16 ‘presumed heterosexual’ male cadavers, so it is impossible for LeVay to have accurately defined the sexual orientation of these subjects. Notably, all 19 of the ‘presumed homosexual’ men had died of AIDS. Despite this important fact, LeVay does not discuss the possible physical changes that may have occurred to their brains because of this, nor does he include a sample of “homosexual” men who had not suffered from the disease. Finally, while, as a group, the size of the INAH-3 in “gay” male cadavers tended to be smaller than that in “straight” male cadavers, the range of sizes in the two groups was nearly identical. Some gay cadavers had a larger INAH-3 than heterosexual cadavers. Not surprisingly, other studies have failed to replicate LeVay’s findings.
In 1993 Dean Hamer and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, claimed to have discovered a gene for homosexuality. Hamer and colleagues found that 83% of the 40 gay brother pairs participating in the test shared the same markers on a region of the X chromosome called Xq28. (There has never been an equal finding for lesbian women.) These results were never replicated.
In a recent analysis of data from 14 studies involving 10,000 individuals, a group led by Ray Blanchard, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, determined that a large number of older brothers is a significant predictor of male homosexuality. Blanchard and others have suggested a “maternal immune” effect whereby mothers develop an increasing immunological response to successive pregnancies involving male-specific antigens. As the mother’s immune system comes to recognize these antigens in successive pregnancies, it is assumed that she produces antibodies that affect the sexual differentiation of the brain in subsequent pregnancies involving male fetuses. There is an absence of evidence linking either male birth order to maternal immune responses or maternal immune responses to male homosexuality. And other explanations for the ‘fraternal birth order effect’ are not difficult to imagine. It is certainly possible that social influences linked to family environments with multiple older male siblings may impact the development of a child’s gender identity and later sexual expression, yet these perspectives have gone unstudied.
As has been shown all these "scientific" findings of biological causes for homosexuality and differences between mens and women's brains have a clearly political motive and are in fact junk "science", just as the "scientific" experiments were in the Victorian and early 20th century.
There are now similar "scientific" studies and experiments on women to try and prove that the sex roles are inherent, that the differences in women’s and men's behaviour and likes and dislikes are biologically innate. This is colloquially referred to as neurosexism. The results of these studies if they conform to the male political beliefs that there are biological reasons why men and women behave differently and enjoy different things are then highly touted in the male dominated media. It is amazing how similar these studies are to the ones carried out in the early 20th century on different races to prove their behaviours and characteristics are innate and to justify their treatment as an inferior group of people. The "brain sex" theory and the rest of the neurosexist junk "science" are thoroughly debunked in Cordelia Fine's excellent book Delusions of Gender.
It is no coincidence that Iran where homosexuality is illegal preforms the most "sex changes" the choice there being lashes, prison or "sex change" surgery. (Only Thailand preforms more). The right wing is very accepting of "Trans gender" when they realise how misogynistic it is and how it can magically turn a homosexual into a straight person. As can be gleaned by these quotes from the extremely right wing American televangelist Pat Roberson: "I think there are men who are in a woman's body," he said. "It's very rare. But it's true -- or women that are in men's bodies -- and that they want a sex change. That is a very permanent thing, believe me, when you have certain body parts amputated and when you have shot up with various kinds of hormones. It's a radical procedure. I don't think there's any sin associated with that. I don't condemn somebody for doing that." Contrast that view with his views on gays & lesbians: 'I know those who are homosexuals will die out, because they do not reproduce. You have to have the heterosexual sex to reproduce'. Robertson has also stated that the acceptance of homosexuality could result in hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist bombings and "possibly a meteor." Of course one of the ideas behind this as Pat Robertson has figured out, is that if you believe that gays have a "gay gene" or a gay "essence" that can be biologically passed on, by sterilising homosexuals you can wipe them out. (Sterilisation was of course at heart of the eugenics movement and they started off just the same, getting "degenerates" to volunteer to be sterilised of their own accord and getting parents to agree to have their underage children sterilised).
As we can see this "transgender" craze is not new it is nearly a 150 years old and is the same old insistence that a woman can’t be a "real" woman unless she conforms to her sex role including that of heterosexuality and a man can’t be a "real" man unless he conforms to the men’s sex role including heterosexuality.
Why have the gay orgs taken to promoting these dangerous ideas that originate from the Victorian sexologists that have strong ties to the eugenics movement of the Victorian era? It seems just as some of the Victorian sexologists were gay themselves and promoted this to try and get more legal rights for homosexuals without thinking through the harms it could cause. The gay orgs are doing exactly the same thing and making the same mistakes as they did. All the same old sexology tropes are evident from the search for a "gay gene" to the measuring of lesbians fingers to indicate her homosexuality, to the ludicrous number of "genders" (50 at last count), to the oldest sexology theory of "female brain" or "males brain" stuck in the wrong body. It is recycled Victorian nonsense that is more harmful now than it ever was then, as then they didn't actually preform mutilating surgeries or administer dangerous hormones on a grand scale to those they deemed "defective" now they do and of course now it’s aimed at children too. The gay orgs who promote "Born this way" and "queer theory's" "transgenderism" have allowed this to happen and the male medical establishment is laughing all the way to the bank. Gay rights orgs seem to have focused solely on condemning the psychoanalytic "cures" for homosexuality like "aversion therapy" and "reparative therapy". They seem to have forgotten or ignored all of the physical "cures" or "treatments" that were performed on gays and lesbians throughout history like hormone "therapies", hysterectomies, castration, "sex changes" etc. Is this deliberate? Is this because to do so would mean invalidating "queer theory", with its emphasis on "anyone can be whatever they want to be", "Gender is just a performance" line? And acknowledging this would mean condemning "transgenderism" as the new form of "curing" homosexuality. It would certainly be an embarrassment for them to have admit this after having pushed these concepts for over two decades through "queer theory".
The "Transgender" Ideology Has No Idea About The Material Realities Of Women's Lives.
"Transwomen" (men) have come up with "cis", as a prefix for women and men, who don't consider themselves "trans". A woman who doesn't consider herself "trans" is not simply a woman according to this, but is a "cis woman". So basically anyone who is not "trans" is "cis". What does "cis" mean? "Cis" means that if you don't consider yourself "trans" you are happy with preforming the woman's sex role that has been ascribed to you because you were born female and are perfectly at ease with the woman’s sex role requirements. Are women happy with the woman’s sex role requirements? Are women happy to be constantly dieting to maintain the "perfect" figure touted in the media? Are women happy with the constant pressure to look good and preform time consuming beauty practices? Are women happy to be treated as sexual objects to be used? Are women happy to be considered no longer of any value or worth when the reach middle age, as they are no longer sexually desirable to men? Are women happy and comfortable with their bodies and how they look? I think as women we all know the answer to that. "Cis" assumes that women are happy with their bodies and the woman’s sex role requirements and the treatment of women in this society. "Cis" assumes if you weren't happy you would be "trans". "Transwomen" (men) came up with this word as they do not like having to use the prefix "trans" before woman as this reminds them they are not women and they don't like that. By making everyone have a prefix before the descriptor of their sex they think this makes them just a different type of "woman" and no different than biological women, who they assume are perfectly happy with and even desire the sex role requirements, as these men do.
As these men are happy and take great pleasure in carrying out the woman’s sex role requirements, like beauty rituals, being seen as a sexual object etc. they cannot understand why women would not and assume we like it as much as they do. If we say we do not like it and refuse to perform the woman’s sex role, they assume we must really be "transmen" ourselves and not really women. All it really does is show these men do indeed believe as the Victorian sexologists before them did, that women must conform to their sex role to be "real" women. Indeed these men think that the sex roles are so important that they, as men who assume the woman’s sex role, are more "woman" than a biological woman who does not. It also shows how little these men are like women and how completely clueless about women they really are.
To see how reactionary this "trans" craze is, let’s look at it this way; it’s very similar to a white person saying I must be included in an Asian rights group or another group that is only for Asian people. If a white person said "I believe I am Asian, as I have always felt that I was Asian, I have an Asian brain stuck in a white person’s body" and then giving examples of how they have an Asian brain by reeling off stereotypes like "I’ve always liked Bengal music and Bollywood films and curry and samosas and dressing in a sari". This would seem ridiculous and highly insulting to Asian people and rightly so. Women who have self-respect feel exactly the same way when a man says he is a woman as he has "womanly thoughts and feelings" and likes dressing in sex role stereotyped clothing. Also a white person joining an Asian only group would be an oppressor joining an oppressed group, Asians would be rightly angry about this. As women are an oppressed group also, we don't want our oppressor: men, in our women’s only spaces either.
"Transwomen" (Men) and Crime.
Men of course are not bothered about women calling themselves men, as women are not men's oppressor and are of no threat to men (neither do women commit violent crime or sexual assault on men in anywhere near the numbers men do on women). There has been a massive rise in rapes in the UK according to a report on crime released in October 2014: "There were 22,116 recorded rapes in the year to June, a rise of 29% on the year before, police figures released by the Office for National Statistics show. The ONS figures also showed a 48% increase in knife-point rapes, from 199 to 294." The police representatives and government officials maintain that is because more women are reporting rapes now. However a spokeswoman for Rape Crisis, which campaigns to eliminate sexual violence, said the figures were "just the tip of the iceberg" and sexual violence remains "hugely under-reported". With this increase in rape it seems even more vital that men are kept out of areas where women and girls are vulnerable to rape and sexual violence, like toilets, changing rooms, domestic violence and rape shelters etc., especially considering that men who call themselves "transwomen" commit crime including violent crime at exactly the same rate as all other men. The longest study of "trans" was undertaken in Sweden and was conducted over thirty years this is what they found regarding crime rates and men who claim to be women "transwomen":.
"regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime."
The Transgender Law Center, HRC, GLAAD, ACLU, National Center for Transgender Equality, et al., have failed to cite a single study refuting the evidence that transgender males (“transwomen”) commit crimes against women and girls at exactly the same rate as any other males. So there is no difference in risk having a man who calls himself "trans" or a man who does not in women only spaces like toilets, changing rooms ect.
Why have these men been gaining entrance to women only "safe" spaces, not just here in the UK but around the western world? In their own words: “We have to acknowledge that we have largely achieved our successes by flying under the radar”, (then) Transgender Law Center Director Masen Davis stated eighteen months ago, “It is a secret at Transgender Law Center and I’ll ‘come out’ today. We do a lot, really quietly. We have made some of our biggest gains: that nobody has noticed. We are very quiet and thoughtful about what we do, because we want to make sure we have the win more than we want to have the publicity. And that has been largely effective. We’re not the only one, and many organizations have done this, and we’ve been able to get a lot done. But I need to tell you that the days of doing things quietly are coming to an end. It is time to get ready for a close-up, folks.”
The other problem with "transgender" is that crimes that these men commit while calling themselves "women" are now reported as if the crimes were actually committed by women, this includes sex crimes like rape. This distorting and falsification of crime statistics obviously works in men’s favour as they'll argue that women are just as violent as men, obviously this not true as statistics have always shown. This has the potential to be a big problem in any objective crime analysis or crime prevention schemes etc.
"Transgender" activists hate campaign, and McCarthy tactics.
The "trans" activists, run by the autogynephiliacs have mounted a hate campaign on anyone who speaks out about how harmful and dangerous this transgender craze is, they try and silence anyone who criticises sex roles or "transgenderism" with cries of "transphobia" and "Trans exclusionary radical feminists"(TERF). Since radical feminisms main goal is the elimination of gender: sex roles, there cannot be a radical feminist that is for "transgenderism". That these men think radical feminism is all about them and not women’s rights to be free from oppression, is clear by their made up term "TERF" that puts them at the centre (the fact that radical feminism criticised gender: sex roles long before these men were using the word "trans", as sex roles are at the heart of women’s oppression, is lost on them).
"Transgender" activists first targeted Radical feminist Janice Raymond who wrote the book The Transsexual Empire in 1979. She was the first to publicly voice how harmful the "transsexual" (as it was called then,) phenomenon was. They protest any venue she is booked to speak at and try to get the organisers to disinvite her. They even started a fake Twitter account called "fake Janice Raymond" and posted threats to her on it. They then targeted the sexologist J. Michael Bailey who wrote the book The Man Who Would Be Queen. In his book he wrote about the two types of men who call themselves "trans" the gay men and the autogynephiliacs, the autogynephiliacs didn't like being exposed as the fetishist transvestites they are, so they mounted a hate campaign against him. They filed unsubstantiated charges against him and tried to get him fired from his job. They also used the web to publicly harass his children, his ex-wife, his girlfriend and his friends. Radical feminist Prof Sheila Jeffreys has also been subject to their hate campaigns, they frequently post death threats to her on the internet and get her no plat-formed from speaking at feminist conferences by putting pressure on event organisers to disinvite her. They also tried to get the publisher of her book Gender Hurts to not publish it. The threats against her have been so bad that she was advised to take her name off her office door at the university she teaches at. Radical feminist Lierre Keith and other members of the environmental group Deep Green Resistance also have been sent death and rape threats. Lerrie Keith has also been no plat-formed from events because of "trans" activist’s campaigns. "Trans" activists also targeted the journalist and radical feminist Julie Bindel; they have sent her rape and death threats and got her no plat-formed from various speaking engagements.
Many, many more Radical feminist journalists and bloggers have received rape and death threats from "trans" activists also. The radical feminist conference RadFem 2012 had to change venues as the original venue Conway Hall in London would not allow any criticism of "transgenderism" on its premises. A conference that was to be held by the lesbian & gay psychiatrists in London in 2011 to talk about sex roles, had to be cancelled, the official reason given being lack of ticket sales. This was following weeks of complaints from "transgender" activists. The latest people to feel the wrath of the "trans" activists are not radical feminists and aren't critical of sex roles, they are Cambridge Professor Mary Beard and gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, they signed a letter to the guardian newspaper with 129 others warning of “a worrying pattern of intimidation and silencing of individuals whose views are deemed ‘transphobic’”. Mary Beard said she was "bombed with tweets" from “trans” activists calling her "transphobic", after the article was published. Tatchell said: “I’ve received about 5,000 messages attacking me. The volume and vitriol of the attack has been almost unprecedented in 48 years of human rights campaigning. I’m shocked." He also said:
“The letter was about freedom of speech, and includes no attack on trans rights. When I signed the letter I didn’t know who else was going to sign it. Now I am being condemned by the McCarthyite tactic of guilt by association.”
Perhaps now Tatchell will finally see the folly in subscribing to "queer theory" that has allowed these "trans" to flourish, but I doubt it.
These "trans" activists like to make comparisons between "transgender" and the gay and lesbian struggle for basic human rights, (as well as the black struggle for civil rights in America). However what they fail to grasp is that there always was (and still is) a vocal opposition to those rights and gay rights campaigners never used tactics to silence them or get them banned from speaking. Anyone who wanted to organise a group to talk about how homosexuals were a danger to others, or a threat to another oppressed groups rights were able to do so. Gay rights campaigners knew that everyone being able to speak their piece and debate was important; as they knew they were in the right and were no threat to anyone or anyone else's rights.
The "trans" activists are led by autogynephiliacs, who are deeply disturbed men who show extreme narcissistic traits, they need what some psychologists call “narcissistic supply": “To elicit a steady stream of attention or Narcissistic Supply from others, the narcissist projects a False Self. The False Self is an imaginary façade or mask that he shows to the world that includes what the narcissist wants to be seen as:" in this case the imaginary self is the idea of himself as a woman. They react to perceived threats to their fantasy self, what some psychologists call “narcissistic injury" (someone not going along with their delusion that they are women), with either playing the martyr: "I’m the most oppressed person in the world", etc. or suicide threats. Or with what some psychologists call “narcissistic rage": in this case death and rape threats. The reason others don't see through them straight away is “Entrapping and maintaining a source of supply is a full time job for the narcissist. The level of manipulation, seduction, and political shrewedness it takes to cultivate and maintain a supply is honed to absolute perfection." People displaying strong narcissistic traits like autogynephiliacs do also have little to no empathy. As someone who was deemed to have strong narcissistic traits said:
"People are tools to be I use to get what I want. No one cares what a hammer or nail thinks, nor do we even notice anything unique about them unless they don't work right. The only nail I would notice is one that bent when I hit it with a hammer. Just as it should be. Really I was not that callous, but if I could use someone to get me what I wanted, I would. And rarely would I feel guilty about it. I mean if I played you, you should have been paying more attention. You'll get over it."
And as Narcissist and author Sam Vaknin (Malignant Self Love--Narcissism Revisited) says:
' I am aware of the fact that others have emotions, needs, preferences, and priorities - but I simply can't seem to "get it into my mind." There is an invisible partition behind which I watch the rest of Mankind and through which nothing that is human can permeate. I empathize more with my goldfish than with my "nearest and dearest."'
Why this McCarthyism about speaking about "transgenderism" or sex roles, the core tenant of radical feminism? The reason of course is the autogynephiliacs men know that the cult of "transgender" cannot stand up to scrutiny, they are well aware of what they are doing, they know it’s just about reinforcing sex role stereotypes, they know that gays, lesbians and children are being forced into being pathologized for not conforming to sex roles. They know they are dangerous to women and girl children and if any talk about "autogynephilia" or the damage these men’s promotion of "transgender" are doing to lesbian and gay children got out publicly the whole house of cards would fall fairly quickly and they wouldn't be able to carry out their paraphilia in public places. So the only way "transgender" can carry on is if no one can criticise it publicly.
Of course these very sick and disturbed men the autogynephiliacs need help; they need to be assessed as having a dangerous sexual fixation on and of re-enacting the women’s sex role of submission and/or wanting plastic surgery to resemble what they think a woman should look like. They should be treated as any other delusional and/or dangerous man with a sexual paraphilia should be treated. Not enabled by use of plastic surgery, hormones and a change of sex on their birth certificate, so they can carry out their delusional paraphilic fantasies. The complete callous disregard shown to the safety of women and girl children by letting these men "trans" and be allowed in what was women’s only spaces, shows a deep misogyny on behalf of the male medical establishment and the government, that allows these dangerous men to carry out their paraphilia without any regard for the safety of women and girls. The male medical establishment (who by their own admission in the DSM V, it’s even more apparent in the DSM IV, know what these men are like) and the government who pass laws to protect these men’s "rights" to practice their paraphilia, should be ashamed of themselves for enabling this to happen.
There are only two possible reasons why they let these men "trans":
1. They simply don't care about the impact this has on women and girl children and the male medical establishment can make more money off this group of "trans", since these men normally have high paying jobs in IT or the military etc. (Some people may remember the cases of judges being found hung in their homes in the UK in the early 90's dressed in fishnet stockings etc., these men were practicing autoerotic asphyxiation. It just goes to show some of the most powerful men are autogynephiliacs.)
Or 2. By having straight males "trans" they can somewhat hide the real agenda of targeting sex role non-compliant lesbians and gays.
Personally I think it’s a bit of both.
Any self-respecting woman, lesbian woman or gay man (or indeed anyone with any sense or conscience) needs to take a stand now and condemn this dangerous propaganda before they manipulate even more sex role non-compliant children and young people into mutilating themselves. This will in time be viewed as hysterectomy is for "hysteria", sterilisations of the “unfit” and lobotomy are now viewed, and of that there is no doubt. In the meantime how many sex role non-compliant children and young people and gays and lesbians have to be damaged before this mutilating madness ends? How many women and girls have to witness a male exposing himself, or masturbating in front of her, or be secretly taped or have photos of her taken while she is in a changing room in a state of undress or using a toilet, how many women have to be raped, how many little girls have to be molested before this ends? Why does a man’s "right" to practice his sexual fetish trump women’s rights to "safe" spaces and homosexuals and sex role non-compliant children's and young people’s right to learn to be happy in their healthy bodies?
Labour says they going make teaching about "Transgender" (along with gay and lesbian issues) compulsory in schools in its sex and relationships education program, if they are elected. This will lead to more children thinking they are stuck in the "wrong" body if they don't comply with sex roles. If you are a woman please join radical feminists in condemning this sick ideology. If you are a man please form your own group to stop the mutilation of children and young people by this "transgender" craze and to stop putting women, in what are supposed to be women only safe spaces, in danger from these autogynephiliac men.
(Note: I understand some women who are "detransitioning" from being "transmen" or taking testosterone are upset by the use of the word mutilation in connection to the surgeries and hormones inflicted on their bodies. Please know the use of this word in the article below is in no way meant to imply that you are lesser women or are less valuable. I use it only to show the gravity of the situation, not for it to be used as a personal insult. I do think the long term implications of taking testosterone and/or having these surgeries does need to be talked about in an honest direct way though, that doesn't sugar-coat the irreversible effects of going down this path. If we talk about it like it is the same as any other decision then young girls are likely to think, "Well I can experiment with t, what’s the harm, even other women that have stopped it and regret it, don't talk about it being that bad." So that is the reason I use the term mutilation, to try to illustrate how some of the effects are irreversible and very damaging and they will not be able to go back to being as they once were, if they come to regret it. My intention is to try and help girls/ women to see it’s not worth the risk of trying it that is all. It is honestly not my intention to insult anyone who is trying to recover from the effects of this whatsoever. I truly wish you all the best.)
List of crimes committed by “Transgenders" reported by media, in the links below:
Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine
Unpacking Queer politics by Sheila Jeffreys
Gender Hurts by Sheila Jefferys