Genderism, trans theory and the hostility towards radical feminism.

UPDATE 2: I have re-opened the comments due to renewed interest in this entry.

UPDATE: The comments section is closed due to this entry being linked to r/TheRedPill. Thanks for nothing, you little shits.


Above: An image from “Artists Against Misandry,” now shut down.

Also see previous entries in this series:
The confusion between sex and gender.
How not to prove the objective existence of gender.

First, what is genderism? It can be used in the same sense as “sexism” and “racism.” And indeed that is how it’s mostly been used. But in this case I mean it in the colloquial sense of people who enforce gender roles. An Australian named Tosson Mahmoud claims he invented this use of the term genderism, although he uses it to fight against “the virus of feminism.”

The concept of genderism, as used in feminism, is usually defined as the belief that certain behavioral preferences are caused by a person’s sex, in general that one’s gender is the result of one’s sex, and therefore that gender is natural (and even desirable).

This stands in stark contrast to the view that gender is a social construct. It is also generally held as being the opposite of feminism, because feminists believe that being of the female sex does not constitute an obligation to take on a gender role which is constructed as inferior and subservient.

What are the behaviors and roles considered appropriate for one’s sex?

If you are a Feminist (even a Liberal Feminist or a Fun Feminist), the answer to this should be “There are no behaviors and roles considered appropriate for my sex because Females can be and do anything.”

There is a lot of nuances in definitions here, but they are not entirely necessary. For example, some include within genderism the belief that there are two genders. But the two genders are an artefact of culture; some culture have three genders or four genders, and really, the exact number is irrelevant: all that matters is that some are seen as superior and some are seen as inferior. Genderism would not magically disappear if we added another gender to the list.

So who are genderists exactly? There are two kinds. One is traditional genderism, which generally in the West holds that one’s gender was assigned by God or evolution through their sex. This covers the gamut from non-science (Bible fundamentalists) to pseudo-science (evolutionary psychology) to quasi-science (studies and papers written to “prove” genderism), as well as most conservatives and liberals.

Even if they vastly disagree on pretty much everything, the goal of all traditional genderists is to suppress feminism and restore “women’s place” in society in order to uphold the gender hierarchy. And these various factions have been quite successful; together they encompass so many approaches that one of them is bound to work.

The second kind is trans genderism (not to be confused with transgenderism). Trans theory states that when a male does not feel that ey is a man, or when a female does not feel that ey is a woman, this is a fundamental biological problem which must be rectified by chemical treatment and/or surgery. They believe in the link between sex and gender just as much; they simply add another layer, the “innate gender” which trumps one’s “assumed gender” and otherwise takes over its role.

Trans activists believe they are anti-genderism. This may be so, but the very definition of transgender implies a link between sex and gender:

Transgender An umbrella term (adj.) for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth.

Transgender (sometimes shortened to trans or TG) people are those whose psychological self (“gender identity”) differs from the social expectations for the physical sex they were born with.

These are by far the most common definitions of transgender given by trans-friendly groups, and they clearly link sex and gender. If one is male, then one should feel like a man, and that if one is female, then one should feel like a woman. Gender rebels must be “helped” with chemical treatments and surgery so they can perform the proper gender.

In contrast, the traditional genderist position is that males are men and females are women, and gender rebels must be punished, not rehabilitated. The radfem position, on the other hand, is that we should live the way we want regardless of sex, that neither sex nor gender should limit us, and that gender-rebels deserve neither medical rehabilitation nor punishment.

From a radfem perspective, trans theory is extremely offensive in that it enforces gender roles while giving the illusion of choice. It ostensibly tells people that they can be whatever they want, but in practice they use one’s conformity or non-conformity to gender roles to assign them a label of “cis” or “trans.”

Reducing “woman” to a checklist of characteristics that others have forced upon us is insulting. Feeling that you are a woman because you have a medically made hole in your body that does not act anything like our reproductive organ is insulting. Thinking that you can be a woman without experiencing the effects of being a woman in infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood is insulting. Womanhood is not putting on a frilly dress and being emotionally available. Womanhood is dealing with the fact that that is the expectation of us, which you just reinforce.

Cis/trans is a tyrannical, binary label which aims to erase all levels of gender rebellion. Everyone who is not genderist and who rebels against gender has no choice but to take refuge in the domain of queer and eschew the cis/trans binary completely (I know nothing of queer theory, so I will refrain from talking further about it). Given the fact that it reduces third genders from other cultures to a “trans” label that simply doesn’t apply, it is also a colonialist, some might even say white supremacist, concept.

I’m a bakla Filipina. To call me trans for being bakla is to entirely erase the cultural specificity of my identity and to enact a type of cultural imperialism, something I most certainly do reject. Yet in Asher’s binary construction of cis/trans I am considered trans, something that I am not. Either that or simply rendered invisible.

Please note that I am not accusing trans activists of being white supremacists. I know very well they are not. What I am saying is that some have called the cis/trans binary white supremacist from their own cultural perspective, and I completely understand that.

Gender rebellion is a consequence of the existence of gender itself. Once you set up these little prison cells where people have to conform to one or the other set of behaviors, there will be people whose personalities lead them to adopt an admixture of both, and who will rebel against the attempt to impose a set on them. Now we know for a fact that few people, if any, are totally gender conforming, but most people try to follow their role enough so they don’t stick out. Some people, by virtue of having a personality that is too divergent from these sets, cannot do so, and will naturally rebel.

If you research the subject outside of radfem blogs, the first thing you will find is that many people hate radical feminism with incredible passion and vitriol. The biggest part of this vitriol comes from trans activists and their allies, who accuse radfems of being transphobic and of propagating hatred.

The reason for this should not be hard to understand. Gender is an integral part of trans theory, and anyone who seeks to eliminate gender is undercutting trans theory at its very foundation. To deny gender is to deny the transgender identity. I don’t dispute that this is bigotry, but the bigotry is the result of a systemic analysis. An anarchist is right to be a bigot against policemen and soldiers, because their job is inherently one of repression, no matter how nice the individuals might be. An antitheist is right to be a bigot against priests, even if they are nice.

Anyone who identifies their job or their very well-being with hurting other people should rightly be hated, and gender hurts people on a massive global scale. Gender is the rationale for oppressing women, gender sustains the rape culture, gender is an excuse to beat down, imprison and kill people. In that it constrains us to a set of preferred behaviors, genderism is necessarily a denial of freedom, in the political sense as well as in the personal sense. To follow a gender role means to be told how to act, how to talk, how to think, how to react, how to dress, how to have sex; as long as we have to follow gender roles, we are slaves to hierarchy.

Feminism does not believe that asking whether an individual identifies with the particular social characteristics and expectations assigned to them at birth is a politically useful way of analyzing or understanding gender. Eliminating gender assignments, by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation.

Gender is an extremely oppressive and unnecessary construct. Defining “trans” people as those who deviate from otherwise unobjectionable gender norms is not a progressive social cause. Fighting for everyone’s right to be as gender “non-conforming” as they wanna be, on the other hand, is.

Some people even claim that radfems want to kill transgender people. This is a straightforward lie, but it is a fact that trans theory applied to children leads to the extermination of homosexuality, because a majority of gender rebellious children are homosexual. They are also the ones who issue death threats to “cis” people (the most popular trans slogan is “die cis scum”). So the accusations leveled against radfems are clearly projections. Trans advocates wish for extermination and death but cannot proclaim this openly, so they accuse their opponents of wishing extermination and death on them. It is traditional genderists who kill transgender people and want to take away their rights, not radical feminists. Trans advocates accuse radfem of “transphobia,” but they are the ones who constantly lie to transgender people and tell them that there’s something physically wrong with gender-rebelling children and adults.

I honestly don’t know a group of people more compassionate than people who run radical feminists blogs on the Internet. This is why it boggles my mind when I read claims that radfems are hateful monsters: it is disconnected from the reality I observe in a very egregious way, and so it feels like they’re invalidating my experience. Of course they don’t care that they’re invalidating me: to them, radfem are walking sulfur-smelling devils and that’s all there is to it. I don’t really know what to reply to that attitude except that they’re speaking out of a position of willful ignorance.

58 thoughts on “Genderism, trans theory and the hostility towards radical feminism.

  1. naefearty October 29, 2013 at 01:55

    THANKYOU, THANKYOU, THANKYOU. This is a clearly expressed summary of the systemic analysis that radical feminists have tried to explain to defenders of gender for decades. Be prepared for the onslaught of vitriol disguised as ”debate” that will come your way. Nothing short of total compliance will satisfy these ”trans activists” and their liberal defenders. Have bookmarked this for future use!

    • Francois Tremblay October 29, 2013 at 02:31

      I’m glad you liked it. I am aware of what usually happens to such posts on radfem blogs, but I doubt anything bad will happen. If you follow my blog, you know I’ve written far, far, far worse stuff on here.

      Thanks should also go to ehungerford for her invaluable blogs.

  2. Pegasus October 29, 2013 at 03:14
  3. oopster74 October 29, 2013 at 04:59

    I couldn’t disagree with you more on so many levels. It completely ignores ftm transpeople, instead focussing only on mtf transpeople. As for the hate that some radfems experience, this is easily explained by some more vocal and extreme elements of radfem culture (Cathy Brennan and her ilk).

    I personally, don’t give a monkeys about gender or sex or conforming to stereotypes, I just be me right now (sorry, that’s bad use of language I know), and I’d suggest others do the same too, which is what I think you’re saying here with feminism, ie that you shouldn’t be limited or limit yourself in what you do or can do because of your sex / gender etc.

    Surely, feminism should be supportive of trans people, as they’re saying to society “you expect me to be this, but that’s not me”. By telling transpeople, they’re wrong to transition, aren’t you enforcing the same gender stereotypes you complain about so vigourously?

    • Francois Tremblay October 29, 2013 at 12:27

      Sorry that I can’t post a detailed response to you right now, as I have to go to work. I will reply this evening.

      • oopster74 October 29, 2013 at 14:42

        No probs :-)

        I virtually live on the internet which is why you’ll see me post at all times of day and night.

    • lonesomeyogurt October 29, 2013 at 18:34


      Radical feminists believe that gender is a social construction designed to oppress the group of people called “women.” They do not believe in any kind of “innate” or “internal” gender. Gender is just a term for the groups people are put into because of socialization. Radical feminists believe that every form of gender will oppress women in some way because it is inherently hierarchical and deals with concepts (masculinity and femininity) that are inherently destructive to women. Gender does not come from inside; rather, it is forced on us from the outside by a patriarchal system.

      When a man says, “I am a woman” but has not received the socialization of womanhood, what he is essentially saying is, “I have an identity of ‘woman’ outside of my socialization.” Or to put it another way: “‘Womanhood’ exists outside of socialization.” Radical feminists find that notion offensive and dangerous. When they tell a man not to transition into the class “woman” because of a personal identification, they are not enforcing any stereotypes; quite the opposite, they are trying to shut down the idea that somehow your nature as a “man” or “woman” is related to how you feel or act inside. This is because they believe that “man” or “woman” is just a social role that different people are given through socialization.

      Radical feminists support men who are compassionate, kind, loving, non-violent, gentle, and emotionally available. They support women who are assertive, strong, intelligent, powerful, and brave. What they don’t support is the idea that those traits are somehow linked to an internal “womanhood” or “manhood”, because they aren’t. When someone says, “I am a woman because I am this or that”, they are claiming that gender is related to personality or internal state. This is not true, and it is dangerous. Does that make sense?

      • oopster74 October 30, 2013 at 03:23

        It makes sense in the way you explain it, but I still disagree. I’m fairly stressed right now (home & work stuff, not anything anyone here’s done) so I’ll try a full & proper response later. If as a trans woman, I was doing a parody or openly mocking women, then I might agree with you, but as I consider myself to be a woman, why would I do that? ( think about it for a minute, it just doesn’t make sense ). I don’t go round telling all and sundry I’m trans either, it’s relevant in this case, but if I didn’t tell you, you might not know, some always will, don’t ask me how, it’s like they have some kind of radar.

        Do you understand my point , even if you disagree with it?

      • N October 31, 2013 at 08:54

        But must the concept of transgenderism imply that gender exists outside of socialisation, or just that socialisation can operate in irregular ways? Obviously the gender identity of a “trans” person results from socialisation – where else would it have come from? To claim that they cannot “authentically” have that gender identity because of their sex is to claim that sex and gender are linked. To posit a distinction between socialised gender and some superficial performance of gender is to assert that gender is in some sense internal, despite not being essential – perhaps this is in fact your assertion. Or my understanding is incomplete.

        At the very most you could argue that those who identify as trans are victims of the gender system. Aren’t you shooting the messenger, effectively, in reserving for “trans” people a particular ire? Isn’t it the gender system that is dangerous and offensive, not those who react to it in slightly irregular ways?

        • lonesomeyogurt October 31, 2013 at 11:18

          No one has an “authentic” gender identity. Gender is a class system. No one in Medieval India had an “authentic identity” as a Brahmin or Dalit either.

          Socialization doesn’t “create” an identity; it *is* that identity. You are framing gender as though somehow socialization into the role of womanhood creates a magical essence of womanhood that is separate from that socialization, but that is not the case. If somehow a certain amount of female socialization could “create” a real and meaningful internal identity of woman, then your point about a malfunctioning or otherwise irregular socialization effect in men might make sense. But the whole point is that gender isn’t real, it doesn’t exist. Women are not women because they have had their souls or brains or whatever turned into women; they’re women because they have been put into the *political caste* of woman. The transgender narrative that links gender with internal states only obfuscates and erases that oppression by naturalizing it.

          Absolutely though, transpeople are victims of gender. Gender doesn’t work for anyone. It’s a horrible system all around. But creating more options inside the sex caste system won’t erase these difficulties, and it can make things for women a whole lot worse. The system needs to be abolished, not reformed. And I don’t think radical feminists single out transpeople at all in their attack on gender; every time a woman speaks out against rape, or pornography or prostitution or battering or anything else, that’s also a direct attack on our gender system. The only reason it seems like radicals are attacking transgenderism specifically is because you don’t place trans theory into the same group of oppressive ideologies as rape, porn, etc. but radical feminists do because they all contribute to the continuation of gender as a social structure.

    • Francois Tremblay October 29, 2013 at 22:20

      All right, I am back. I thought lonesomeyogurt’s response was very good, you should address what she said.

      I did want to address a couple of other points. You say that people who stand against trans advocacy are “more vocal and extreme elements of radfem culture.” This is just a standard “divide and conquer” strategy. Cathy Brennan is an important voice on the radfem blogsphere and I find it silly that you’re trying to divide her away from “mainstream” radfem. Radfem is anti-genderist, you realize that right? And anyone who’s anti-genderist is anti-trans advocacy. This is just simple logic.

      “By telling transpeople, they’re wrong to transition”
      I have never told any transgender person that they were wrong to transition. My hatred is directed squarely against the quacks who encourage and perform the transitions, and the parents who normalize them (in the case of children), not the people who transition. I really couldn’t care less what people want to do with their bodies. But I care about indoctrination, lying, and misrepresenting science.

      • oopster74 October 30, 2013 at 03:38

        Francois, just do a little googling to see the kinds of things CB does. Whether her cause is just or not, she goes about it in entirely the wrong way. The doctors you speak of have put years of research into their theories. In the US medical system where it’s all money, that argument might hold water, but in the UK, we have the NHS funded by our taxes, and there’s no reason for those same motivations you imply. I didn’t realise I was trans because I liked playing with Barbies growing up, I liked cars, I had an Action Man. ( GI Joe in the US). It was a slow realisation, and I wish I had had someone to talk to about it growing up instead of feeling scared and alone and like a freak. I wouldn’t wish being trans on my worst enemy, but for those that self identify as trans, (I’m talking transsexual here) then I want to do all I can to make it easier for them and the next generation, because we’re here and I don’t see any sign of us going away anytime soon, so it’s the realities of now that trying to deal with. Radfem theories of gender and such are all good and well, but a lot of what I’ve read and seen online (I admit it’s been the vocal minority on this) are all “my way or the highway” style, and you don’t get anywhere with that kind of thinking (just to make that clear as I can drove on sometimes, compromise from all parties is needed, obviously there can be no compromise on some more important issues).

        Sorry for the rant, typing on an iPhone is not the easiest (and thanks for keeping things civil, I know both sides of the argument are guilty of descending into flame wars, and I’m no exception to that sometimes, but it’s not easy to hold back sometimes).

        • Francois Tremblay October 30, 2013 at 03:48

          Cathy Brennan is putting herself out there and receives threats and gets attacked physically for what she does, and I wouldn’t want to have to do the same. She’s a front line fighter as well as a public policy person all rolled into one.

          BTW, what “theories” are you going on about? There only trans theory I know of is “innate gender,” which is pseudo-scientific pap. I talked about this in a previous entry.

          • oopster74 October 30, 2013 at 03:59

            I’ve never actually read any trans theory, and don’t care about it, it doesn’t make a difference to my daily life. I use the word “sex” to describe my physical body, and “gender” to describe what most call “brain sex”, I know there are several different ideas on what that means.

            Cathy Brennan doesn’t deserve to be threatened, abused or attacked, but the phrase “you live by the sword, you die by the sword” comes to mind. She has her public face, and the side she shows to the trans community where she constantly ridicules and “outs” trans people putting their lives in risk. Theres no excuse for those actions.

        • Francois Tremblay October 30, 2013 at 12:25

          There is no such thing as “brain sex.”

          How is outing not a perfectly legitimate tactic? It’s been used effectively against homophobic gay conservatives, for example.

          • oopster74 October 30, 2013 at 14:12

            The brain sex thing, that’s opinion, not fact. I phrased it that way as it’s the simplest way I could.

            Your example of outing, although I don’t agree with outing anyone, I do understand your example, that’s exposing hypocrites I think we can both agree. But outing people that are just living their lives and aren’t harming anyone, what does that achieve, and what does that say about the person doing the outing? Most people I know are cool with gay & lesbian people, but I wouldn’t out my friends to them, as it’s not my place to do so. If my friends out themselves, that’s they’re choice to make and not mine to take.

    • Francois Tremblay November 1, 2013 at 22:18

      This entry was posted a couple days ago and it reflects my position on who to hate.
      ” Yeah, look, I know that I’m trumpeting out the same old arguments and am soon to become a gender-critical stereotype myself, but yeah, I don’t hate trans people individually, and I really do think that they’re operating within the conditions of a misogynistic society with strict sex roles for men and women; I’d say – and maybe you’ll be surprised that I think this – that while these are particularly harmful and oppressive for women, they’re actually *stricter* for men. If people are “transitioning”, then I doubt that they’re attempting to be malicious in any way, I doubt that they’ve really thought all this political stuff through all that much (much like most people in our society), and I also, in most cases, believe that it’s intensely cruel to promote “transitioning” to these individuals as an option instead of, you know, a radical reconstruction of the sex roles themselves so that “transitioning” (demeaning of the self, damaging to the body, not to mention financially costly) becomes obsolete. No way do I hate and place huge blame onto each and every individual who “transitions sex”.

      But this theory? Fucked. Misogynistic. Offensive that it’s misogynistic while also trying to pass as “feminism”.”

      • oopster74 November 2, 2013 at 02:09

        Re-read the big paragraph, and I’ll give a proper reply later (I’ve got a massive head on me right now).

        What theory are you referring to? Just a little confused there.

        • Francois Tremblay November 2, 2013 at 02:43

          Well, she’s referring there to a specific book by a trans advocate called Julia Serano, a real scumbag. Serano is trying to destroy feminism in order to replace it with trans advocacy, just as people like him have co-opted homosexual advocacy in order to preach the eradication of homosexuality.

          • oopster74 November 2, 2013 at 02:56

            Think I’ve heard the name, but that’s it.

            I think feminism has way too many interpretations and versions for anyone to all agree with, but I don’t think anyone who transitions, is thinking “fuck feminism”, more so, they’re trying to resolve what can be a very serious condition. Anyway, I promised a decent length response later.

        • Francois Tremblay November 2, 2013 at 03:08

          Again, not really talking about people who transition, but okay.

  4. radfemuprising October 29, 2013 at 05:39

    Reblogged this on Fuck equality.

  5. Giordano Mirandolla October 29, 2013 at 08:03

    Lol, didn’t know you were a big too, dude.

  6. Elizabeth Hungerford October 29, 2013 at 08:20

    Heeeey! You just made my day! Thank you so much, FT! Your voice of reason is a breath of fresh air. xoxoxoxox

    “Trans advocates accuse radfem of “transphobia,” but they are the ones who constantly lie to transgender people and tell them that there’s something physically wrong with gender-rebelling children and adults.”

    This cognitive dissonance boggles the mind, doesn’t it? “Trans” is a medically determinable abnormality or it’s NOT. I say no, they say yes! So bizarre.

    It looks like some of the links to my tumblr are dead, BUT this is simply because I changed the name of blog sometime last year to better inform readers of the content focus. ALL OLD LINKS are locatable by substituting ‘sexnotgender’ for ‘ehungerford’ in the url. For example, Would you kindly correct them in your post? I would be most grateful.

    Thank you again for writing so clearly and unapologetically. It is exceedingly rare in this political climate.

    • Francois Tremblay October 29, 2013 at 12:14

      This series on gender is about half your doing. I love your blogs. Keep up the good work.

      My entries are written a while in advance, hence errors. I will correct URLs right away.

  7. Tori October 29, 2013 at 10:16

    “the most popular trans slogan is “die cis scum”)”

    Do you really believe that?

  8. Giordano Mirandolla October 29, 2013 at 10:39

    The above should read bigot too, not big too.

  9. Orla October 29, 2013 at 17:08

    Today on The Current (a CBC national program) there was a long segment on the rights of transgendered children and adults. What perturbed me the most was that no alternative viewpoint was given on this publically funded and nationally aired program. There were no scientists given air time. The child, their lawyer, and the trans advocate talked only about feelings.

    This erasure of science is a large part of the cognitive dissonance puzzle going on here. To blindly accuse people of hatred is symptomatic of a larger societal problem regarding a severe shortage of critical thinking skills.

    Excellent analysis. Thank-you for writing it.

    • Francois Tremblay October 29, 2013 at 22:21

      It’s funny how fast the trans lobby has steamrolled all resistance, while homosexuals still have to fight. This is because trans advocacy does not contradict the genderist party line.

    • Anna October 30, 2013 at 08:50

      So perfectly put :To blindly accuse people of hatred is symptomatic of a larger societal problem regarding a severe shortage of critical thinking skills

      Except you do realize that includes the author and by proxy, you for agreeing, right?

      “it is a fact that trans theory applied to children leads to the extermination of homosexuality, ”

      “Trans advocates wish for extermination and death but cannot proclaim this openly, so they accuse their opponents of wishing extermination and death on them. ”

      Way to blatantly overgeneralize.

      • Francois Tremblay October 30, 2013 at 12:27

        I do think that people who attack innocent people in the name of their ideology are hateful. Is that an outlandish conclusion?

      • Kill Yourself October 30, 2013 at 13:34

        @MAnna: Shut the fuck up, you fucking DUDE.

        • oopster74 October 30, 2013 at 15:56

          @kill yourself – how does the above comment help or add to the discussion?

  10. Carl October 31, 2013 at 00:10

    I was recently wished death upon (in the form of a Tumblr gif) by a transwoman because I made some remarks about how I thought notions of “masculinity” and “femininity” should be abolished. In other words, I made an argument for anti-genderism. I wasn’t even arguing against anyone, just making an offhand remark, and I was totally unprepared for the vitriol that sprung from that. The people involved in that conversation were of the radical queer/leftist variety, but no one seemed to agree with me and I’ve been starting to wonder if I’m just a complete bigot or something.

    Anyway, it’s been a weird couple of days and I’ve seriously been questioning my viewpoints and feeling like I don’t have any activist allies…until I came across this post!

    “The radfem position, on the other hand, is that we should live the way we want regardless of sex, that neither sex nor gender should limit us, and that gender-rebels deserve neither medical rehabilitation nor punishment.”

    I completely agree with this and everything else you’ve written here. I haven’t explored radical feminism that much but now I definitely think I should. So, thanks. :)

    • Francois Tremblay October 31, 2013 at 00:25

      You are a bigot. And you should be. There is no shame in being a bigot against people who promote global harm.

      Check out my radfem blogroll on the right if you want starting points. All these blogs are great.

  11. Carl October 31, 2013 at 01:13

    Will do! I’ve been enjoying your other posts on this topic as well.

  12. oopster74 November 1, 2013 at 10:30

    If you’re campaigning against something you think is unjust, that doesn’t make you a bigot, but, I’m sure people that are members of the KKK and WBO don’t consider themselves bigots either (not that I’m associating anyone with those two groups, just using them to make my point).

    • Francois Tremblay November 1, 2013 at 10:59

      So how do you propose to tell the difference.

      • oopster74 November 1, 2013 at 11:31

        I think that’s normally for history to decide.

        Fwiw – yes we seem to be on opposite ends of an argument, but at least were doing it in a civil way. So many people (on both sides) just resort to name calling and worse.

        • Francois Tremblay November 1, 2013 at 11:35

          I see no reason to give special status to historians to decide what is and is not bigotry. I think acknowledging that we all hate certain kinds of people for different reasons is closer to the truth, Whether the intention is noble or not should be left to the individual to decide.

          (but yea, I’m super noble)

          • oopster74 November 1, 2013 at 11:44

            Well to rephrase what I meant, it’s the victors who write the history books, but if you genuinely think you are right and the other side is wrong, and you’re not resorting to making up stuff / distorting facts, then how can you be considered a bigot. I kinda like the idea of being noble in a debate.

  13. Olly November 2, 2013 at 06:13

    I agree with a lot of whats being said in this article, and I say this as a trans person. To just pick upon the glaring mistake I see being made by many radfems, there is a difference between the larger grouping of transgender (which you give the correct definition of being largely relating to gender identity and expression) and transsexuals. Transsexualism largely has little to do with gender roles at all, and the main symptom is physical gender dysphoria. They are two very different concepts, I have a big problem with the former.

    As someone who would be loosely described as preop (possibly nonop,early days yet though) ftm, I have no attachment to either gender role. Were I to live in a vacuum, I would be as happy in suits as I would be with glittery heels. I spend very little time thinking about pronouns etc. The reason I am ftm is because my body feels wrong to me. It is the wrong physical sex. However, I would not go so far as to declare that this makes me ‘a man’ because the core of that identity is socialization, is privilege, is sexual terrorism on female bodies. Its meaningless for me to declare myself a man when I have had none of the experience or benefit of what that means in a patriarchal culture. It borders on the offensive when someone comes along and declares themselves a woman, when they have not spent a lifetime in a body the culture (not yourself) declares disgusting, violable, worthless and weak. When you have not spent a lifetime learning to be quiet and ashamed and afraid.

    The female experience is unique. It is an experience inherently related to being physically female and to deny that does nothing but erase our experience. That is not to say that transwomen don’t experience an horrendous amount of prejudice too, but its not the same as what female bodies are made to endure from birth.

  14. DefyEntropy November 2, 2013 at 08:30

    Hello there, Francois Tremblay,

    This is TheOriginalDirective. I apologize for linking your article on trans-genderism in the comments section of ForeverWolfFilm’s video on trans-genderism. I should have recognized the fact that you would receive a significant amount of (unwarranted) attention and ridicule (I believe some people referred to you as a “troll” in the comments section of her video directed to you). The anti-natalist community on YouTube is saturated with a-political, hostile drones that slander anyone who is mildly critical of trans-theory. Anyways, great analysis here.


    • Francois Tremblay November 2, 2013 at 13:19

      Don’t worry about it. I’ve stopped following ForeverWolfFilm due to that video anyway.

  15. […] Also see previous entries in this series: The confusion between sex and gender. How not to prove the objective existence of gender. Genderism, trans theory and the hostility towards radical feminism. […]

  16. House Mouse Queen November 7, 2013 at 18:28

    Very great post. I am a radfem too. I get attacked all the time and called a TERF. I don’t have any personal hatred against transpeople. None. I just think like you do that gender is a strict concept that harms everyone. I don’t care if people transition but I do like to have the conversation about the harms of gender identity. I’ve always been kind to transpeople as individual human beings but many of them just assume I hate them when I don’t. It’s quite confusing to be hated because you think gender is a box you can’t live in.

    • Francois Tremblay November 7, 2013 at 18:53

      Thank you for being here, I really appreciate it. There are not a lot of anti-genderists but we all seem to see very clearly through this whole system.

  17. David J Parry April 1, 2014 at 18:04





    • Francois Tremblay April 1, 2014 at 18:42

      Oh okay, so you want to kill people because of their thoughts. That’s cool. You sound like a fundamentalist Islamist.

      Seriously though, you guys are a laughingstock. You don’t understand biology and hate people who do. Again, like religious fundamentalists.

      Maybe if you write your death threats bigger, I’d take them more seriously.

  18. David J Parry April 2, 2014 at 12:02

    Alright, I apologise for the death threats. They were totally uncalled for. That doesn’t mean that I’ve changed my mind, or that I’m going to stop calling bigots out on their hatred. That’s doubly true when said hatred is being preached in the name of feminism!

    • Francois Tremblay April 2, 2014 at 12:39

      Cool story dudebro, but you do realize I don’t hate trans people, right? I only hate trans advocates who push genderism and sell people who listen to them a false bill of goods that hurts women. Or as you say, “HELPING GENDERED OPPRESSION!” Because they do. And if you don’t believe they do, you are being hookwinded.

  19. elfkat May 26, 2015 at 11:38
  20. FeistyAmazon May 26, 2015 at 20:21

    Right on Sister, Right on!!! You tell it like it is!!! Great article!!

    • Francois Tremblay May 26, 2015 at 22:05

      I think you got me confused with someone else… my name is Francois.

  21. FeistyAmazon May 26, 2015 at 20:26

    Reblogged this on FeistyAmazon and commented:
    Great article on the subject very clearly written.

  22. 4the4thwave June 20, 2015 at 06:07

    Reblogged this on 4the4thwave.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: