Non binary identity aka not fitting in with the popular clique

Here is a young woman who made a video called “How I knew I was non binary.”

Since this is the title of the video, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the things she talks about in her video are the reasons why she knew she was non binary. This is what she talks about in her video:

  • In fifth grade, a girl called her legs “gross” because she hadn’t shaved them, and she didn’t understand why her legs were gross. She hadn’t even reached puberty yet.
  • In middle school there was strong policing of gender by her peers and she felt depressed. She knew it was ridiculous to try and fit in by being as girly as she could, however, this is what she did.
  • A girl she knew put on lip gloss to kiss a boy she had a crush on but she didn’t like wearing that kind of lip gloss. (However in the video she has lipstick on, so….?)
  • She got up early in the morning to style her hair and do her makeup because she felt she had to do this to fit in. She considers compliments about her hair to be signs of “fitting in.” However, she didn’t feel like herself while doing this.
  • One day, she cut her hair short and wore androgynous clothes, and her mother expressed her disapproval because people might think she’s a boy. She thought it was okay if people thought she was a boy.
  • She remembers being happier and more extroverted when she was young enough that people hadn’t started policing her appearance.
  • In senior high school, she wanted to throw out all her girls’ clothes and buy all boys’ clothes, but she was dating a jerk boyfriend and wanted his approval, so she “pretended to be a girl.”
  • She felt validated while reading Tumblr posts about non binary.

Wow! Based on this information, being non binary means being a whole, unique person with a distinct personality who doesn’t meet the shallow, limiting criteria for behavior set by middle school kids. According to this explanation, I’m non binary and so are every person I’ve ever gotten along with, because we’ve also never met the dumb expectations of the popular clique. But I don’t call myself non binary, because I don’t think that’s a useful way to describe what’s happening here.

Non binary identity is an attempt to identify outside of your actual sex in order to avoid having sex-related stereotypes placed on you by other people. It’s not just a synonym for androgynous, which would make some sense, but instead it’s supposed to imply that the sex of your body doesn’t exist and you are neither male nor female (despite not actually having an intersex condition.) Actually, if non binary was a synonym for intersex, that would probably make more sense—if you didn’t have the usual sex characteristics that males and females come with 99% of the time, then “non binary” could describe that. But non binary is not about physical sex characteristics, it’s about the social gender role.

In this video, the young woman talks mostly about having her appearance policed by other people, (her peers and her mother,) and them wanting her to meet their current definition of how girls and women should look. This is a totally normal experience that girls go through as they’re growing up. Depending on how much sexism there is among the people they grow up around, girl children are taught to varying degrees that girls have to look a certain way in order to be acceptable. If a girl is lucky, and her family and peers are not sexist, then she’ll be allowed to be herself. But if her family and peers are sexist, as many people are, then they’ll teach her that she absolutely must look feminine or else she’s a failure as a human being. That’s what happened with the woman in this video. Her peers were very sexist, and it sounds like her mother was too, and that led to her feeling like she needed to style her hair and wear makeup in order to be acceptable, even though she didn’t feel like herself when engaging in these behaviours.

There are lots of reasons why kids and teens are sexist. They learn it from their families, their religions and the media, and a few developmental characteristics makes them very keen on enforcing the rules they’ve learned. Kids and teens are unsure of themselves and very concerned about fitting in. Since they are immature they haven’t developed the ability to find their self-worth from within, and they try to find it through superficial signs of acceptance from their peers. They don’t have well developed social skills and so they engage in bullying and other anti-social behaviours. Boys learn that they have to behave in domineering and aggressive ways in order to be acceptable as boys, and they enforce this on each other. Girls learn that they have to be pretty and pleasing to boys, and they enforce this on other girls. These sexist attitudes come directly from patriarchy, which all children are socialized into.

Lesbian and bisexual women are very likely not to fit the feminine gender role, since it’s entirely based on heterosexuality. However, there are also straight women who don’t fit into femininity. There are plenty of straight women who don’t feel comfortable being limited in life to wife and mother and having her whole existence center around pleasing her man. The reason why there has been a feminist movement going on for decades now is because large numbers of women don’t identify with the sexist expectations placed on us and the limited role reserved for us in patriarchy.

This particular “non binary” woman is attracted to men and eager for their approval, and she is struggling to find a balance between pleasing men and staying true to herself. Surely this is a common experience among all women who are attracted to men, especially when they are in high school.

When I see young women who are going through the normal experience of having their appearance policed by high school peers and believing this makes them literally not female, I realize that navigating a sexist, heteronormative high school social environment is just as difficult as ever and yet we are farther away from helping girls navigate it than we used to be. All these same things happened to me when I was in school. The girls around me had arbitrary, silly, nonsensical, strongly-held beliefs that I was supposed to wear certain clothes, listen to certain music, and say certain things, and if I messed up it was their job to punish me for my transgression. It was terrifying and confusing for me because no one ever explained to me ahead of time what the rules were, and I never knew I was breaking one until the punishment came. Completely random things, like a zipper being in the wrong spot on a pair of pants, or a jacket being “too shiny,” were cause for belittling people.

When I was in high school there was a different word for those of us who didn’t understand the social rules and couldn’t follow them. We called ourselves “outsiders.” We may have gotten this word from the excellent young adult book The Outsiders, actually. Whatever vocabulary young people are given to explain their experiences is the vocabulary they will use. In the 1990s, nobody was telling us that if we didn’t fit in with the popular clique then our biological sex didn’t exist and we had to take on a “gender identity.” The experience of not fitting it hasn’t changed a bit, but the way we conceive of our differences has changed into something totally nonsensical.

There are a few things that I would tell my younger self, to help her navigate the strange and scary world of middle and high school, based on my adult knowledge of the world. The first thing I’d tell her is that social skills aren’t what she thinks they are. I used to think that social skills meant being “cool” and popular, and knowing how to do and say the right things to not get made fun of. Now that I’m an adult, I know that I had good social skills all along, but my peers did not. I knew how to treat people with respect, honour differences, appreciate a person for her personality rather than her appearance, and be kind to my friends. The kids at my school who were bullies were the ones with poor social skills. They didn’t know how to get along with other people, they were shallow and superficial and mean. They needed to be taught better how to interact with their peers.

The second thing I’d tell my younger self is that it was good that I didn’t meet the dumb criteria set by the girls at school. It was good that I wasn’t so shallow that I thought clothing had to only be the latest styles by designer brands, and it was good that I didn’t make rude, snappy comebacks and put people down, because that doesn’t make you cool, it makes you an asshole, and it was good that I had interests in arts and culture and the humanities, even though this made me “nerdy” when I was young. All the things about me that the bullies didn’t like were the things that would make me the person I am, make me proud of myself as an adult, and save my life over and over. My interest in the arts has always been the thing that keeps me from being suicidal. It’s been the main thing that makes sense to me in life and the thing that makes me feel the joy of human existence. It was good that nobody managed to bully that wonderful blessing out of me.

I would then explain to my younger self that superficial approval from my peers in the form of them liking my clothes or hair didn’t actually consist of a meaningful friendship. Further, the people who are really shallow and superficial were not even capable of meaningful friendship. The deep friendships I had with a small number of other nerdy girls were worth thousands of times more than the superficial approval from shallow assholes that I kept craving.

I would also explain to my younger self that the reason I didn’t think I needed an expensive salon haircut and a push-up bra starting at age 13 is because I was a feminist who resisted being a sex object for men and who saw herself as a fully human person. This was a positive thing about me. One of the reasons I found a lot of my female peers’ behavior baffling is because I was a lesbian and I didn’t think the same way they did. I didn’t have this sophisticated understanding back then, but I had an instinct that being overly sexualized and dressed up was not for me, and didn’t make much sense for anybody. Those girls who were 13-going-on-20 were groomed by a sexist culture and they were entering dangerous territory. Some of them were hurt while trying to please boys in these shallow ways.

High school girls who don’t fit in with the popular clique don’t need a gender identity label, they need to be taught how to navigate bullying and sexism. They need to understand that this sort of bullying has been happening for a long time, at least several decades, and maybe since time immemorial, and their mothers dealt with it too. They need to understand what positive values and good social skills are and identify bullies and sexism as the problems. They need to understand that their natural personalities are not a problem and don’t cancel out their womanhood in any way, because women do in fact have a variety of personalities. Girls and women who resist sexist expectations are normal girls and women, and if they need to be given any sort of label, a really useful label would be feminist. Girls who take on a gender identity label are not exempt from sexist expectations, because they are still female and sexist expectations are enforced based on sex, not internally-felt identities.

The main thing the feminist movement has taught me is that trying to identify your way out of oppression by claiming to be “not like the other girls” doesn’t work as a strategy. The strategy that will work to end sexism and female oppression is the strategy of making structural changes to society so that women are freed from being sex objects for men. As long as women are oppressed based on our sex, we will be targeted for misogyny, regardless of how we feel we identify. The more steps we make toward the goal of ending patriarchy, the fewer girls there will be who feel extreme discomfort when they’re expected to meet the demands of femininity, which is literally the social role created to keep us subordinate to men.

Advertisements

Changing definitions

If you are reading this blog, then you likely know that there is a push to change the definition of the word ‘woman.’ This word has always been what we call female humans, much in the same way that we call a female horse a ‘mare’ and a female deer a ‘doe.’ We give specific names to the male and female members of species because sex differences are significant in animals that reproduce sexually.

Male humans who feel they identify as female humans want the definition of the word that designates female humans changed to include them. This would cause the word ‘woman’ to be synonymous with ‘human.’ In the transgenderist belief system, a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. (This is a circular definition, and doesn’t name what a woman is at all.) Since identification with the social category of ‘woman’ is something any human can claim, regardless of their personal characteristics, there is nothing to distinguish the category of ‘woman’ from any other category. A fully-intact male with a beard and mustache who behaves with typical masculine socialization can call himself a ‘woman’ as long as ‘woman’ is a broad social category that includes anyone who makes a self-declaration.

Feminists disagree with changing the definition of ‘woman’ to accommodate human males for two reasons. As I have shown above, it makes the word ‘woman’ meaningless. In addition, violent males can legally declare themselves ‘women’ under this system, and that means they can gain access to sex-segregated spaces designed to protect females from dangerous men such as them. Those same dangerous males would also be counted as females in crime statistics, making it impossible to tell who is actually committing crimes.

One of the tactics that trans activists use to attempt to dismiss feminists’ valid concerns is to compare our not wanting to change the definition of ‘woman’ to conservatives not wanting to change the definition of ‘marriage.’ These are quite different situations. Trans activists want to present feminists as unreasonably rigid, old-fashioned, and prejudiced because we don’t want to update definitions. This is not the case.

I’d be completely willing to change the definition of ‘woman’ if it made any sense to do so. However, after giving it a lot of thought, and realizing that there is no other coherent definition of woman other than ‘adult human female,’ and considering the real-world impact on women of allowing human males to call themselves by our name, I cannot support this change.

The reason we have words is to communicate. If a word communicates absolutely nothing, then it’s useless as a word. I could go around calling myself a Ghrymk, but unless I define the characteristics of a Ghrymk, you will not understand what I mean. Having a word with no meaning is already absurd, and taking a word that has had a universally-understood meaning for hundreds of years and suddenly making it devoid of meaning is doubly absurd.

The change in the definition of marriage is quite another story. Marriage is a social institution whereby two people declare a commitment to each other and are legally considered a bonded pair. Changing the conception of marriage from between heterosexuals only to between people of any orientation doesn’t significantly alter what marriage is. It’s still a legal union between two romantic partners. It’s still a coherent concept, and in fact when same-sex partners enter into marriage their union is almost identical to the union of opposite-sex couples. The only difference is that the same-sex couple cannot produce children through sexual intercourse. Everything else is the same about the relationship—living together, being in love, cooking meals together, celebrating anniversaries, supporting each other through illnesses and hard times, spending quality time together and having sex. The opposition to this very slight change in the meaning of the word marriage has not made much sense. People argue that a union between same-sex persons is not a marriage because it doesn’t produce children, but there has been no movement to stop infertile or voluntarily childless couples from being considered legally married. People also argue that their belief in a non-existent mythological character means that homosexual persons should not have civil rights. However, this fails as an argument because people’s imaginary beliefs cannot dictate the law.

Since the definition of marriage remains coherent, and in fact not very different from before, and since opposition to the change has been nonsensical, this is a completely opposite situation from the change to the word ‘woman.’

I’d like to see anyone define a social category of person called ‘woman’ that includes both human males and human females. It would be gloriously entertaining to watch the attempt. What characteristics are shared universally among both human females and human males who wish they were female, I’d like to know? It isn’t biology, we know that. It isn’t thoughts or feelings because women have all sorts of different thoughts and feelings. It isn’t behavior because women engage in all sorts of different behaviours. What is it? If the definition of ‘woman’ is to ever change, then someone is going to have to name the characteristic that is universal to all ‘self-declared women,’ and I predict this will be impossible. And no, it can’t be that the person ‘identifies as a woman,’ because that phrase gives no indication as to what people are identifying as. They might as well identify as a Ghrymk.

Ironically, if trans activists do bully linguists into defining ‘woman’ in a way that includes males, that will likely result in another large wave of Peak Trans. That’s also a show I want to watch. I’ll be making a big bowl of popcorn for that one!

The gender-neutral teacher

My trans-critical colleagues are sharing this article about a gender neutral teacher who was removed from a fifth-grade classroom, and some of them are happy to see this teacher removed. Interestingly enough, I find myself supporting the teacher, at least in the sense that I don’t think she should have been removed from her position.

In case you haven’t seen it:
“Transgender teacher removed from classroom after some parents object to gender-neutral prefix ‘Mx.’

A Florida school district this week transferred a fifth-grade teacher from working with children into a classroom with adults after the educator requested to be addressed with gender-neutral pronouns.

The teacher’s preferences — using the prefix Mx. and the pronouns “they, them, their instead of he, his, she, hers” — had been met with support from some Canopy Oaks Elementary parents and complaints from others, including “a handful” who pulled their children from the classroom, according to a district spokesman. The Leon County school district said teacher Chloe Bressack’s transfer was a mutual decision.

“Given the complexity of this issue, we both agreed a different environment would be best for Teacher Bressack’s educational career and for the young students at Canopy Oaks,” superintendent Rocky Hanna said in a statement.”

According to the limited information given in the article, the parents objected to the very use of gender neutral pronouns, and that was enough to motivate them to remove their children from the class. I am unaware if there were other issues or concerns.

For the sake of conversation, let’s say that Bressack is an excellent teacher and a good role model and there are no concerns other than her use of “they/them” pronouns. In this case, I think it’s unreasonable and excessive to remove children from her class or to remove the teacher from her position. Although referring to people in the third person is silly and unnecessary, it’s also relatively harmless.

Teachers are whole human beings, not just robots with a chalk in their hand. Obviously they all have their own sets of beliefs, which will regularly differ from the beliefs of the parents of their students. One cannot ensure that their child’s teacher always shares one’s beliefs.

I have said that the use of gender-neutral pronouns is silly and unnecessary. I also think that belief in God is silly and unnecessary. I think that people who believe there is a man in the sky watching over us are just as crazy as people who don’t believe in human reproductive anatomy. But there are many religious people in the world and I can’t expect that none of my teachers will ever be religious.

The important thing is whether a teacher does her job well. Does she teach the subjects she is supposed to teach? Are the students learning? Are the students safe, supported, disciplined fairly, and treated with dignity? Is assessment and reporting completed accurately on the students’ progress? The personal beliefs of a teacher cannot be used to measure whether she is qualified or not.

I know my trans-critical colleagues will bring up at this point how harmful gender identity ideology is for women. Believe me, I have noticed! But many other ideologies are harmful to women too. In fact, the only ideology not harmful to women is radical feminism. It wouldn’t be practical to remove all teachers who aren’t radical feminists from the classroom. There would be very few teachers left remaining. We have to trust that all the teachers who believe in things like religion, gender, neoliberalism, capitalism etc, will do their jobs as teachers without spending all their time indoctrinating.

Here’s where we get to the other scenario. Maybe Bressack wants to spend all her time indoctrinating children into the belief that people can be any gender they want to be rather than teaching them the assigned school subjects. In this case, then she should be removed from her job, because she is not doing the job she’s been hired to do. She was hired to teach science and math, not queer theory. If her fifth-graders are learning to add and subtract fractions and name the planets and the continents, then she’s doing alright. If she’s teaching Judith Butler, then she’s not.

When I was in school, I did have some teachers who were Christians and who made that known. I had one teacher who spend a bit of class time talking about Catholic beliefs. It wasn’t very much time, but it was a little. She also did a very good job teaching her subject and I’m still good at it to this day. I really appreciate what she taught me. I never became a Catholic even though she talked about it briefly, but she did get to bring her whole self to the classroom, which I think was nice for her.

Bringing your whole self to work is a phrase I’ve learned from pro-gay materials designed to help gays and lesbians come out at work. If we can be our whole selves at work, shouldn’t everybody else too? (Within reason, of course. I’m not saying that criminals and child abusers should behave immorally at work.)

If I were a parent whose child had a teacher whose personal beliefs I found silly and unnecessary, my first approach would be just to have a gentle conversation with my child about it. I would explain that people have lots of different ideas about how to explain things. Some people explain things by saying that a mythical character called God made it that way. Some people explain things by saying that they were born in the wrong body. It’s natural for people to try to think of reasons why things happen to us and especially when we can’t explain something, we look for a story to tell about it. This is a good opportunity to discuss with your child what to do when someone has different beliefs. You respect them and treat them with common courtesy, despite their different beliefs, and you don’t make an issue out of it unless they start harming you in some way.

If this gender neutral teacher was doing things to make students uncomfortable, such as if she made all students share a washroom and incidents of harassment ensued, then it would be time to step in and complain. This is a definite possibility because trans activists tend to do this. However, people who are not trans and not using alternative pronouns or titles are also capable of desegregating facilities, and it’s wrong no matter who does it. It’s not the fact of believing oneself to be a different sex or neither sex that is the problem. The problem is the creation of policies that harm other people.

If the teacher was asking to be called “they” and otherwise not doing anything that created problems for other people, then this issue could be solved in one conversation. I’d explain to my child that some people don’t want to be referred to as men or women because they have an idea in their heads that men and women are supposed to think, behave and appear in a certain way, and they don’t think they measure up to that expectation. However, men and women can be any kind of people they want to be and we’ve never met up to the expectations that people impose on us. People have previously had other words for girls who didn’t measure up to expectations about what girls should be, such as “tomboy” or “androgynous.” The vocabulary changes with new generations, but the idea has always been there. It’s okay to be different, and it’s okay to express this with vocabulary that makes sense to you. That still doesn’t mean that you don’t have a male or a female body, because your body exists the same way no matter how you interpret it. This conversation should clear it all up.

If the teacher started creating policies that harmed students, then I’d oppose the policies of course. Mx. Gender-Neutral can be as nonbinary as she wants, but her students still have a right to safety and privacy in washrooms and locker rooms.

I don’t feel comfortable with a total ban on gender neutral teachers, because banning teachers based on their personal characteristics rather than their teaching skills is the wrong approach. Banning people because of their personal characteristics is just prejudice. Let’s not go down that road. The right approach is to balance people’s rights. Theoretically, if we had a sane, reasonable and nuanced conversation we could let gender neutral people have their space and also let men and women have their space. Sadly, the conversation about this has mostly been insane, unreasonable, and overly polarized, but at the very least, the end goal should be to accommodate everyone.

How do you intend to address the upcoming trans generation?

This is another response to a troll named Angie who was commenting on this post.

Angie asked:

“Out of curiosity, how do you guys intend on addressing the upcoming generation of transgender folks, who’ve transitioned much earlier than the current generation?
I work in an elementary school, and we currently have a 5 year old transgender student. She identifies as a girl, is accepted by her peers as a girl, will likely be on hormone therapy before puberty etc etc. As an adult woman, having lived all but the first 3-4 years of her life as a girl…do you plan to tell her she’s not a real woman because she lacks a uterus? That she’s a man, despite being raised and socialized as female?
When our children come to us, utterly distressed and feeling trapped in the wrong bodies…what course of action do you folks advocate? Knowing that all of the science supports early intervention as the best route to good outcomes for trans kids…that years passing without intervention corresponds directly with rising suicide rates in transgender youth…do you still advocate denying these kids their identities, and insisting biology rules? Or does saving lives play a factor?”

Angie has swallowed trans activist propaganda whole without doing any critical thinking about it and therefore is missing some vitally important information about the “trans kids” that she is talking about. The most important things that Angie is missing about “trans kids” is that most of them will desist in their gender dysphoria as they get older, and that many of these kids are same-sex attracted, and would be considered gay, lesbian, or bisexual if we didn’t have this gender-worshipping social movement going on.

In a study called Factors Associated With Desistence and Persistence of Childhood Gender Dysphoria: A Quantitative Follow-Up Study published in the Journal Of The American Academy Of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Volume 52 Number 6 June 2013, the authors cited a collection of other studies that investigated persistence and desistance of gender dysphoria and concluded that:

“Many children who experience gender dysphoria (GD), a sense of discomfort from incongruence between their gender identity and assigned sex, will not continue to experience dysphoria into adolescence and adulthood. However, a substantial minority (2–27% across studies) will continue to report GD and may seek services for gender reassignment later in life.”

Studies also show that a large percentage of kids with gender dysphoria are same-sex attracted. In the study Desisting and Persisting Gender Dysphoria After Childhood: A Qualitative Follow-Up Study published in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry 16(4) 499-516 2010, the authors noted the high percentage of bisexual and homosexual attraction among the study participants and that people who persist in gender dysphoria after childhood overwhelmingly tend to be same-sex attracted:

“All persisters reported feeling exclusively, and for as long as they could remember, sexually attracted to individuals of the same natal sex…”

The DSM-5 says the same thing:

“For both natal male and female children showing persistence, almost all are sexually attracted to individuals of their natal sex.
For natal male children whose gender dysphoria does not persist, the majority are androphilic, (sexually attracted to males) and often self-identify as gay or homosexual (ranging from 63% to 100%).
In natal female children whose gender dysphoria does not persist, the percentage who are gynephilic (sexually attracted to females) and self-identify as lesbian is lower (ranging from 32% to 50%).”

Note in this screenshot from the DSM-5, it also mentions that less than half of kids with gender dysphoria will still have it when they grow up.

These “trans kids” we keep seeing in the media are very likely, according to the available research, to be same-sex attracted and to grow up to accept themselves as gay or lesbian. This is why Kenneth Zucker, a prominent Canadian researcher in gender dysphoria, advocated for a “wait-and-see” approach.

“Dr. Zucker argued in published research and previous interviews that his therapy should be guided by the age of the patient and based on best evidence, particularly longitudinal studies that showed that gender identity is “malleable” in young children, and that the majority will outgrow their cross-gender identity by the time they are teenagers, and most often grow up to be gay adults.”

Trans activists today do not want to wait and see if same-sex-attracted children will grow up to be comfortable in their bodies and accepting of themselves as gay or lesbian, even though they know this is a likely outcome. They want all children who express a trans identity to immediately be given puberty-blockers followed by cross-sex hormones and taught to believe they are literally the opposite sex. They think that anything else is “conversion therapy” which is yet another reversal of reality. Giving gay and lesbian kids body modifications so that they appear to be heterosexual members of the opposite sex is conversion therapy.

Lupron, the drug commonly used to delay puberty, is not approved for use on children for transgender treatment and is being used off-label with no documented long-term studies of its effects. There are already adults who were given Lupron for precocious puberty who are speaking out against “serious physical and emotional adverse events” such as pain and soreness, anxiety and depression, high heart rate, IBS, memory loss, insomnia, crippling migraines, osteoporosis, and more.

Children whose puberty is blocked and then go on to take cross-sex hormones become sterile, because their sex organs never mature. Also, MtF transsexuals whose genitals never mature may not have enough genital material to even use to create a vaginoplasty. This means they will look like eunuchs, not women.

Our troll Angie asked “how do you guys intend on addressing the upcoming generation of transgender folks, who’ve transitioned much earlier than the current generation?”
Well, here’s the thing, Angie. After all the incredible medical abuse these kids have suffered, I am 100% certain that they’ll be suing the doctors who did this to them as soon as they’re old enough to process and think critically about what happened to them. Sooner or later they’re going to realize that adults failed them by giving them dangerous drugs and telling them that they could become the opposite sex when they can’t, all because they felt uncomfortable with their gender nonconformity and their sexual orientation. They’re going to realize what gender critical feminists have been arguing all along: that it’s not okay to give dangerous drugs to kids and sterilize them, with unknown long-term side effects, just because they were playing with toys marketed to the other sex and with their immature thinking skills decided that this meant they were literally the opposite sex.

So what will I do to address the upcoming generation of people who were given dangerous drugs and sterilized before they were old enough to realize what their dysphoric feelings really meant? Several things: I will listen to them, promote their words, support their activism, and donate to their legal funds when they sue the doctors who abused them.

There is already a growing community of detransitioners, many of whom are lesbians, who are discussing other ways to deal with dysphoria, and I have already started reblogging and promoting them when they provide important information. See the list of detransitioners in my sidebar, and see Carey Callahan’s excellent YouTube channel. We will be seeing more and more detransitioners as time goes on, as more people realize they’ve been sold a bill of goods and decide to reconcile with themselves.

There are some other things in your comment that I take issue with, but they are smaller points than what I have laid out above. For example, you say that a boy can live “as a girl,” and that’s not true, because a girl is a young human female and there is no way for a human male to “live as” a human female. He is simply living in a feminine gender role. The people around him know he’s a boy, so he’s living as a special boy, not as a girl. I also take an issue with the phrase “feeling trapped in the wrong body” because there is no way for a body to be wrong. We are living animals and our bodies are literally what we are made out of and who we are. Bodies are good; we can mistakenly perceive them as “wrong” but they aren’t actually wrong.

Trans activists think that I am hateful, bigoted and phobic for not supporting the idea that some human beings are born inherently needing to take Lupron and be sterilized, but time will tell that it’s the people who promoted medical experimentation on kids who were the hateful bigots. I am in favor of giving everyone an opportunity to grow up in their natural body and accept themselves as they are, so they can have the best and healthiest possible life. Any decisions to make major body modifications should be made as fully-informed mature adults who are acting from a place of self-love and acceptance, not a place of fear and self-hate. Adults who are accepting of themselves rarely will want any body modifications, but if they do, I do not plan to stop them.

Someday the medical abuse of a group of mostly gay and lesbian people will go down in the history books as another method of homophobic gay conversion therapy, just like the lobotomy and shock therapy of previous decades. I certainly intend to support the victims of this form of abuse.

Let’s talk about who’s actually hateful and bigoted here

Well, folks, I am back from a lovely and relaxing trip and ready to address the stinking pile of horseshit that people crapped onto my blog while I was away.

I published a guest post by a woman who was harassed at the Vancouver Dyke March, and her harasser showed up in the comments to continue the harassment. It’s absolutely amazing to me that a harasser can get called out on his harassment and then decide that the appropriate response is to continue harassing. How messed up of a person do you have to be to think that’s a good idea?

Mr. Wanda Normous made a feeble attempt to claim that he hadn’t harassed anyone by reporting that he didn’t use a loud voice when talking to her. However, he admitted in his own words to engaging in the following behaviours:

  • “follow around to counter your hateful message until you took it out of the park with you”
  • “walk or stand immediately outside of your personal space with my terror breasts exposed.”
  • “I used two tools to evict you”

In these quotes, Mr. Normous has admitted to following a lesbian around and being in her personal space with the purpose of “evicting” her from the march. This is clear harassment and intimidation.

Let’s take a moment to discuss who is actually hateful and bigoted in this situation. There is a trans march and a dyke march. No lesbians are on record as saying they do not think there should be a trans march. No lesbians have attended a trans march to intimidate anybody. Lesbians have not tried to take over the board of directors of a trans march and kick out the trans people from the march. This is something that trans people are doing to the dyke march, and it’s happening only in that direction. It’s not going both ways.

Speaking for myself, I have been to a trans march. While I was there I just stood on the sidelines and watched. I did not lecture anyone about what they may or may not put on their sign. I did not select a person whose sign I believed was objectionable and follow them around in order to intimidate them. I do not believe I have the right to dictate to trans people what they put on their signs in their own march, nor do I have a right to harass anyone. I believe it’s acceptable for Pride festivals to include a trans march and for trans people to show their pride about being trans. I do not wish to stand in the way of this.

All the dyke marches in every city that holds them have been taken over by queer politics and are now hostile toward anyone who understands what a woman is and what a lesbian is. Comments from lesbians are deleted from Dyke March Facebook pages in every city and marchers hold signs that say things like “No TERFs” to make it clear that actual female homosexuals are not welcome there. The Dyke Marches now cater exclusively to men and bisexual women who agree with queer politics.

There is no logical reason why trans people need to be centered or even invited at all to a dyke march, since THERE IS A TRANS MARCH. A dyke march should center dykes.

What is happening here is that female homosexuals are being completely kicked out of Pride festivals; we cannot have our own march any more, we cannot even speak about our exclusion without being labelled bigots. It’s not just that trans people wanted their own march, which would have been fine, but they wanted every march to cater exclusively to them.

It is abundantly clear that the actual hatred and bigotry here is coming from trans people and is being directed at lesbians. Claims that lesbians are excluding trans people are complete reversals of the truth.

Speaking of lies, Wanda Normous wrote some real whoppers in the comments on my last post.

He has claimed that  “your desire to exterminate transwomen is plain” and that “you only care about hurting and excluding transwomen” and that “you’re just deciding for folks whether or not they’re women.”

Neither I nor the writer of the guest post gave any indication that we wanted to “exterminate” transwomen. In order for this alleged “desire” to be “plain,” we would have had to express it. This claim is purely a product of Mr. Normous’s imagination. Just for the record, no, I do not wish to exterminate anyone.

Neither I nor the guest writer has an interest in hurting transwomen. As for exclusion, I do think that transwomen should be excluded from the dyke march, however I do not think they should be excluded from the trans march. It’s pretty basic logic that the dyke march is for dykes and the trans march is for trans people. Having a march for each group does not exclude anybody—holding a march for each group is actually inclusion. Questions: If transwomen should be included in the dyke march, then why even have separate marches? Why not just make it one big march? And if trans people should be included in the dyke march, does this also mean that dykes should be included in the trans march? Why or why not?

A sign that says “dyke power is female” does not exclude anybody. It’s true that dykes are female. Stating a simple and neutral fact is not exclusionary.

Last but not least, the third lie mentioned above was “you’re just deciding for folks whether or not they’re women.” Nope! We’re not. Nobody can decide who is a woman and who is not. You’re just born that way. Nature and biology determine whether you’re born male or female. Nobody can decide anything about it. People can’t assign a sex to a baby any more than they can assign fingers or toes to a baby. Women are identifying the difference between male and female, but we cannot possibly decide it from our desire or will—nobody can.

I want to particularly highlight the following phrase from Wanda Normous:

“USELESS FUCKING TERF GARBAGE”

This is hate speech directed toward lesbians. Although Mr. Normous is very concerned that lesbians should not be allowed to represent a uterus on a sign because that is allegedly “hate speech” against him, he has no problem with calling lesbians “useless fucking terf garbage.” It’s very, very clear that Mr. Normous has serious misogyny issues. A misogynist and homophobic man who harasses and intimidates lesbians has absolutely no business attending a dyke march and he should be considered an unsafe person and banned from the event.

In contrast, I am a trans-critical writer who makes an effort not to use unnecessarily antagonistic language when talking about trans people. I never use the slur “tranny” and I even refrain from using the words “mutilate” and “delusional.” I believe in giving people basic courtesy and respect, in order to show that I am engaging honestly with issues and not just trolling. For a transwoman to show up on my blog and use this sort of disrespectful language when I have used no such disrespectful language toward him is very telling. Once again, the hatred and bigotry in this situation are coming from trans people and directed at lesbians; it’s a one-way street.

I did notice that Mr. Normous intentionally “misgendered” me by referring to me with male signifiers. This did not harm me in any way, because using incorrect grammar in a sentence does not cause people harm. I found it mildly amusing, but it really didn’t matter at all. However, I have to note that according to trans ideology, misgendering is “violence,” and so according to Mr. Normous’s own political position, he has committed “violence” toward me. Funny how the “violence” of misgendering only matters when directed toward transwomen; when directed at lesbians it’s not a problem.

The last point I’m going to cover for tonight is this:

“your narrative that women are only as good as their reproductive organs”

This is not at all the narrative that feminists present. It is a bald-faced lie to claim this. It is patriarchy that positions women as only good for reproduction and PIV sex. The entire feminist movement has been based on women’s knowledge that we are more than just wives and mothers and that we can do anything we want. Our work has been based on allowing us to control our reproductive capacity so that we are not reduced to our biological functions and can enter the workforce as men’s equals. To name the female reproductive anatomy does not reduce women to just their reproductive anatomy. Similarly, if I identify that I have ten fingers, that does not reduce me to just fingers, and if I identify that I have two eyes, that does not reduce me to nothing but eyes. This attempt at an argument is beyond pathetic.

Over and over I have witnessed transwomen behaving with masculine socialization (entitlement, dominance, and aggression), making ridiculously misogynist and homophobic statements, engaging in misogynist and homophobic behaviours, and telling bald-faced lies about feminists. I am absolutely not impressed and as long as they behave this way I will not be a political ally toward them. Although I would theoretically support some parts of trans activism, such as gender-neutral toilets and the right to wear the clothing one wants to wear, I cannot ally with people who are this hateful toward my demographic.

Over and over, transwomen demonstrate, with their own words and behaviour, that they do not resemble women in the slightest, and that they are particularly dangerous men. Feminists hardly have to call attention to the fact that transwomen are male; they do it themselves.

Anti-lesbian harassment at Vancouver Dyke March

This is a guest post by Katherine Jeffcott who attended the Vancouver Dyke March on August 5, 2017. She says:

I thought I would share my account of the dyke march in Vancouver, including pictures. As you know, I’m big on making women central in my feminism. So, I made a sign which stated simply “dyke power is female”. Here is me with my sign:

Well, we were marching, when this trans woman who was obviously a volunteer or a marshal, came up to me and yelled at me. She said my sign was transmisogynistic (because it doesn’t include male anatomy). Essentially the uterus offended this person. So she yelled at me, but one of my sisters quickly came up and put her arm around me, indicating I wasn’t alone. I kept marching. Meanwhile I was surrounded by other awesome women with amazing signs. Like this:

And this:

We weren’t saying anything against trans, we were simply focusing on women. Interestingly enough when the parade ended and we were in the park, this same trans person followed us everywhere:

They removed their top and followed us in a pink speedo where ever we went. We didn’t say or do anything to provoke this person. All we did was talk about women and female anatomy. Eventually I felt freaked out enough that my partner came and picked me up. I literally had shaky palms and was sweating. I was nervous until I saw my sisters with their sign that said Trust In God: Grumpy Old Dykes. Then I felt at home.

But my question to you is, what about women? Why are we being intimidated in our own spaces? What is it about our anatomy that is not acceptable?