Check out this “queer” academic word salad

This was distributed on a listserv and forwarded to me by a friend. It’s a call for papers for a symposium on “queer citizenship and vulnerability” at the University of California.

“This symposium seeks to explore the interdisciplinary navigations of queer citizenship, of queer creative spaces, of queer protest and praxis. How is queer citizenship a renegotiation or a normative performance of both time and space? Can we embrace the queer child as the futurity that Kathryn Bond Stockton and Paul Amar suggest? Does this child require the visibility of the queer in the archive? Can the queer child be regarded as the ideal citizen of the world, whose appearance defies the mythos of trickster, nymphet and changeling? How does the contemporary and historical criminalization of the queer and rendering of the *deviant* present a carnal hermeneutic to be recuperated or resisted? What activisms can queer scholarship and subjectivity embrace and require to live well. How can queer bodies be regarded as sites that exceed time and space, as queer cartographies of becoming? How does living well require an erotics of power that requires living from and through, or against, the flesh?

Possible presentation topics include (but are not limited to) the following:

– Engagements of gender and sexuality
– Post-humanism and the non-human
– Sites and systems of surveillance
– Queer interventions in religion, philosophy, and theology
– Narratives of resistance, captivity, and those that are hidden, silenced, or hitherto untold
– Translation and cross-cultural, cross-national, cross species communication
– Bare life and non-life
– Historical engagements with pathologization of Queer identities and practices
– Contemporary cultural studies and the cyber-culture of queer
– Fleshed experience of gender, sexuality, and race in a global arena
– Sovereignty and the bio(necro)politics of the vulnerable
– Liminal existence and the well-being of vulnerable communities.
– Migration and transmigration, embodiments of resistance and refugee status
– Sociology and gender and sexuality”

I’m not going to do a thorough analysis of this. Queer theory is not even a thing worth trying to understand. It’s vague, bizarre, academic jargon that makes its practitioners feel cool and hip but means nothing to anybody outside their circle.

I will just point you to a few things.

  • Why are these adult academics romanticizing the queer child rather than queer adult?
  • The word nymphet means “A pubescent girl regarded as sexually desirable.”
  • They say the “queer child” defies the mythos of the nymphet. We have several examples of “queer children” in the form of “trans girls” being promoted by the media, most notably Jazz Jennings. Are children like this defying the myth of the nymphet or are they actually being a nymphet? And once again, why are adults in the academy theorizing about this? And why is this even happening?
  • Hermeneutic means interpretation, so I can only imagine that a carnal hermeneutic is interpreting meaning through the body? ….okay….
  • Isn’t it hilarious that queer bodies can “exceed time and space”? (I’m picturing a queer-looking anime kid with blue hair floating through space being so radically queer that ze doesn’t even exist in this dimension anymore.)
  • Isn’t “living against the flesh” a perfect description of transgender politics?
  • Is the end result of queer theory that we’ll all get rid of our bodies altogether and just upload our radical transgressive speshulness to the Internet to exist as supercool anime characters of our own creation without being encumbered by burdensome flesh?
  • What could “cross-species communication” mean? (Or do I even want to know?)

This is so creepy and weird it looks like satire, but it’s a real actual symposium, and if you want to submit a paper, I’ll send you the details!

Transwoman makes some TERFy points about Danielle Muscato

Ha! A transwoman with a YouTube channel (and who has a really porny idea of what a woman is, BTW), has made a video calling out Danielle Muscato’s bullshit. Interestingly enough, he makes the same points I made about Danielle Muscato! Theryn Meyer—TERF? LOL

Transwomen know what a woman is—an adult human female—and they try their damndest to look like one. Meyer knows that Muscato is not a transwoman, he’s just a dude who’s trolling the trans community. Meyer says that when someone has a female gender identity, he takes steps to look like a woman. If you don’t take any steps to look like a woman, that indicates you don’t have a female gender identity. A man who looks like a man and actually has gender dysphoria won’t want to keep looking like a man! Trans people know this.

Danielle Muscato is just a walking, talking peak trans. He is proof that people will take anyone’s professed identity seriously no matter how far removed from reality it is. Even Meyer doesn’t want to call him by female pronouns. He even says almost the exact same thing I said to Daniel recently regarding people refusing to name what they see with their own eyes:

“It scares me that people are willing to betray with their words the obvious reality that they see in front of their eyes for the sake of political correctness.”

But wait! If we don’t have to call Muscato a woman, then why do we have to call other non-passing transwomen women? Like I asked before:

If you don’t think that Muscato is a woman,
(a) Why not? If he identifies as one can’t he be one?
(b) What’s the difference between a “TERF” not recognizing a trans person’s identity and you not recognizing Muscato’s identity?

This transwoman Meyer isn’t recognizing Muscato’s gender identity which means he is TWANZPHOBIC. Just as transphobic as the TERFs, obviously!

All you have to do is sit back and enjoy the show, because trans ideology eats itself.

Trans* Exterminationist Radicalicalized Females

Sometimes trolls can be entertaining. There is someone who writes for Portland Independent Media Center who has a habit of writing really hilarious hyperbole about what he thinks radical feminists are like. He sounds no different from any other MRA when he tells outright lies about feminists, misrepresents our position, and pretends as though we are advocating for exterminating people. I’m not going to link, just in case the pingback brings a whole bunch of trolls over here, but if you Google this quote you’ll find the page.

Make America TERF Again
TERF’s are already gloating and rejoicing over Donald Trump’s cabinet picks.
https: //www.reddit.com/ r/GenderCritical/ comments /5edznh/silverlining_in_the_2016_presidential_election/
The term “TERF” (Trans* Exterminationist Radicalicalized Females) was invented only because real radical feminists had enough when a small group of self-radicalized vagina-worshipers began calling themselves feminists and promoting terrorism and genocide against Trans* women.
TERF’s may try to fool people into thinking they are feminists, but they are agents of the alt-right. That’s why TERF’s must be named and called out every day. No, we won’t quit.

Oh, man. Trans Exterminationist Radicalized Females. Well, radicalized females is right! When females witness the removal of our rights by MRAs in dresses, you bet we become radicalized. But Exterminationist? No feminists are calling for extermination of trans people. No feminist has ever killed a trans person. We’re not about killing people, we’re about protecting women’s rights. The people who actually kill trans people are MEN. Trans activists do not want to acknowledge the epidemic of male violence, even though it’s harming their community. They are completely against looking at the reality of male socialization and toxic masculinity that causes men to want to kill transwomen. They cannot put together the fact that radical feminists are against the very same toxic masculinity that is hurting them. They will not acknowledge the fact that a lot of the trans women who are killed are in the sex trade and that it’s johns killing them. They won’t acknowledge that johns are violent and that they are violent toward anyone in the sex trade, whether male or female. No male violence may be acknowledged in any way by trans activists. Instead, they yell at women, who aren’t killing them, for being “exterminationist.” Why? Because we understand human reproductive anatomy, and our understanding of the reality of human beings is allegedly “killing” them. Note that tons of men also understand human reproductive anatomy, but male authors of biology textbooks that call the penis a male organ aren’t getting slandered as TERFs, no-platformed, and sent death threats. That behaviour is only directed at women. That’s how we know that trans activism is a male supremacist and misogynist political group.

Terrorism and genocide? Name one example of any woman committing genocide, for fuck sake. However, if you want to see an act of terrorism, take a look at transwoman Dana Rivers, who has long hated the fact that lesbians want spaces for women only, and who actually murdered two lesbians and their son. That is an actual act of terrorism—a violent male making it clear that he hates lesbians and then actually killing lesbians. But trans activists will not call this an act of terrorism, and instead they go around the internet yelling at women who report that Dana Rivers was male. They are more concerned about the “gender identity” of male terrorists than about the violence they inflict on actual women.

It’s kind of amusing that this troll says TERFs are gloating over Trump’s cabinet picks, when the very first sentence in the link he provides says “I am a Democrat and I abhor just about everything that’s happening right now with Donald Trump and his cabinet appointments.” Yeah, that sure sounds like we’re “gloating,” right?

This stuff about radical feminists being right-wing is insane. Radical feminists are pro-feminist, pro-lesbian, pro-abortion, and are generally socialist and anti-capitalist. We are generally atheists. Sometimes radfems have a woman-centered spirituality but this certainly doesn’t look like the authoritarian, male-centered religions of the right. Calling us right-wing demonstrates that the speaker doesn’t know anything about us at all and has no interest in the truth.

I really, really love the above quote from a silly troll, because of the words “self-radicalized vagina-worshippers.” HELL YEAH. What could be better than worshipping vaginas? (Well, maybe worshipping the clitoris would be better, but, you know, the intent is the same.) Hell yeah I worship vaginas, both literally and figuratively.

And on behalf of self-radicalized vagina worshippers everywhere, I promise to keep on calling out male violence every day. No, we won’t quit.

vagina-worshippers

“Femme is radical,” says transwoman

A transwoman who calls himself a “lesbian” explains that “Femme is Radical, and Femme-Shaming Isn’t Feminist.”

The first time I read this article, I just thought it was a hilarious bit of liberal “feminism,” but then it was pointed out to me that this author is not female! Now it’s even better!

The author calls himself “femme,” so I have to say a quick word about that before I continue. The word “femme” is used in two different ways in the lesbian/gay community. An actual lesbian (meaning a female homosexual) who calls herself femme is referring to a lesbian-specific personality type where she has feminine traits and is attracted to butches. For us, “femme” does not refer to a specific clothing style or haircut, it refers to a personality, although we may also look feminine. The word ‘femme,’ or often ‘high femme,’ when used by gay men refers to a feminine presentation worn by a drag queen, and this has much more to do with hairstyle, clothing and makeup—it’s an exaggerated superficial femininity. This author, however, is attracted to women, so neither of these homo-specific terms describes him. He’s not a lesbian, because lesbians are female, and he’s not a gay man, because he’s attracted to women. He would be more accurately described as an autogynephile— a heterosexual male who “becomes what he loves.”

Pictures of him on social media present him as someone fully transitioned and looking very much like a woman. I’m guessing he probably passes for female around strangers until he speaks. His partner is a “queer” woman.

All right, here’s the article. Let the train wreck begin!

“I’m going to let you in on a little secret: I’m femme
Okay, so that’s not really all that shocking–I’m sitting here in a coffee shop, wearing a low-cut red sweater dress and knee-high boots. It should also, however, not come as a surprise that I am a feminist. The idea of a girl with straight-passing privilege who displays traits commonly associated with femininity, does not fit most people’s’ paper cut-out image of an iconic feminist. It’s 2016 and feminism is still conflated with bra-burning, hardline man-hating politics, and utilitarian fashion. I am none of the above.”

Only idiots are conflating feminism with bra-burning, because that never actually happened, and the people who claim it did are people who prefer to promote myths rather than understand the history of the women’s movement. Somehow I’m not surprised that a male autogynephile doesn’t want to be a part of a “hardline man-hating” movement. Ha! No kidding!

“I’ve always been the kind of girl who believes wholeheartedly in fighting the good fight, albeit without breaking a nail. I try to live by core tenets: promoting social equality, loving myself, defying oppressive gender norms, etc.”

LOLz! Of course he doesn’t want to break a nail in order to fight for women’s rights. What man would? And LOL again at the idea that one of the core tenets of feminism is “loving myself.” Feminism is a movement to liberate women from oppression, not a movement for men to paint their nails and love themselves. You’re confusing feminism with autogynephilia.

I also like how he’s “defying oppressive gender norms” by wearing the oppressive gender norms assigned to women. News flash: men fetishizing women’s oppression doesn’t challenge women’s oppression!

“Yet, despite all this, I’ve been shamed for being a “bad feminist” and reinforcing gender norms rather than defying them.”

Well, yeah, if you think feminism is about painting your nails and loving yourself, then you definitely are a bad feminist, since you don’t even know the first thing about feminism! However, since you are male, I would say you’re not a feminist at all. Men who are in favor of the liberation of women from oppression should be called “pro-feminist” or “feminist allies,” and men who have a fetish for women’s oppression should be called “MRAs.”

“There are some radical feminists who perceive being femme as sympathizing with the oppressors; a reinforcement of negative feminine stereotypes and not a legitimate feminist expression.”

Let me clarify a few things about this. Feminism is not about policing people’s personal choices, it’s about making the world safer for women by doing things like making it possible for women to control our own bodies and stopping violence against women. Whether or not a woman has makeup on while she’s doing this important work is irrelevant. When you eliminate sexist requirements in terms of appearance for women, you find that far fewer women want to wear makeup and high heels, because those weren’t things we wanted in the first place. For lots of us they are uncomfortable, unnecessary, costly and time-consuming. Feminists do want women to be able to be comfortable. However, if a woman enjoys wearing a dress and earrings while doing anti-violence work, no sane person would kick her out of feminism. I certainly wouldn’t! It’s not people’s clothing that’s important, it’s the content of their character. I only think that women are reinforcing negative stereotypes about women and complying with patriarchy when they’re artificially trying to look and act like men’s idea of a pornified woman. I know that some women do that, but I’m not in the business of scrutinizing women’s appearance and kicking them out of feminism for wearing the wrong thing. I am not interested in defining what is a “legitimate feminist expression” because feminism is not a movement for us to express ourselves through fashion choices.

“Femme-shaming is more than an abstract concept–for many women it is an all too tangible and traumatizing reality.”

Really? I’m supposed to believe that there are all sorts of women who are going around traumatized because someone shamed their desire to paint their nails? Hogwash! This is gender-compliant behavior for women, so no one shames us for it. However, people do shame women for not being feminine enough. And people also shame men for being too feminine. This guy might have been shamed for his femininity and he might be traumatized by the shaming he’s received, because that would be gender noncompliant behavior for a man. He might have been able to say something useful here if he acknowledged that he received his so-called “femme-shaming” as a boy.

“Though it is often associated with radical feminist circles who regard femmes as not feminist enough,”

Nope. Feminists do not regard feminine women as “not feminist enough.” We just identify that the enforcement of artificial, male-defined constructions of femininity are a part of our oppression as women.

“the real roots of femme-shaming stem from centuries of misogyny. At the core of femme-shaming belies femmephobia, a fear of all things associated with women: their bodies, their sexuality, etc. It reinforces the patriarchal dogma that being male and/or masculine is superior, and being female, or feminine, is shameful and inferior.”

The fear of all things associated with women is called misogyny, not “femme-phobia.” This paragraph makes no sense when applied to women. Women aren’t shamed for being feminine, we are forced to be feminine, whether we like it or not. However, if you consider that the author is male, it makes more sense. The reason that he was shamed for being a feminine boy is because femininity is considered inferior and femininity gets beaten out of boys.

“Femme-shaming oppresses not only women, but any gender-variant person who doesn’t equate their personal empowerment to masculine presentation. This brutal way of thinking stratifies people into a kyriarchal caste system according to their biological sex, forcing them into corresponding boxes of gender norms; arbitrarily socializing people in ways that betray their authentic selves.”

Huh?

“To be clear, I am not femme because I am a woman, rather, I am femme because I am a feminist who is self-empowered to express herself and make choices according to her personal preferences, even if some of those preferences coincide with the patriarchy’s superficial notions of appropriate feminine behaviour. What is more feminist than standing up for the right for women to be and self-identify in ways that honour their authentic selves? Yes, I may like haute couture fashion, makeup, and ponies, however, I do so, not as a woman, but as my own self.”

Oh god, make it stop! Feminism is not a personal lifestyle choice that makes women feel “empowered” by their “choices!” That would be neo-liberal individualism.

“A few days ago I met with a good friend of mine, one hell of a badass lady whom I’ve always admired for her strength and punky attitude. She was lucky enough to come of age in the early 90s, at the peak of riot grrrl and third-wave feminism. We’ve always managed to have really great discussions on this subject; on this particular day, however, the conversation turned a bit sour. I’ve recently forayed into the wonderful world of long nails -1.25 inches long to be exact; however, despite my own excitement, my friend was less than enthusiastic. “You need new, stronger female role models”, she said. As if to suggest that my desire to have long nails is a concession to misogynistic socialization and a betrayal to respectable feminist values.”

The fact that you bring it up yourself tells me that you already know you are “conceding to misogynistic socialization” and “betraying feminist values.” For the record, if I met with a friend and she had long nails, I wouldn’t say a word about it. Who cares? I wouldn’t tell her she needs better role models based on her fingernails for fuck’s sake, how weird is that?

“I love my friend, and I know that her intention is not to be cruel, however, femme shaming, whether intentional or not, hurts. In fact it hurts everyone, not just those being directly shamed. Women challenging other women for being femme is rooted in the same misogynistic processes behind toxic masculinity and men policing one another’s behavior for signs of “effeminacy”. Why do feminists scoff at Kleenex for men but then bully one another for long nails or lipstick?”

Well, I would scoff at Kleenex for men because that sounds like a marketing gimmick to try to get men to buy a product that they consider to be for women, even though all of us have noses. Also, I wouldn’t bully someone for long nails or lipstick.

“For feminists to argue that women’s choices are the product of socialization, when they coincide with traditional femininity, suggests that such women are incapable of independent thought. A similar argument would suggest that my proclivity for spicy food is also a product of my having been socialized as Mexican. There may be some truth to this idea of socialization, but people are capable of making their own choices. My choice to wear long nails may be partly influenced by the way that I was socialized, and it may also coincide with misogynist expectations of women, however it is my choice which I made through thoughtful analysis of pros and cons. In this case I chose in favour of my own aesthetic preference, knowing full well that they can be impractical and invite unwanted attention from disapproving feminists and chauvinist trolls alike.”

You made a pro and con list before getting your nails done?

Socialization does encourage people to behave in certain ways. That doesn’t mean they’re incapable of thought, it just means they have been influenced to think a certain way.

“In 1973, Janice Raymond, wrote The Transsexual Empire. The name itself is heinous, let alone the transphobic rhetoric it espouses, which continues to this day among a small circle of radical feminists, TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists). Much of TERF thinking circles the argument that trans women engage in mimicry of feminine behaviour and that they do so by reinforcing genderist attitudes that further marginalize cis-gender women. They also go so far as to say that trans women set back feminism by promoting an agenda of “colonizing womanhood.”

It just wouldn’t be a good libfem article without mentioning how evil the TERFs are! He actually seems to understand our position, cool! Yeah, trans women do engage in mimicry of feminine behavior in order to prop up their identities, and this does reinforce sexism. In fact, the author describes himself doing just that! The trans community really is good at proving our points for us.

“Transphobia is femmephobia. At the core of these concepts is a general prejudice against women veiled behind anti-patriarchy rhetoric. At the core of these concepts is a general prejudice against women veiled behind anti-patriarchy rhetoric. These attitudes hurt trans and cis-gender women alike, by invalidating our choices and delegitimizing us as women and feminists because of those choices. Policing women’s fashion and aesthetic choices to justify their womanliness, is not unlike suggesting that short skirts and high heels justify rape. Patriarchy is wrong, and shaming women under the guise of feminist dogma is also wrong. Furthermore, it only serves to foster stigmatization of feminism as extreme, which in turn repels women who might otherwise be drawn to it. We should all be rallying behind the real threats, those posed by centuries of misogyny and oppression: wage gaps, glass ceilings, rape culture, violence against women, etc.”

No, no, no. Understanding human reproductive anatomy doesn’t come from a “general prejudice against women.” This is a load of incoherent rubbish. Those people you label as TERFs are doing the exact opposite of “policing women’s fashion and aesthetic choices to justify their womanliness.” We are saying that all adult human females are women, regardless of their fashion choices. No one gets judged on their degree of womanliness, we’re all worthy of the title woman no matter our personalities or sense of style. Further, understanding human reproductive anatomy and wanting to liberate women from oppression is not ‘extreme,’ it’s quite reasonable. What is ‘extreme,’ though, is drastically modifying your body in order to pretend to be someone you’re not for the rest of your life.

“Dressing femininely, wearing long nails and makeup, and regularly updating my handbag wishlist board on pinterest is my way of expressing myself, not just as femme, but as a self-empowered feminist. I wear skirts like picket signs. My being femme, in a society that persistently marginalizes women, is my radical protest. Femme is my way of telling the world, “you may judge me, you may objectify me, and you may even take me less seriously as an intelligent person for the way that I look, but you will not determine my identity. You can keep your opinions and I will keep my style.”

Nah, sorry dude, but updating your Pinterest doesn’t bring you any sort of power, wearing clothes doesn’t dismantle systems of oppression, and feminism isn’t about “expressing yourself.”

“I know that wearing my hair long and my dresses short invites unwanted attention and catcalling, but I don’t allow those things to keep me from going out and being myself, though I do avoid the dark and empty streets. Why should I allow femme-shaming to define me anymore than I allow misogyny to do the same? I wear my style with intentionality, and I owe accountability to no one other than myself. In much the same way as we stand up to misogynists who dictate to us how we should look and behave, we must also stand up to femme-shamers who would have us think that being a good feminist means compromising our authenticity.

I’m proud to be femme, not because it’s better than any other form of gender expression, but because it is my true expression. I am also proud to see other women who blur society’s gender lines by redefining what it means to be feminine. After all, being a feminist isn’t about living up to a specific ideal of femininity, it’s about being able to define femininity personally and for ourselves – one size does not fit all. Whether femme, butch, tomboy, trans, cis, straight, queer, and anything around or in-between, we are strong and -we- are radical.”

Nope, feminism isn’t about “defining femininity personally for ourselves.” It’s a movement to liberate all people who are female from sex-based oppression. You have absolutely no idea what feminism is, and what you’re promoting is actually neo-liberalism: a political agenda that takes us away from class consciousness and away from a material analysis of structural oppression, and limits us to looking at individual “empowerment” and choices in a way that leaves systems of power intact and ultimately benefits capitalist patriarchy.

No thanks, dude!

Do you have pronoun privilege?

An article in the New York Times talks about those silly pronoun-sharing circles that people have to do now in meetings with social justice types and at universities. It’s now considered a “privilege” if you use the correct pronouns for your sex.

A quick note about “privilege,” before I get to the article. Privilege is the flip side of oppression, and it occurs when one group of people has material power over another group of people. Men, as a group, have privilege over women, as a group, because they are at the top of the sex hierarchy, they have material power over women, and they have the ability to extract resources from us. White people, as a group, also have privilege over people of colour, as a group, because we have material power to enact violence against people of colour without facing any repercussions, and we also have the ability to extract resources from them. Oppression happens on a structural level. It’s worked into the system.

People who use the correct pronouns for their sex do not have material power, as a group, over people who do not use the correct pronouns for their sex. People who understand the English language and human reproductive anatomy do not have any power to extract resources from people who invent identities for themselves. This situation does not constitute privilege and oppression, it’s merely a bunch of whiners who are upset that people don’t want to play a silly game with them. Universities should be teaching what privilege and oppression actually are, not confusing people over a very important social issue and turning it into something silly.

Moving right along to the article.

“At some colleges and universities, it’s common for students to introduce themselves, whether in class or in student group meetings, by name, followed by a string of pronouns. “I’m Lizzie; she/her/hers,” for example. I find the exercise discomfiting, but not because I don’t want to know the students’ pronouns. It’s because this ice-breaking ritual, in my experience, is easy only for those for whom the answer is obvious. It can “out” or isolate others, particularly those who are still considering their gender or who have just begun to transition.

When we go around the room in class, students visibly react when they hear that someone they thought looked male goes by female pronouns or vice versa. This happened in my class a few years back. All eyes fell upon this person as if to ask, “If you identify as female, why don’t you try to look the part?” My heart went out to this student, who later told me that she was just beginning to think about her transition and hadn’t yet started to publicly change anything about herself, other than her name. She looked like any other guy in the class, except she had adopted a traditionally female name and used female pronouns on this day when asked.”

You know why people visibly react when a dude declares himself to be female? Because that’s preposterous! Men aren’t women, and everybody knows this. When a man says that he’s a woman, everyone can tell he’s lying. It’s frankly silly to say something that is really obviously not true and expect people to believe it. If a man goes through a process of medically transitioning, then he’s at least demonstrating that he believes his own story, but when a fully-intact male who is making no attempt at looking feminine calls himself a woman, that adds an extra layer of silliness to his claim.

“This is the kind of student for whom we might think the pronoun exercise would be perfect. Once she identified herself, no one would accidentally mis-gender her in class. But in fact, as the student explained to me later, having to say her pronouns in a room full of strangers terrified her. She would have preferred to state her female name and leave it at that. If we had done traditional introductions, some of the students would have put two and two together and assumed she was transitioning; others might have thought she had an unusual name for a guy; some might have thought she was gender queer and comfortable with a male appearance and a female name; and yet others would have shrugged their shoulders and thought, “Whatever.”

With this experience in mind, I decided to adopt a compromise solution for this semester: I explained my concerns and said that students should list their pronouns along with their names only if they were so inclined. I also said that as a class we will refer to one another by our first names (community building) or the pronoun “they” (grammar evolves!). This strategy seemed to work. Half of the students disclosed their pronouns and the other half just introduced themselves in the standard way. No one became the object of scrutiny.”

Yes, language evolves, but human reproductive anatomy hasn’t evolved at all. We still come in two sexes, male and female, and reproduce by combining a sperm from the male with an egg from the female. Everyone knows this and we know how to identify the two sexes. Even when a tiny minority of people with a particular mental illness force everyone to redefine language, the actual reality of our bodies doesn’t go away.

The special snowflakes who want people to refer to them by their subjective internal feelings rather than their actual sex are the ones who started making everyone do these pronoun introductions, and it was supposed to be for their ‘safety,’ but now they are being made ‘unsafe’ by the exact thing they asked for! You can never please these people. They will be ‘unsafe’ forever, because no matter what you do to try to make them happy, they will find something else to feel ‘unsafe’ over.

I haven’t had to declare my pronouns in any meetings, but some of my friends have. We’ve been discussing how to respond to this as gender abolitionist feminists. I think if I were ever asked this, I’d say that I do not identify with a gender but since my sex is female my pronouns are also female. And rest assured that if ever someone who is unambiguously male or female declares themselves to be the opposite sex, despite the actual evidence, I’m going to be one of those ‘unsafe’ people who rolls her eyes.

FtM anatomy: a clit by any other name…

The narrative we’re told about trans people is that they hate the bodies they were born with and want to live as the other sex. Therefore it would be expected that they would want to actually appear to be the other sex, rather than making their birth sex completely obvious, and that they wouldn’t want to use their hated body parts in the usual ways. But for some reason, this is not the case for lots of people currently identifying as trans. For some, it’s good enough to just rename the body parts while continuing to use them the same way anyone else of their birth sex would use them.

This is why we have people identifying as male while giving birth to babies and breastfeeding. You’d think that if someone hates being female and doesn’t want to be seen as female, she’d avoid the most female thing in the universe—pregnancy. But nope! A recent study of 16 trans men who are breastfeeding babies reveals that more than half (nine participants) don’t even get dysphoria while engaging in this timeless tradition of female mammals.

The secret to not getting dysphoria while using your female parts for their female uses is simply renaming. The women in the above study call breastfeeding “chestfeeding,” and apparently this is a strategy that works, since half of them can do it without experiencing dysphoria. (Chestfeeding sounds so creepy though, it reminds me of this.)

All of the female parts have special names for those females who don’t identify as female. Here is a very informative YouTube video where an FtM explains FtM anatomy. She has included some fantastic diagrams that she drew by taking screenshots of a real FtM and tracing over them in Photoshop.

Trans men don’t have genitals, they have “junk.” This is what a trans man’s “junk” looks like.

FtM anatomy 1

Artwork by nate doggydogg

Nate doggydogg doesn’t say “dick” while explaining this diagram, but from watching many FtM videos lately I can tell you that they normally call the clitoris a “dick” or a “cock.”

So as you can see, an FtM has a mini-dick complete with phallus and bell-end, and by the way, there’s also a pesky hole and some lips down there for some reason too, but let’s not talk about that.

When enlarged by testosterone, the clitoris mini-dick looks like this:

FtM anatomy 2

Artwork by nate doggydogg

Wondering how big it gets? Four centimeters when flaccid, and 6 centimeters when hard. (And for you crazy Americans that’s 1 1/2 inches to a little over two inches.)

FtM anatomy 4

Artwork by nate doggydogg

FtM anatomy 5

Artwork by nate doggydogg

Nate Doggydogg has been watching a ton of FtM porn and she has some very interesting observations.

Very Interesting Observation #1:

“There were only a couple of “guys” who were just about able to penetrate a lady’s “hole”.”

So, most trans men couldn’t penetrate a woman, and only two of them were just about able to. Meaning, those two couldn’t actually penetrate her, they just almost could. In other words, zero trans men that she found in FtM porn were able to penetrate a woman with their enlarged clitoris “T-cock.” The other point I have to make about this is she referred to a vagina as a “hole.” And yeah, that sounds gross, but what I want to say about that is that she also calls an FtM’s hole a “hole.” It’s almost like FtMs and “ladies” have the same hole! Is she bigoted for suggesting that?

Very Interesting Observation #2

“There were lots and lots of videos out there of trans guys being penetrated.”

What?? Why go through all the trouble to make yourself look like a man and make everybody around you pretend to believe you’re a man if you’re still going to get fucked in the vagina?

*headdesk*

At the end of the video, Nate Doggydogg warns her viewers not to watch porn if their parents are around. So she’s assuming her viewers are still young enough to live with their parents, and she’s telling them to watch porn. Awesome! [sarcasm alert].

What are the implications here for what it means to be a trans man? Any FtM who is carrying a pregnancy, getting her ova retrieved for IVF, breastfeeding, or having vaginal intercourse is making it quite clear she is female. If she wanted to be seen as a man, wouldn’t she hide her female biology away, not acknowledge it, not use it, and not let anyone else know it’s there? Wouldn’t that be the logical reaction to hating your femaleness? But apparently not. Some of these people are content to just rename their parts and grow a beard and that’s it. This leaves me with a burning question that I can’t answer: What are women gaining from renaming themselves as not-female while still letting other people know they are female? 

Although I expect that some FtMs out there are actually uncomfortable with their female bodies, there are some who have no problem with pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and vaginal sex. As long as they call it by other names, it’s okay.

What’s that Shakespeare quote again? Oh, yeah.

“A clitoris by any other name is still a sweet organ to have.”

Or something like that.

 

‘Transgender Ken’ cake causing the moral decay of America

This week in morally corrupt baked goods news, a lovely cake made from a Ken doll wearing an icing dress is causing a social media storm among people who have too much time on their hands and extremely misguided priorities.

Ken cake

I checked out the bakery’s Facebook page and it seems that most of the haters are not the Oppressed Laydee type but the religious conservative type. After reading a few all-caps rants about how one cake at a private party is SHOVING HOMOSEXUALITY DOWN ALL OUR THROATS I decided I had enough of that, and stopped reading.

I think Ken’s dress is lovely, and so is the flower sash.

You can read more here. Thanks to Miep for sending me the link.