Hey, other trans women. Here’s the deal

Very few terfs are actually innocently mislead. 

This isn’t some kind of liberal you’re dealing with who is operating under denial and tries to be a decent person to some level at least.

These people are on the same level as westboro baptist churchers. They want trans women eradicated. Destroyed. Literally “morally mandated out of existence” (as Janice Raymond wrote).

They want us dead.

They can not be reasoned with. They can’t be convinced. They can’t be made to see reality. They will, even if you attempt gentle communication, work to hurt you. They will work to abuse you. They will work to do as much harm as possible in the hopes that they can either cow you to their genocidal viewpoint or harm you enough to defend yourself so they can claim you were a “violent dangerous male”.

The only purpose for communicating with a terf is to tear apart their rhetoric for others to see. Make it clear that they’re wrong to others. You’re not here to convince them. It’s not worth the cost of trauma to you. 

Seriously, it’s not worth it. Don’t expose yourself to it. If you have to engage, do it swiftly, rip their crap apart and then block and move on. They are out to hurt you. And enough of us die every day, enough of us suffer every day, for any of us to go into hell willingly. 

Please just don’t do it.

Radical feminists have never denied the agency of women under conditions of oppression. But radical feminists have located women’s agency, women’s making of choices, in resistance to those oppressive institutions, not in women’s assimilation to them.
—  Janice G. Raymond, “Sexual and Reproductive Liberalism”.

If one more person tells me that being trans isn’t a medical disorder I swear to god.

If being trans is no longer recognized as a medical issue by the government then I get a one way ticket to Pay-For-All-My-Surgeries-Myself-With-No-Help-From-Insurance-Because-It’ll-Be-Deemed-As-Cosmetic-ville. Don’t kid yourself that I’ll still be covered if its demedicalized.

(And I’m lucky to even have insurance that covers my trans related expenses - thanks Janice Raymond, Paul Mchugh, and miscellaneous 1980s Trans Hating Radical Femmunists™ that lead to trans people losing their insurance coverage for decades.)

Gender dysphoria, which is what you have when you’re trans, causes you enough stress to the point that you need to seek medical intervention, generally speaking. Which means that it is a medical issue.

Spouting off the rhetoric that being trans isn’t a medical disorder for the sake of “ending stigma” does nothing and actually adversely effects trans people who are relying on insurance to cover their life saving surgeries and hormonal treatment. Example: Phalloplasty costs anywhere from $30k-$100k depending on the surgeon and what country its done in. In the US you’ll probably be looking at the $100k mark. I’d rather not pay for that out of pocket.

I get that you mean well but really you’re just showing your ignorance on an issue that you should not be weighing in on.

And I don’t mean that as “no non-trans person should have an opinion on trans issues” because 1. plenty of non-trans people are well versed on the complex issues we face and are probably better equipped to address said issues than a lot of trans people and 2. this message is also directed at trans people.

To expose the victimization of women by men is to be blamed for
creating it and for making women into passive victims. The liberals fail to recognize that women’s victimization can be acknowledged without labeling women passive. Passive and victim do not necessarily go together. It is the liberals who equate victimization with passivity. It is they who devise this equation […] It seems obvious that one can recognize women as victims of surrogacy, pornography, and prostitution without stripping them of agency and without depriving them of some ability to act under oppressive conditions.
—  Janice G. Raymond, “Sexual and Reproductive Liberalism”.

If women really choose prostitution, why is it mostly marginalized and disadvantaged women who do? If we want to discuss the issue of choice, let’s look at who is doing the actual choosing in the context of prostitution. Surely the issue is not why women allegedly choose to be in prostitution, but why men choose to buy the bodies of millions of women and children worldwide and call it sex.

Philosophically, the response to the choice debate is ‘not’ to deny that women are capable of choosing within contexts of powerlessness, but to question how much real value, worth, and power these so-called choices confer.

Politically, the question becomes, should the state sanction the sex industry based on the claim that some women choose prostitution when most women’s choice is actually ‘compliance’ to the only options available?

When governments idealize women’s alleged choice to be in prostitution by legalizing, decriminalizing, or regulating the sex industry, they endorse a new range of 'conformity’ for women.

Increasingly, what is defended as a choice is not a triumph over oppression but another name for it.

—  Janice Raymond
Once sex-role oppression is given the name of transsexualism, and institutionalized in the gender identity clinics, and realized by hormone and surgical treatment, the “ condition” of transsexualism itself explains why one would have the wrong mind in the wrong body. Why? Because one is a transsexual. This classification bestows sense on all the disparate and atomic experiences that once seemed so unfathomable. It functions to mask ethical issues and normative statements that raise themselves very pointedly in the case of transsexualism.
—  The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male (Janice Raymond)

autumnal-dawn  asked:

Hi! I was wondering if you wouldn't mind educating me about the phrase "compulsory heterosexuality"? I'm wondering what about that is terfy or transphobic. I've used the phrase before and I didn't know that it was a phrase that was exclusionary and that's the last thing I want to be, so I'd like to be educated on the subject so I can share it with others who I know have used it too. Thanks!!

If you go to my tag “compulsory heterosexuality”, you’ll see some trans women and transfeminine ppl explaining it a lot better than I could.

Essentially, it was coined by Adrienne Rich, who was a huge TERF. (As in, helped-Janice-Raymond-write-her-infamous-book type TERF.) She believed that all (cis) women can and should be lesbian, and coined the term to explain away bisexuality. (Oh, there are women who experience attraction to women *and* men? They’re just lesbians experiencing “compulsory heterosexuality”!) Even without the whole biphobia thing, many trans women have talked about the importance of not normalizing terms and other things that were created by TERFs.

I know lots of lesbians (including myself) have gone through a period in life where they truly believed they were attracted to men, because the idea that women have to be attracted to men is so ingrained in our heteropatriarchal society. But there are other words (like “internalized heteronormativity/homophobia/lesbophobia” or “coercive heteronormativity”) that we can use to describe that.

Last year I was talking to my mother about religion, at one point we were discussing how we thought one of the main points of lutero’s whole conundrum was erasing women even more from christiniaty, anyways, I was in the middle of a passionate description of how protestants went after nuns with a special vicious hate (I had read about in a Janice Raymond book)… and there comes my father, who was apparently listening to everything, with tears in his eyes, taken by rage and says: YOU KNOW YOU WERE BORN FROM MY SPERM.

olivia records & sandy stone

olivia records was founded in 1973 specifically to produce and market women’s music. the collective was founded by ten lesbian feminists from washington, d.c. (they later moved to l.a. and then to oakland). while the collective did moderately well and produced many albums, including “lesbian concentrate,” a collection of songs and poetry which benefitted the lesbian mothers national defense fund, they are also remembered for rejecting melissa ethridge, who went on to become one of the most successful lesbian musicians of all time. the two concerts they performed at carnegie hall in 1988 were the highest grossing at that venue in history at the time, but were barely mentioned by the new york times. 

from 1974-1978 sandy stone (pictured above, at work) was olivia’s sound engineer. she recorded and mixed all of olivia’s music during this period. stone, a trans woman, was subjected to negative and transphobic attacks during this period from some in the mainstream lesbian community. janice raymond, a lesbian feminist scholar, was particularly vicious and attempted to out stone to olivia records and described her as a “male” working for an all-women’s record company. the collective responded by publicly defending stone in various feminist publications of the time. stone continued as a member of the collective and continued to record olivia artists but eventually left after pressure from a book written by raymond, the transsexual empire, (essentially an attack on stone) and the community became too much. 

stone went on to collaborate with donna haraway on a response to raymond’s book called the empire strikes back: a posttranssexual manifesto, which has been called “the protean text from which contemporary transgender studies emerged.”

(a slightly unrelated but nonetheless interesting fact: in the late 80s stone bought herself a computer and taught herself how to code, and became a freelance coder, which was no small feat). 

Janice Raymond from "The transsexual Empire" (1979) : Sappho by Surgery: The Transsexually Constructed Lesbian-Feminist

♦ For a long time, I have been very hesitant about devoting a chapter of this book to w hat I call the “ transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist. ” In the order this book was written , it was actually the last chapter I wrote. The recent debate and divisiveness that the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist has produced within feminist circles has convinced me that, while transsexually constructed lesbian-feminists may be a small percentage of transsexuals, the issue needs an in-depth discussion among feminists.

I write this chapter with the full realization that feminists look at the issue of the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist from the vantage point of a small community in which transsexuals have been able to be very visible—not because there are that many of them , but because they immediately have center stage. 

Keep reading

“The world is what women make of it. This point is crucial—we must make something of it. This presupposes some kind of location in the ordinary world of human affairs, much of which is male-created. Friendship provides a point of crystallization for living in the ordinary world, not the pretense for exiting from it. Friendship does not automatically convey the means of living in the world or of making women into world-builders, but it does provide a location in that world.” 

-Janice Raymond, Passion for Friends, Toward a Philosophy of Female

As long as women acquiesce in the formation of… what I would name hetero-reality—the channeling of female love, power, and energy into men—nothing will change radically. Until women “mother” women to love and care for other women, the system of hetero-reality will not be transformed.
—  Janice G. Raymond. “Female Friendship: Contra Chodorow and Dinnerstein.” Hypatia 1.2 (1986). 37-48.
peak trans: gnc woman? must be a man!

“Trans people should have the right to employment and housing and health care and should not be subject to violence. Of course!”

Yes, I agree. But that’s where it stops. It is unreasonable for them to expect the rest of the world to submit to their gaslighting, nor to re-write reality for their feelings or to consent to live in their Orwellian world. They have the right to live in their fantasy worlds, but they don’t have the right to try to make the rest of us live there, too.

My “click” moment was back in the late 70s when I read the FtT memoir, “Emergence” by Mario Martino. In this book Martino goes on about not liking the things women are expected to do and not to do and wanting to do the things that men are allowed to do, concluding “Become a lady? I would not!”

Growing up as a tomboy in the 60s and 70s, I’d uttered those very words and bristled at the notion of having to conform to “femininity”. Yet, I never, not for one moment, thought I had to become a man in order to avoid becoming a “feminine lady”. I knew right then that trans philosophy failed the logic test badly. I was able to read Janice Raymond’s “The Transsexual Empire” not long after it was published, which further confirmed thoughts I’d already been having.


Ultimately transsexual surgery reinforces social conformity by encouraging the individual to become an agreeable participant in a role-defined society, substituting one sex role stereotype for the other. The medical solution becomes a. “social tranquilizer” reinforcing sexism and its foundation of sex-role conformity.
—  The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male (Janice Raymond)