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.
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”.
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.
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”.
“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.
♦ 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.
In the United States, foreign adoptees are arriving at the rate of one child every 48 minutes. Many of these children traditionally have come from Asian countries, such as Korea. However, within the last ten years Latin America has become a major supplier of adoptable children to the developed world, particularly to the United States. As in Korea, the exporting of children from Latin America to the U.S. has been going on for as long as the U.S. has been politically and militarily involved in the area.
A primary cause of this trafficking in women and children is the ravaging of countries by U.S. supported military and civilian governments. The creation of massive-scale refugee camps, in El Salvador, for example, is the tragic consequences of the country’s U.S. backed civil war. Prostitution, unwanted and abandoned children, are the least talked about results of militarism. And along with war comes the war against women–rape. Unwanted pregnancies from rape by Guatemalan soldiers is one of the three major products of militaristic violence in the Guatemalan highlands. Soldiers often are paid for bringing babies and orphans back to the barracks and passing them on to illegal adoption networks.
The outcrop of U.S. involvement in Central America–in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador–has traditionally been exportable products such as coffee and fruit. Now, women and children have become the most recent cash crops, for sexual and reproductive purposes. In Guatemala, for example, the exporting of children has become the “primary nontraditional product” of the country. Guatemala produces more than 20 million dollars annually in profits from this “product.” Taking the region as a whole, “Latin America ranks first in the sale of children to foreigners”.
Janice G. Raymond. “Children for Organ Export?” Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis 2.3 (1989). 237-245. Internal citations omitted.
the list of proposed books to ban from “gays against gentrification (GAG)” before they deleted their facebook:
-Admission Accomplished - Jill Johnston -Against Sadomasochism - Robin R. Linden, Darlene R. Pagano, Diana E. Russell, Susan Leigh Star -Amazon Odyssey: Collection of Writings - Ti-Grace Atkinson -Buddhism after Patriarchy - Rita M. Gross -The Female Man - Joana Russ -Female Sexual Sl*v*ry - Kathleen Barry -Feminism Unmodified - Catharine A. Mackinnon -First Buddhist Women: Poems and Stories of Awakening Susan Murcott -Gyn/Ecology - Mary Daly -The Idea of Prostitution - Sheila Jeffreys -The Industrial Vagina: The Political Economy of the Global Sex Trade - Sheila Jeffreys -Intercourse - Andrea Dworkin -The Lesbian Heresy - Sheila Jeffreys -Nine Parts of Desire: The Hidden World of Islamic Women - Geraldine Brooks -Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths about Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade - Janice Raymond -Not for Sale: Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography-Of Women Born - Adrienne Rich -Pornography: Men Possessing Women - Andrea Dworkin -Radical Acceptance - Tara Brach -The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism - Janice Raymond -Women As Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women’s Freedom - Janice Raymond
Saying that accepting your trans kid is child abuse when in fact the opposite is true. In fact, not accepting your trans kid leads to a 49% chance of them attempting suicide. (I had a source for this, then I refreshed the page and lost it, sorry)
When asked what they hated most about prostitution and how they survived, the Russian/NIS women consistently described hating that they had been broken spiritually and physically by degrading sexual acts and abusive conditions. Many still carry an excruciating burden of humiliation and shame. Some tried to ply men with drugs so buyers “would forget about sex altogether.” Others used drugs and alcohol to dull and deaden their feelings. Women who reported drug use before entering prostitution also reported a history of sexual, physical and mental abuse prior to as well as within prostitution. Thus, their drug use must be seen in the context of this accretion of abuse. Respondents interviewed in the U.S. country report also stated that prostitution worsened their drug habits, ultimately trapping them further within the sex industry.
Janice G. Raymond et al.A Comparative Study of Women Trafficked in the Migration Process: Patterns, Profiles, and Health Consequences of Sexual Exploitation in Five Countries (Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Venezuela and the United States). (2002).
Search "woman kills trans woman" and every search, EVERY GODDAMN ONE is: trans woman killed, man kills trans woman because he feared masculinity after flirting with her, trans woman murdered, MAN KILLS TRANS WOMAN. Wow. It's almost as if women aren't their problem, but who do they spend time harassing????
Ah but you see according to many genderists those men kill transwomen because they’re extremely well-versed in Germaine Greer and Janice Raymond because feminists are apparently that powerful and influential.
You know, I’m sure there are people reading this and saying to themselves, “What do you mean, ban on funding trans healthcare? There was a ban?”
Yes, there was a ban. In 1980, based upon the information presented by one woman, Janice Raymond, author of the recently published at that time anti-trans screed, “The Transsexual Empire”, the National Center for Healthcare Technology blocked all funding for transition-related surgeries, which caused a cascading effect throughout the healthcare and health insurance industries, until no transition-related care whatsoever would be covered.
Think about that. Based on the known-biased opinion of one person, the federal government changed course, cutting off millions of trans people for accessing life-saving healthcare for the next 34 years. And you probably didn’t even know about it.
Where would the acceptance of trans women be today in 2014, if for the past 34 years, we had been able to access the the care we needed? Where would medical technology have progressed? How many trans people would not have committed suicide? We know that trans people attempt suicide at a rate over 25 times that of the general population. And those are only the ones we can count because they didn’t succeed. How many trans women would not have been murdered?
Today, we finally saw that ban rescinded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the descendent of the NCHCT, at least in part, but it is the removal of that blanket ban which is the crack which will ultimately cause the dykes to burst under the pressure of the tide of conscience.
Today, the arc of history at long last bent toward justice for all women, not just some. Beginning today, we will speak not of justice delayed, not of justice denied, but of justice fulfilled, of justice upheld.
I can not even begin to express my thanks that Janice Raymond lived to see this day, so that one day, she will go to her grave knowing that despite her best efforts to destroy us, in the end she lost. Upon her soul lie the countless numbers of women whose lives she could have saved, but instead extinguished, in the name of feminism.
A new day has dawned in America. We have moved that much closer to the promise of freedom for all that was made to us 238 years ago, and again 149 years ago, and again 50 years ago. The tide has turned, and now we can truly say that the day will soon come when all trans women, all trans people, will receive the care they need in the moment when the need is discovered, to the best of our abilities.
I did write that the transsexual does not really change sex at all. But this does not mean that gender is immutable; it means that men cannot become women via hormones and surgery. My view is that, using Woodhouse’s own words, the male-to-female transsexual is a “fantastic woman,” the incarnation of a male fantasy of feeling like a woman trapped in a man’s body, the fantasy rendered flesh by a further male medical fantasy of surgically fashioning a male body into a female one. These fantasies are based in the male imagination, not in any female reality. It is this female reality that the surgically-constructed woman does not possess, not because women innately carry some essence of femininity but because these men have not had to live in a female body with all the history that entails. It is that history that is basic to female reality, and yes, history is based to a certain extent on female biology.
Janice G. Raymond. The Transsexual Empire, Introduction to the 1994 Edition. Teachers College Press, 1994. xi-xxxv.
The conservative view of prostitution is to blame women and girls for their alleged choice to be in prostitution; the liberal view is to romanticize the women’s “choice” as self-determination and to use it to normalize prostitution as “sex-work”. Both succumb to the belief that whatever happens to a woman in prostitution is normal because it’s her choice. Both of these views have facilitated the expansion of sexual slavery in many parts of the globe and the extensive ways in which women themselves become “goods and services”. –as prostituted women, as trafficked instruments of exchange, as objects of sex tourism, and as indentured domestic workers who are often sexually exploited as well.
Denying or minimalizing women’s victimization in prostitution reverses decades of feminist activism that finanally broke the wall of societal denial that women are victims of male violence. Now that head-way has been made in the campaign that domestic violence against women, whether women choose to stay in abusive relationships or not, it comes back to haunt us in the prostitution debate, not only from those who want to suppress women’s rights, but also those who claim to seek to enhance women’s rights.
When violence happens to women in prostitution, it is called sex, but when violence happens in a context that is not sexual, it is called a crime. Men’s prostitution abuse is tolerated as inevitable and unassailable.
Janice G. Raymond, from Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths about Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade
Recently I was talking with one of my straight friends about sex and she kinda implied that it was like morally wrong or anti-feminist or whatever for me to want hot girlz to ******* & ***** me & **** my **** but really 1. I’m not a feminist I’m a tranny. Read more Janice Raymond if u don’t get why that’s not compatible 2. Who cares about morality this isn’t the 1800’s 3. u fuck men u can’t really act superior on this
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 G. Raymond, Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths about Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade
Which Hillary surrogate has been campaigning to limit transition access?
Gloria Steinem did, in the 70′s and 80′s, as a Democratic Party Elder, whose support of Janice Raymond brought her paper on the efficacy of transition to the top of a one-paper-pile, and was later used as the basis for federal cartelization of insurers and never acknowledged the harm she did, beyond a limited hangout in the Advocate in 2013, which didn’t even touch on the policy legacy she left behind, just that her words were hurtful. Her excuse is terrible by the by, when the cisfeminist she promoted was clearly targeting queer trans women with her chapter “Sappho by Surgery” Steinem, who took 36 years and a major policy regime to apologize, never mentioned her support of Raymond in the apology and said she was worried about the cis*GLs who’d be forced to transition… ignoring that for some, it’s liberation.
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).