How to make a PC ‘queer’ party

Today in “What Does the Word Queer Mean, Anyway?” is this article by homosexual male transwoman Rose Dommu, entitled “A Party Has to Be More Than Gay to Qualify as “Queer.”

As you can see from the title, the article is about how to make your queer parties more queer. I am always fascinated by the ways in which today’s SJW liberals use the word queer, and this article provides lots of notable examples. Here are some quotes that reveal what “queer” means to this writer.

“The meaning of queer has evolved over time, resulting in a generational divide in how people perceive its meaning. Starting in the early 1900s, “queer” was used as a synonym—and slur—for “gay.” In the 70s, the word was reclaimed by LGBTQ activists and intellectuals in their fight for gay rights—hence, the still-popular chant, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”

So the author is aware that “queer” first existed as an insult used against homosexuals—I’m relieved to know that, because some “queer” writers don’t seem to be aware of that. However, he uses some more modern meanings too.

“In a 2016 New York Times Magazine article called “When Everyone Can Be ‘Queer,’ Is Anyone?”, writer Jenna Wortham detangled the nebulous definitions and political connotations surrounding the term, explaining how it came to be reclaimed by the LGBTQ community from a pejorative to its current status as a self-applied term of empowerment. Queerness, she wrote, derives its radical power from its inclusivity. “But that inclusivity,” she continued, “offers a false promise of equality that does not translate to the lived reality of most queer people.”

Ha! I’ve asked myself the same question. Now that queer has become so vague a term that anybody can call themselves that, the word has become meaningless. It’s the equivalent of “trendy” or “edgy,” basically. The queer cult likes to erase the meanings of words, something they consider to be revolutionary, but which I consider to be unhelpful, because we actually need meaningful words in order to communicate.

Anyway, here is the first modern meaning of “queer” demonstrated in this article: “a self-applied term of empowerment.” Yes, “queer” is a label that people apply to themselves to gain something—usually cool points that can be cashed in among liberal friends. Sometimes calling yourself “queer” can even get you material benefits, like giving you an edge when running for a political position or career position in a liberal establishment.

“Empowerment” is a term that comes from the media-led third wave “feminist” backlash against actual feminism. Empowerment™ is a feel-good lifestyle product you can buy from the companies that market it. The thing itself could be anything that capitalism sells—makeup, clothing, plastic surgeries, sexy photos, etc, but the advertising campaign surrounding the thing gives it an aura of Empowerment™. (This consumer product should not be confused with actual power, which is something one cannot earn by purchasing products.) Calling yourself “queer,” in liberal circles, can get you the same vaguely defined Empowerment™ feeling.

“Queerness derives its radical power from its inclusivity.” This is a word salad. Power is the ability to exercise control or influence. You don’t get power from “inclusivity.” I’m not sure what “radical power” would even mean. This is one of those phrases that people just write because the words look pretty when sitting next to each other like that. It doesn’t actually mean anything.

“Part of what’s driving the term’s adoption by the LGBTQ community is a pushback against the rigid ideas and definitions of sexuality that were prominent in the gay rights movement for so long. Essentially, “queer” has transcended sexual orientations like “gay” or “straight,” and become a self-identifier for those who choose to live in opposition to social norms of sex and gender.”

This is interesting because he actually comes out and admits that “queer” has nothing to do with being lesbian or gay anymore. It’s something anyone can claim if they think they’re being subversive in some way. The heterosexuals with green hair who think they’re “queer” don’t seem to consider that it might be homophobic to call themselves by a word that was historically used to insult gays and lesbians in order to seem cool.

“You don’t choose to be gay, but I believe that you do choose to be queer. That choice—to reject heteronormative, patriarchal standards—is the root of queerness. Not all gay people are queer, and the inverse is just as true.”

So being “queer” means making a choice to support a certain brand of politics. One can “reject heteronormativity” while being a heterosexual in a heterosexual relationship. Sadly, there is no detail offered here about how that could be possible. If it’s by switching gender roles among the man and the woman, so that she earns the money and he takes care of the kids, then what I have to say about that is that we used to call that feminist back in the day when feminism wasn’t passé. If it’s by “identifying” as not being heterosexual despite actually being heterosexual, then that’s a load of horse shit.

“Queerness is the intersection of the political and personal, a way to quantify how the personal becomes political. It informs who we vote for, who we socialize with, the music we listen to, and the art and media we consume.”

Indeed. He’s just proving all my points for me. Queerness is a consumer lifestyle choice involving choosing to consume certain things. Consuming the right things brings us Empowerment™. Listen, kids: late-stage capitalism has sold you the idea that choosing consumer choices and buying shit will bring you Empowerment™ on purpose so that they could sell you products. This isn’t a liberation movement, it’s a successful marketing scheme.

(I just want to thank Twisty Faster here because I’m totally just repeating everything she taught me back in the day when she was blogging.)

“But when you apply the idea of queerness to nightlife, things can get dicey. You can’t simply call a party “queer”; there’s actual work you have to do make a space welcoming, inclusive, and safe for queer people. Calling something “queer”—or using any number of queer buzzwords or aesthetic identifiers in your party promo—comes with a certain level of responsibility to live up to what the term encompasses. And there is no place where that tension is more visible than in nightlife.”

“Queer” is about aesthetic identifiers—a group of artistic signals conveying the brand of politics you have. It’s an artistic style, a decoration scheme. It’s rainbow-coloured crap made in China bought from the dollar store, destined for the landfill after the party is over. Liberation through consumption!

“How can a party claim to be “queer” if the lineup isn’t diverse, the cover is too high, there isn’t accessibility for those who are differently abled, or it takes place in a club where the staff and security might antagonize people of color or gender non-conforming individuals? LGBTQ nightlife is still primarily dominated by white cisgender gay men, so how can a party be queer when it’s exclusive of the whole rainbow?”

Okay…I agree that community events should be accessible. But it almost sounds like “queer” is being used to mean “good party planning.”

“And when it comes to nightlife, the major difference between a party being “gay” or “queer” comes down to choices as well.”

There it is again: “queer” = “good party planning.”

This is his ultimate conclusion:

“The bottom line is that queer women, trans people, people of color, people with disabilities, people who are neurodivergent, and people without access to capital or privilege—we’re at these parties. We’re paying the cover—OK, I’m not, I’m always on the list—we’re buying drinks, and we’re in the party photos. We’re not tokens or aberrations; we’re part of the community. That means we should be represented on the lineup, too—otherwise, nightlife will never be “queer.”

So, the customers who are the consumers of a “queer” product deserve to be catered to by the sellers of that product. True—that’s one of the laws of the marketplace—market to your customer.

The thing about the “queer” community is it’s not a liberation movement. If it was a liberation movement, then it would be doing the tiring, unglamorous, and thankless work of finding housing, medical care and a stable income for those people who have disabilities, who are from racial minorities, who are without access to capital, etc. But instead they’re just demanding that these communities be marketed to and represented in marketing campaigns.

Sheila Jeffreys explained in Unpacking Queer Politics that the revolutionary gestures made by practitioners of “queer” politics amount to acts of “transgression.” Transgression means going against traditional social customs in terms of sexual behavior or dress. Therefore homosexual behavior is “queer,” but so are antisocial and dysfunctional behaviors such as public sex and sexual abuse. Both healthy homosexual relations and abusive heterosexual relations can be considered equivalent in terms of their ability to transgress and therefore both “queer,” which is a politics that equates homosexuals with sex offenders, without any consideration for the inherent homophobia in this position. Wearing the clothing and appearance of the opposite sex is a transgression, but practitioners require traditional social customs to be intact in order for their transgressions to be shocking. If we were to actually eliminate sex role stereotypes, then their transgressions wouldn’t be transgressions anymore, so they actually have no interest in challenging traditional gender roles, because that would ruin their fun. Jeffreys calls “queer” politics a form of “night club activism.” As we see in this article, “queer” politics can be practiced simply by planning a good party.

Now that I’ve thoroughly demolished queer politics, let’s take a look at what we learn about this author from this article.

“I get a lot of flack for being vocally opposed to this kind of femme and trans erasure in nightlife. But as a trans woman, I often feel like if I don’t speak up, who else will? Sometimes, when I vocalize some kind of criticism about a supposedly “queer” party being too male-centered, I even face a backlash from members of the LGBTQ community. Often, someone will say, “Well, two years ago, you were a gay man, so who are you to talk?”

“Yet, for decades, a majority of trans women like myself have actualized their identities through gay communities, often within the space of LGBTQ nightclubs. For many of us who first identify as gay men and then go on to transition, our gay and queer social circles function as family, social group, and dating pool all at once. Once we transition, those bonds are the same, but the way we experience them is irrevocably altered. We still want to go dance with our sisters, but we don’t always feel welcome in the same way.”

“Recently, I went to a gay male-centered sex party at a queer after-hours spot to celebrate a friend’s birthday, and within an hour, my friends had abandoned me to play in the darkroom—a space where I felt not only unnecessary, but unwelcome. Going from being a fag to a fag hag is a fucking trip, man.”

I’m just going to rephrase some of this in my straight-to-the-point language. This is a gay man who has had the same group of gay male friends who party together over a period of several years, and recently he has decided to disregard the facts of human anatomy and call himself a ‘woman.’ His gay male friends still all know he is a gay male, but now they’re supposed to call him by female pronouns. Understandably, not all of them are buying this.

He says he actualized his transwoman identity through the queer community, and that other gay men do this too. He completely misses the fact that it’s a tragedy that the queer community encourages homosexuals to view themselves as something else.

This is a man who is complaining that parties that he is able to attend are too male-focused. Even though these parties are literally for men like him, he does not feel adequately included since they don’t specifically cater to his silly and nonsensical identity.

Can I just mention here that if you are spending lots of your energy worrying about how well people are including you at a party, then you probably are not experiencing much real difficulty in life.

He attended a gay male sex party, which goes to show that he still knows he is a gay male and doesn’t take his identity as a ‘woman’ very seriously. Even though he is a gay male who knows he is a gay male, he found gay sex play in a back room ‘unnecessary’ and felt that he was ‘unwelcome’ there, because of his ‘identity.’

I agree with him on one thing. He is definitely ‘tripping.’

I am sad to see the way ‘queer’ politics separates lesbians from lesbian communities and separates gay men from gay male communities. I am angry to see how ‘queer’ politics erases the facts of human anatomy and therefore our ability to organize for liberation for groups such as women and sexual minorities such as lesbians and gays.

It’s time for lesbians and gays everywhere to resist queer politics. Leave that for the heterosexuals with green hair who think they’re cool. What we need is lesbian and gay community, and radical, liberation politics to fight back against women’s oppression and economic class oppression.


Hating feminists as virtue-signaling

After the Vancouver Women’s Library was attacked by “queer” anti-feminists, even more anti-feminists started jumping on the bandwagon and writing social media commentary condemning the library. I read several comments by people calling for feminist books to be banned who did not seem likely to have ever actually read the books in question. I believe the reason why these people are calling for feminist books to be banned without ever having read them is because they are virtue-signaling.

There is a distinct culture that has formed out of the toxic soup of neoliberal “queer” culture and anti-feminism that has taken over what is supposed to be the political left. (I do not believe these people are actually on the left, but they are considered to be the left, unfortunately.) For the purposes of this blog post, I will call them radiqueers, short for radical queers. One of the things radiqueers delight in doing is hating feminists. They claim to be feminists themselves, but their views align perfectly with patriarchy, and they fail to recognize this because they refuse to listen to actual feminists or apply any critical thinking to their political positions. Because shutting down feminists is one of the goals of radiqueer culture, anytime they tweet or comment about wanting feminists shut down it serves as a way for them to show their group membership and virtue-signal to their fellow group members. It is not an intellectual disagreement with the information that feminists present, it is a performance to demonstrate their group membership. It’s a bit like making sure to sit with the cool kids in the cafeteria instead of the geeks.

Here I will show you what I mean by discussing one of the books that the radiqueers want removed from the Vancouver Women’s Library, Female Sexual Slavery by Kathleen Barry, a book which I have actually taken the time to read, unlike the radiqueers.

Kathleen Barry did extensive research into the sex trade in order to write this book. She interviewed survivors of prostitution and checked the facts of their stories as well as she could by also interviewing lawyers, reporters, police, district attorneys, and anti-slavery organizations. (p. 7) She traveled and visited brothels, and she researched historical abolitionist movements. From her research she was able to form a definition of female sexual slavery, name the methods used by pimps and recruiters, and name the reasons why the problem of female sexual slavery has not been sufficiently exposed or fought against.

Here is her definition of female sexual slavery:

“Female sexual slavery is present in all situations where women or girls cannot change the immediate conditions of their existence; where regardless of how they got into those conditions they cannot get out; and where they are subject to sexual violence and exploitation. (p 40)”

She explains further:

“Female sexual slavery is not an illusive condition; the word “slavery” is not merely rhetorical. This is not some condition in which a woman’s or child’s need for love allows her to fall into psychological patterns that make it possible for her to accept abuse with love or to feel joy in pain. Slavery is an objective social condition of sexual exploitation and violence. The experiences of sexual slavery documented in this book reveal that it is not a practice that is limited to international traffic but it is pervasive throughout patriarchal societies.”

Barry found that when she spoke to police and described situations where women were being sexually exploited and were unable to leave, the police still didn’t see the problem. They believed so firmly in prostitution as acceptable and inevitable that it didn’t occur to them that it was a human rights violation. They seemed to think there was a class of women whose role was to be prostitutes and that it wasn’t a problem. This problem persists today; people still think that the sexual exploitation of women and girls isn’t a problem, and radiqueers are perpetuating this belief by rebranding sexual exploitation as women’s choice and agency. They are working to hide the reality of male violence, just as misogynists have always done.

The definition of sexual slavery Barry wrote can allow people to see the objective conditions of slavery even if the victim has become convinced that she chose her situation or if the people controlling her are insisting that she chose her situation. Some women and girls brought into the sex trade were initially willing because they thought they were going to be in control of the situation, make money, and have a glamorous life. Instead, they found themselves controlled by a pimp, unable to choose their clients or to choose what sex acts they perform, and, due to both the violence of their pimps and the stigma against women in the sex trade, they find themselves unable to escape and begin another life. If a woman is being subject to sexual exploitation and she cannot change the conditions of her existence, she is objectively enslaved. This situation occurs in human trafficking, street-based prostitution, and forced marriages, all around the world. Historically, many wives have been in situations of sexual slavery, because divorce was illegal, marital rape was allowed, and wives were completely dependent upon their husbands and unable to say ‘no’ to sex.

She describes the role of pimps and procurers and the methods they use to bring women and girls into the sex trade and then keep them there. To summarize:

  • Befriending or love: Procurers find teenage girls who are naïve and seeking love and attention from men and they act as a boyfriend toward these girls. They particularly use this method on girls who are runaways or who are bored and looking for excitement. They make the girl feel like she is in a romantic relationship even though it is really just a business strategy for him.
  • Actions of gangs, syndicates, and organized crime: these organizations will often procure girls and women into prostitution as a part of their gang activities.
  • Recruiting women under false pretenses by offering them a job such as dancing or modelling, or by offering them marriage, and turning them to prostitution when they arrive.
  • Purchasing women and girls from other male “owners”
  • Outright kidnapping

“Together, pimping and procuring are perhaps the most ruthless displays of male power and sexual dominance. As practices they go far beyond the merchandising of women’s bodies for the market that demands them. Pimping and procuring are the crystallization of misogyny; they rank among the most complete expressions of male hatred for femaleness. Procuring is a strategy, a tactic for acquiring women and turning them into prostitution; pimping keeps them there.” Barry, p.73.

She described the abolitionist work of Josephine Butler, who campaigned against human trafficking in the late nineteenth century. She also described the backlash against Butler’s work:

“Mob violence began to accompany her speeches. During one campaign against a liberal who would not support repeal of the Acts, mobs of men and young boys scuffling and throwing rocks forced her to hide in a hotel attic. The next day she was forced by the management to leave the hotel. Wearing a disguise, she sought refuge at another hotel, but the mob located her there also. Despite the threats, she insisted on addressing the women’s rally as she had planned. A number of bodyguards, brought up from London by her supporters, enabled her to address the meeting, but afterwards she had to run through streets and alleys to escape the mob. She eventually made it safely to the home of a supporter where she was taken in and looked after.” (p17–18)

This book is excellent from start to finish due to its clarity in exposing male violence against women and its thoroughness in exposing how male violence operates. Wikipedia says that this book “prompted international awareness of human sex trafficking.” Radiqueers want this valuable and groundbreaking book on female oppression banned from a women’s library, on the grounds that it makes a group of people they call “sex workers” unsafe.

The term “sex workers” is misleading in a couple of ways. Firstly, “sex workers” can include anyone in the sex trade, including both exploited persons and their exploiters. Therefore the term hides the power relations between pimp and prostitute by branding both of them with the same name. The term “sex workers” is also designed to hide the coercion involved in the sex trade. Although most women in the sex trade are there due to a lack of better options and want to get out, the term “sex worker” seeks to rebrand exploited women as empowered women who are there because that is their true desire. When radiqueers claim that “sex workers” are harmed by books written about human trafficking, they are being misleading. It is certainly not harmful to exploited persons to describe the terms of their exploitation. It is, however, harmful to the men who are doing the exploiting.

I’m tempted to say that radiqueers are calling for this book to be banned because they don’t want people to know the definition of sexual slavery for the purposes of naming it when it happens, or that they don’t want people to know the methods that procurers use to bring women into the sex trade, or that they don’t want people to know the history of the abolitionist movement. But I can’t even give them that much credit. They haven’t even read the book. They don’t know or care what it says. They aren’t interested in countering the points being made in the book, by, for example, offering different procurement methods that they have found in their own research, or in offering a different definition of sexual slavery, or in adding to the historical documentation of the abolitionist movement. No, they aren’t interested in countering the points made in the book or even in explaining what points they disagree with. They only want it banned on the grounds that it names prostitution as violence against women, and they prefer to think that prostitution is a woman’s choice. Anything that challenges the idea that women “choose” their own exploitation is labelled “unsafe.” They would have a difficult time explaining how naming male violence against women is “unsafe” for women. In truth, it’s only “unsafe” for male abusers, because it threatens their ability to continue their abuse.

Ironically, the radiqueers who imagine themselves to be “feminists” are doing exactly what the mobs of men did to Josephine Butler. They are doing the 21st century equivalent to throwing rocks at her for daring to name male violence against women. Throwing rocks and threatening her in order to attempt to silence her. If radiqueers were actually concerned about women, they would have absolutely no problem with books that expose the problem of human trafficking, and they wouldn’t be threatening women for providing this information.

What would actually make women safer is knowing the information provided in Kathleen Barry’s book. Women and girls should know the strategies used by procurers for the sex trade so that we can identify them when we see them. We should all be aware that when a man starts flattering a young woman and saying he has a modelling job or a dancing job for her, that is a red flag. Law enforcement professionals need to understand the conditions of female sexual slavery in order to identify women who need their help. Far from being “unsafe” for women, the information in this banned book is crucial for keeping women safe.

The radiqueers who want to ban a list of feminist books from a women’s library are doing the work of anti-feminism, whether they’re aware of it or not, and they are engaged in the practice of woman-hating, whether they are aware of it or not. They are being intellectually dishonest because they are attempting to suppress information that is clearly helpful to women on the grounds that they imagine it to be “unsafe” for women. Although I cannot prove that no radiqueers have read any of these banned books, I think it’s a reasonable assumption to make, based on their politics and their behavior, and I find it reprehensible and cowardly for people to regard a book as unsafe without having read it. If any radiqueers have read any of these books, feel free to tell me I’m wrong about that, and let’s discuss the book! But I’m not going to hold my breath.

I hope that I will get time throughout the year to quote from more of the banned books on their list, in order to discuss what information radiqueers want banned and why. There is a general theme though: any time feminists describe male violence against women in the form of sexual exploitation or gender identity nonsense, radiqueers get all up in arms. That’s because their politics are generally about promoting the sex trade and promoting people’s choice to choose genders, both of which are harmful to women as a class. They are men’s rights activists cloaked in rainbow disguise.

Despite this group of anti-feminists throwing rocks at us, we will persevere, just like we always have.

Queer fascists attempt to ban feminist books from a women’s library

Women in Vancouver have created a women’s library to promote writing by women authors and “continue the legacy of women-run bookstores.” The library is run by women volunteers. Despite the fact that they announce themselves as queer-positive right on their website, with a “queer space” sign and a notice that the library is for “all self-identified women and girls,” a group of “radical queers” have launched an attack against the library.

Guerrilla Feminist Collective reports the following intimidation tactics used at the library:

“Last night we had to push through physical intimidation and lots of verbal nonsense to enter the new Vancouver Women’s Library.

Anti-feminist protesters actually showed up for once! They were welcomed inside (snowing, cold, everyone was welcome), but asked to leave when they tried to tear down feminist posters in the space and continued their physical intimidation inside. Police had to be called for fear of destruction of the space and the safety of library patrons inside. The protesters held signs and shouted at people entering the space. They poured wine over the books. They smoked inside when asked not to. They pulled the fire alarm. Some of them tried to bar then pushed women entering the space. As far as we saw, men were left alone to come and go as they pleased.

Women were shamed and blamed for calling the police, for fearing for theirs and others’ safety. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. All battered women will be familiar with these tactics. When we pointed out how we were physically barred then pushed from entering the space, and how threatening that felt, protesters wanted to know how we’d gender the person, rather than discuss the ethics of violence at hand.

Despite clearly stated goals (creation of women’s space for women’s work and dialogue), inclusion (all women), transparency of funding (self & UBC women’s centre), hard work (unpaid), and initiative (frankly brilliant caring GOODNESS of heart, seeking to create A WOMEN’S LIBRARY) the organizers were demonized, targeted, lied about, and all but burnt at the stake.

Ridiculous demands were made, such as the stepping down of founding member Emily (for having volunteered at and supporting a shelter for women fleeing male violence), creation of a board of directors (must everything be Mc-incorporated?), and the removal of certain books (fascism 101).”

The group Gays Against Gentrification (GAG) released a list of demands for the library on Facebook. I’m not sure if the people who showed up at the library are the same people who wrote this list of demands, but they certainly are using similar intimidation tactics.

The group GAG uses the slurs “TERF” and “SWERF” to intimidate and silence women who speak out about the harms of gender and the sex trade. The function of these words is to shut down conversations about women’s oppression. They can be applied to absolutely anyone who disagrees with the queer/liberal party line. Even women with direct experience in the sex trade can be called “SWERF,” despite the fact that it makes no sense that a woman could be “excluding” herself from her own analysis of the harms of the sex industry that she experienced.

GAG erroneously accuses feminists of denying health care and jobs to trans women and of trying to control the bodies of “sex workers” and enacting violence upon them. It is difficult to believe that anyone could be so far removed from reality that they actually think that feminists are the ones harming women in the sex trade rather than the johns and pimps who are actually inflicting the violence. Those people who seek to make male violence invisible and blame women instead for what men do to us can only be called MRAs.

GAG made a list of demands that includes, among other things, that the library must elect a board of directors that GAG members approve of, remove any books from the library that GAG does not approve of, and fire one of the organizers of the library who is specified by name. It’s just astounding that this group feels so entitled to women’s labor that they feel they can dictate to women how to run their own library. This is a vile display of misogyny and anti-feminism.

Their wording gets so over-the-top at times it almost looks like a parody:

“TERFs and SWERFs are complicit in violence against sex workers and trans women and it is imperative that we do not let this violence go unnoticed. The same ideology and praxis of hate is present and replicated in right-wing/alt-right/neo-nazi organizing. TERFs and SWERFs organize for the same violent policies and work in partnership with right-wing hate groups to replicate settler-colonial white-supremacist constructions of cisheteropatrarchy that outright reject, erase, and deny IBPOC sovereignty, body sovereignty, and all peoples that do not fit under euro-centric nativism.”

It would seem that GAG believes that women who lend out books written by women are literal Nazis who are enacting white supremacy and patriarchy. It’s very clear that the goal of “radical queers” is to shut down feminism by harassing women and making feminist analysis of women’s oppression impossible to share. “Radical queers” are therefore obviously an anti-feminist hate group. The idea that feminists have the material power in society to inflict violence on large groups of people is completely laughable. There is not a single radical feminist in a position of power in government or the private sector, and there are very few left in the academy. In addition, physical violence is not a tactic that any feminist groups are advocating for. If recent history tells us anything about feminist organizing, we like to knit cute hats and even in crowds of thousands of women there is no violence reported at all.

GAG provided a list of the feminist books they believe should be banned from the women’s library. Here is the list:

-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 Slavery – 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
This is simply a list of writing by radical feminists who expose the harms of gender and the sex industry. I have read two books from this list: Female Sexual Slavery and Pornography: Men Possessing Women. These are excellent books that I highly recommend. The only people these books could possibly be considered “hateful” towards are the men who abuse women.
It’s really surreal to me that anti-feminists are cloaking themselves in the language of social justice and calling themselves “queer.” Feminism should be a necessary part of anyone’s social justice program, and queer used to mean homosexual but is now a set of extremely anti-feminist politics that is quite hostile toward lesbians. Strange world we’re living in.
I would suggest that my readers put at least one of these books in their 2017 reading list. These are obviously very powerful books that make anti-feminists boiling mad, so they must be good! And of course, if you are in a position to support the Vancouver Women’s Library in any way, please do. Solidarity, sisters!

“Queer” indoctrination for kids

Fourth Wave Now blogged about this new YouTube channel called Queer Kids Stuff that markets trans ideology to young kids. Her post can be found here. Instead of commenting on 4thWave, I am writing my own post, since, as usual, I am writing an entire essay.

The goal of this YouTube series is to teach the ideology of the queer/trans movement to kids. I’ve been observing for some time now how “queer” is becoming its own subculture that has little to do with homosexuals. (For more info, click the “queer community” blog tag.) Queer/trans is a sort of cult where a haircut and an outfit are an identity, where biological sex doesn’t exist, where being “different” in superficial ways makes you cool, and people want to be “different” just for the sake of being different, and where people are misunderstood and oppressed by normal, boring people who just don’t get it. It seems a bit like middle-class bored teenagers with teenage angst forming an alternative youth culture together, except it’s being promoted by fully grown adults.

Because the queer/trans cult doesn’t believe in biological sex, they don’t believe in sexual orientation either. They think that people have a “gender,” not a sex, and that people are attracted to a “gender,” not a sex. However, biological sex does exist, and homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. I am attracted to people who are female, not people who perform femininity.

This cult has formed out of what used to be the GLBT community. Even though gay men and lesbians barely have anything to do with each other, and even though trans is a totally different thing from being gay, we are all together in a community for some reason, and the trans have totally taken over. And by “trans” I don’t mean ordinary people with dysphoria who just want to live their lives, but weird people with ideology around erasing biological sex and creating safety for people to practice their sexual fetish in public and forcing random strangers to validate their special identities. This new cult is not a safe space for lesbians and gays, and when we speak for ourselves sometimes we get kicked out of the group for oppressing the special snowflakes with our inconvenient knowledge of biological sex and our own sexual orientation.

The first video in Queer Kids Stuff is about explaining what gay means.

The host, Lindsay, explains that gay means when someone loves someone of the same gender. That’s not true. I’m not surprised Lindsay would say that though, because, as I said, the Q/T cult doesn’t believe in biological sex. Also, Lindsay posted her bio on her web site, and although she vaguely alludes to possibly being lesbian or bisexual, she doesn’t call herself by any sexual orientation label, and just calls herself “queer.” Calling yourself “queer” is a way of disappearing your sexual orientation, because “queer” has become so vague that anyone can claim it, including straight people.

Although I don’t think small children would even understand the bit about “attracted to a gender,” the video does give some child-friendly and well-presented information—that some families have two moms or two dads. That’s how I would explain it—because that’s all kids need to know and all they would understand. (The video also mentions that some families have “many moms” and “many dads.” Obviously we need to be inclusive of polyamorous couples who are in relationships with everyone in their community. *eyeroll* )

The second video explains what gender is. It starts off by saying that girls can wear short hair and a tie if they want. Then it explains that people can belong to one of three categories, boys, girls or people. That would be pretty confusing for a kid, because boys and girls are both people, and putting them in three categories like that implies that “people” is a distinct category from boys and girls.

The video goes on to explain that anyone from any of these categories can wear whatever they want. The fact that a video about gender starts off with a discussion of clothing vaguely implies that gender is about clothing. However, it never explicitly says what gender is. The closest they come to explaining what gender means is when they write the word gender above the words boy, girl, and people. This implies that gender is whether you’re a boy, a girl, or a person. Since this is only implied in writing, but never said out loud, I don’t even think small kids will pick up on this.

The teddy bear asks a really good question, which is, if girls, boys, and people can wear whatever they want, then how do you tell what gender they are? (Once again, this questions betrays the underlying assumption that gender has to do with what clothing someone is wearing.)

Any sane person at this point would say that girls have vaginas and boys have penises, and that they’re still girls or boys no matter what they’re wearing. But in transland, there is no such thing as sex! There is only this confusing, vague concept of “gender” that seems to have something to do with clothes, but not exactly, and that can be labelled as “girl” or “boy” even though the concepts of “girl” and “boy” cannot be defined. No matter how you twist yourself, you can never follow the logic.

She also explains that there are people who are transgender, which means they don’t identify with the gender that doctors tell them they are when they were born. This is not true. Doctors note the baby’s sex, but they have no power to assign a “gender.” Gender is a set of mannerisms, appearances and behaviors that are culturally connected to people’s biological sex. Doctors do not singlehandedly create the culture that babies will grow up in. It’s primarily the parents, but also the community at large, who assigns the baby a “gender” by socializing them in certain ways. Further, the way Lindsay explains this in the video would be completely incomprehensible to a small child.

The answer Lindsay gives to Teddy is that you tell what gender someone is by asking for their pronouns. Can you imagine kindergarten children asking for each other’s pronouns to see what “gender” their playmates are? This stuff is way beyond their comprehension.

The third video explains what queer is. “It’s not a thing, it’s an idea,” Lindsay says. “Queer has to do with being different, and how everyone is different from everyone else. Some people are different because they’re gay or because of their gender. You can be different in lots of ways. We are all a little different or weird or even strange and that’s a good thing. So I guess we’re all a little bit queer.” Teddy asks, “Me too?” and Lindsay answers, “Of course, teddy!”

The unicorn song she sings emphasizes that queer means different. The last line is “queer means different and being different is so much fun!”

As the video closes, she says, “Now we want to know what makes you a little bit queer.”

This is bizarre and surreal.

The word queer has a long tradition of being a pejorative for homosexual, and if you ask older gay men they often recall being called this word while being beaten for being gay. Today, queer is an umbrella term that is supposed to include lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender people, people who have cool haircuts, people who practice BDSM, and people who feel they are special or unique in some way.

This video turns queer into something even sillier. Now it’s simply a synonym for “different” and kids should learn this word as a positive word to describe how we’re all different. All I can say is, what the fuck?

Lindsay says we’re all a little queer, which is so weird, because we certainly aren’t all a little homosexual, in fact, about 95% of people are heterosexual, so obviously when Lindsay uses the word this way she simply means “different,” and this has nothing to do with being gay.

Could it have to do with being trans? Who knows! Anyone can claim to be trans for any reason. You don’t even have to have dysphoria. You can just have a cool haircut and outfit and choose some pronouns and an identity label and voilà—you’re trans!

There is probably a very tiny percentage of people who actually have sex dysphoria—smaller even than the number of people who are homosexual. So judging by Lindsay’s assertion that we’re “all a little queer,” it seems like queer is neither about being homosexual nor having sex dysphoria—I think it’s primarily about having a cool identity label.

She closes this video by encouraging kids to list reasons why they are queer. Huh? The kids have just learned that queer means “different,” and that you can be different in lots of ways. So in what ways are kids different, that they can come up with on their own at a young age? Maybe that their eye colours and their hair colours are different? I doubt they’d come up with anything about sexual orientation, since little kids don’t understand sexuality yet.

These videos give me a weird and creepy feeling. I’m possibly supposed to be included in the queer community because I’m a lesbian, but this is not the sort of video I would make. I don’t want kids to be indoctrinated into weird, anti-science ideology. I don’t want kids to be confused about what girls and boys are. Everyone needs to understand the difference between male and female because this is part of our understanding of human beings, and it will become very important once kids reach puberty because they need to understand how reproduction works. The erasure of biological sex erases sexual orientation entirely, which does not benefit lesbians or gays. The gender identity ideology supports allowing male people into female locker rooms and washrooms, which is not safe for females. This ideology also makes it “bigoted” and sometimes illegal to name male people as male and for female people to assert their boundaries and need for privacy. I do not support any of this and it makes me angry that this sort of ideology is being pushed in the name of “LGBT” which I am supposedly a part of.

If the “queer” community wants to remove women’s rights to safety and privacy, wants to gas-light us, violate our boundaries, and remove our right to speak about our biology, and erase sexual orientation, then the queer community is hostile toward all women and particularly toward lesbians.

The people who benefit from this sort of activism are primarily people who want their special snowflake identity validated and males who want to enter female-only spaces. I do not wish to support these causes.

Sex dysphoria is a real condition, and I don’t think that people who have sex dysphoria are benefitting from the actions of this cult. The end result of this silliness is that more people will become conservative, because the liberals have lost their goddamn minds, and there will be a backlash against lesbians and gays, because we will be blamed for this.

Conservatives have been complaining for decades that the homosexuals are trying to recruit or indoctrinate their children, and we actually weren’t! Now look at what the queer cult is doing!

Here’s what I think kids should learn about being gay. If a teacher is talking about different types of families, they should list a family with two moms or two dads as a possibility, and remain quite neutral about this. That’s it! There is absolutely no need to put on a unicorn suit and play a song on a ukulele about how being gay is fabulous and fun. This isn’t a lifestyle being marketed to people. All we want is to be able to exist without being hated, basically. Teachers also should stop the bullies who engage in homophobic bullying. It should be pretty routine to stop any sort of bullying, and that includes bullying of gay kids or kids with gay parents.

But indoctrinating kids into weird ideology? No, absolutely not!

Video: Gender Identity in Student Spaces

A conference was held in London, U.K this summer called Thinking Differently. It was a place for feminists to discuss gender identity and transgenderism. There were lots of great speakers and I recommend watching the whole thing.

In this clip, Magdalen Burns talks about being kicked out of her campus LGBT group and her women’s liberation group for violating “safe space” rules by disagreeing with their dogma.

It’s interesting hearing her talk about all the reasons why she was kicked out of various groups—all of them are really stupid reasons. But the part that I found most poignant was that she knows around ten gays and lesbians who have been kicked out of their university LGBT society by people who identify as “queer” but not lesbian or gay. It looks like we have reached a point where ordinary gays and lesbians are officially kicked out of LGBT—the important people in that group now are people identifying as queer and trans. The words queer and trans are so vague that anyone could identify this way, the only real criteria is you have to adhere to the group dogma. As Magdalen says, if you’re an 18-year-old lesbian in your first year on campus you’re going to fear not being able to be around other lesbians.

Whatever the hell “queer” is, it’s pretty hostile to homosexuals.

Everyone wants to be one of the cool, oppressed people

If you want an excellent analysis of the Orlando shooting, check out Julie Bindel’s interview on Feminist Current where she names the things we should actually be talking about in this situation: primarily, MALE VIOLENCE. Also, the root causes of anti-gay bigotry, which are MISOGYNY and PATRIARCHY.

If you want the worst response possible to the Orlando shooting, check out the woman who has written an article lamenting that she doesn’t get to be one of the people who are oppressed by anti-gay mass shooters.

Biphobia and the Pulse Massacre by Elle Dowd

“When I read about Orlando, I was surrounded by straight people. Well meaning straight people, yes, allies, yes, but straight people all the same.

I was surrounded by straight people because I was at my house with my husband and my daughter. I spend a lot of time around straight people (thats what I get for marrying a cishet man), but I noticed it more today than I have any other morning. When I heard the news, I started counting down the time until I could be around queer people.”

Oh, you poor thing! You were at home with your husband and daughter when a large group of gays and lesbians were shot and killed, how awful for you!

“Being a bi woman means occupying a lot of weird liminal space. In that way we are very queer….we don’t fit well into boxes. Too gay to be straight, too straight to be gay, we are often locked out of the resources and support meant for the queer community due to biphobia and erasure while being pornified and objectified by the patriarchal male gaze of heteronormative culture. It’s no wonder that bi women are suffering from such a serious mental health crisis.”

Yes, it’s so “queer” of you to be a conventionally feminine woman married to a man. How terrible that you don’t have access to “resources” that are meant for the “queer community.” As I’ve said before, queer used to mean homosexual, but it doesn’t anymore. Now, queer means absolutely anyone who wants to claim an identity as an oppressed person. You can be a pretty, feminine woman in a heterosexual relationship and still be queer, even though at no point will you ever be treated the way homosexuals are treated.

“Being bi comes with the double edged sword of “passing.” Because I’m married to a man, and because of my high femme gender presentation, most people will assume I am straight. I do not have to worry that when I hold my spouse’s hand in public that someone will beat me. I do not worry about the state refusing to recognize my marriage. I do not worry about losing my job for being queer. I do not worry that a car driving by will roll down the window and scream slurs at me about my orientation.”

She actually knows that she does not face discrimination because of her sexual orientation, but she is still writing an article making the Orlando massacre all about her feelings. Pardon me while I roll my eyes all the way up to the ceiling.

“But the horrible thing about “passing privilege” is the closeting, the erasure. And never have I felt that so keenly as I feel it today while I mourn Orlando.”

These days the worst thing that can possibly happen to a person is being “erased.” Somehow, the fact that every shop clerk and passerby on the street doesn’t immediately know that she is bisexual is a “horrible” thing because it “erases” her. When she sees other people being actually oppressed in a way that she is not, she feels erased because she isn’t receiving that kind of oppression. Do you see what is happening here? Being a part of an oppressed class of people is now cool. It’s something people want. Instead of fighting against oppression on behalf of classes of people, Americans are now trying to get a piece of the oppression pie, because that’s what the cool kids are doing. This is deplorable.

“Thank God for the radical queer community, the people who helped me heal from some of my guilt about not being “gay enough”. They came through for me in the past, and they are coming through again, reminding me of who I am. Reminding me that I count. Reminding me that I am enough, that my emotions are valid, that my existence is resistance, that I deserve to be here.”

You needed to heal from the guilt of not being gay enough??? What the FUCK???

Forty-nine people are killed and this woman needs to give herself a pep talk about how she is here, she exists, and she counts. Well, good for you! But forty nine people are not here anymore, because they were in a gay club when an anti-gay shooter came to kill people, not at home with their straight families like you were.

It’s amazing how a mass shooting happens and people respond with “But what about ME, I’m oppressed too!” Imagine if we actually used our time and energy to fight against male violence, masculinity and patriarchy so that this sort of thing wouldn’t happen any more? But no, because doing actual hard work to change the world isn’t appealing for people who only care about their own feelings.