FETAs accusing radfems of essentialism: the ultimate trans projection.

I’ve already shown how FETAs rely massively on projections to defend their transgender ideology. There is, however, one projection that stands above all others for its sheer irrationality: the accusation that radical feminists are essentialists.

Essentialism as applied to human beings refers to the belief that there are fixed attributes of individuals (such as gender, race or ethnicity) which are the “essence” of an individual and dictate behavior (e.g. gender roles, racial stereotypes). This is contrasted with constructionism, the belief that these attributes are social constructs and are not the “essence” of an individual.

FETAs believe that gender is innate and biological sex is a social construct. To be more exact, this is the conclusion they have to uphold in order to maintain their rationalization. They have to believe that there is such a thing as an “innate gender” which dictates how a person thinks and acts in order to make sense of the proposition that a person’s gender is whatever they believe.

And if there is “innate gender” then biology must be swept under the rug. This is why FETAs are also science denialists: they must deny the facts of biology at all costs, and they do so by calling people who uphold those facts of biology “essentialists.” As we’ll see, they use this attack blindly, without actually understanding what essentialism is.

FETAs are essentialists because they believe that an “innate gender” dictates how a person acts, i.e. whether they conform to the man gender stereotype or the woman gender stereotype. That’s why their accusation is a projection: they seek to accuse their opponents of what they’re doing.

Radfems are against essentialism: the radfem position about gender is that gender is a prison, and that neither gender nor sex should imply anything about people’s behavior. Essentialism is a form of authoritarianism, and FETAs are authoritarian supporters (for more on FETA essentialism and radfem anti-essentialism, see this great entry by Women of the Patriarchy).

Cathy Brennan expresses the radfem opposition to sex essentialism in this quote:

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.”

So FETAs have to wrangle essentialism from an explicitly and adamantly anti-essentialist position. What kind of mental contortions are necessary for such a pseudo-intellectual magic trick?

This entry from Transadvocate is a good starting point for analysis because it purports to be a very sophisticated attack against radfems on essentialism. Advocates of irrational worldviews trip themselves up when they start talking too much, and this is no exception.

The entry starts with a constructionist quote from Monique Wittig, who was a radical lesbian (precisely the kind of women that FETAs hate with a passion that borders on insanity), discussing how sexual difference leads to the domination of women, and how that domination is portrayed as natural. But the author, Cristan Williams, seems to have confused this radical understanding of sex (as the difference on which oppression of women is based) with the belief that sexing people itself is oppression.

If you strip the pedantic language, this confusion is the same rationalization that many FETAs use to equate radfems with conservatives: conservatives believe in sexual difference, radfems believe in sexual difference, therefore radfems and conservatives have the same agenda.

What they don’t want to discuss is that conservatives believe in sexual difference as the valid (natural) basis for gender (as the Wittig quote illustrates), while radfems acknowledge that sexual difference is the source of the (constructed) oppression of women. Conservatives (and FETAs) hate women and want to keep them enslaved to gender roles, while radfems want to free all women from gender.

You see this equation of radfems with conservatives, with prudes, with moralizers (or even rapists), all over the place. What they want you to believe is simple: anyone who fights for women is just as bad as the people who hate women, anyone who tries to defend women’s freedom is just as bad as the people who want to exploit women. Above all else, they desperately want you to not confront anything and just accept FETA and liberal subjectivist claims as absolute (as bizarre as that sounds).

Williams then directly equates the truth that sex is used to justify gender oppression as natural with the FETA belief that sex does not exist, quoting one Sandy Stone:

What I am saying is that one of the ways that people justify oppressing people of any alternative gender or sexuality is by saying that the social norm is natural. That is, it originates in the authority of Nature itself. In other words, it comes from god, an authority to which to appeal. All of this is, in fact, a complete fabrication, a construction. There is no ‘natural‘ sex, because ‘sex’ itself as a medical or cultural category is nothing more the momentary outcome of battles over who owns the meanings of the category.

Sex is a basic biological concept, and it is natural. Now, as I’ve discussed before, sex is a human concept and, like all human concepts, it is subject to reframing. The issue therefore is not “is sex a transcendent term?” because there’s no such thing. The issue is “does sex actually exist?” and the answer to that is yes. To deny this is just plain science denialism, and believing sex does not exist is no more rational than believing in Creationism or free energy.

While much of the rest of the feminist world is confronting both the causes and effects of oppression, TERFs spend a significant amount of time and energy in preserving, supporting and appealing to a binary sexed body system constitutionally incapable of working with concepts like cis, trans, gender queer, agender, intersex as it relates to reality of human bodies because such views of humanity are supplanted by the asserted preeminence of an ad naturam binary sexed essence.

Radfems are very much concerned with sex, because understanding sex is the basis for analyzing the gender binary. People are assigned gender roles on the basis of their biological differences. The terms “cis” and “trans” cannot lead to any understanding of the gender binary, because they assume a non-existing “gender identity” which is natural and unquestionable. This “gender identity” forms the basis of FETA woman-hatred.

As for the bizarre belief that radfems cannot understand terms like “agender” or “intersex,” I have no idea where that comes from. This is probably an attempt to portray radfems as old hat, passé, a dying breed, and ignorant of anything FETAs consider to be on the “cutting edge” of gender theory.

Phenotype is the physical manifestation of a person. When we hear an anti-trans troll assert that because what is taken to be an acceptably long phallus was discovered at birth, a male sex was established and therefore cannot be changed, they are appealing to a fallaciously constructed concept of phenotype permanence. If a baby is born with a phallus – the phallus being the “essence” of a man – the person is said to have been born a man.

Now Williams degenerates into simple lying. Radfems do not state that a person was “born a man,” let alone on the basis of a penis. No one is “born a man” or “born a woman” (despite the FETA belief in “innate gender”). The labels “man” and “woman” are assigned at birth on the basis of sexual difference, but these terms have no realities apart from the social context. A baby cannot be a man or a woman because it is not yet located within the social context. A person becomes a man or a woman because they are socialized as a man or socialized as a woman.

The phallus is not the “essence of a man.” A man does not act “like a man” because he has a phallus. A man acts “like a man” because he was socialized as a man. The penis is only relevant because it is one of the signs of the male sex, which is then used to assign gender.

The trouble for FETAs is that they must deny the existence of socialization at all costs, because it directly contradicts their religious belief in “innate gender.” They will either deny that socialization happens or deny that it happened to them.

What radfems do say about phenotype is that penises are male. Again, this is a biological fact and denying it is science denialism. FETAs believe that if they imitate the penis with their own flesh, they can become men. But having a penis, or a simulated penis, does not make one a man.

Now, there’s a lot of whining and poisoning the well in these sections. For example, the section “Critiquing the trans essence argument” is mostly one long attempt to portray radfem arguments as silly (calling it a “caricature,” fallacious, hypocrisy, cruel, and so on), but Williams doesn’t explain why it is silly. There is very little attempt at a “critique” here.

The meat of the critique, instead, seems to be in the section “Trans: the non-essenced experience”:

There is no gendered essence haunting the brains of trans women, forcing us to like pink, and gender identity doesn’t just mean social identity.

So here Williams seems to be specifically addressing the issue of FETAs being essentialists. Let’s see what she has to say in response:

When trans people talk about “gender identity” we can be talking about:

A: One’s subjective experience of one’s own sexed attributes;

B: One’s culturally influenced sex identification within the context of a social grouping; or,

C: Both A and B

TERFs like to pretend that “gender identity” only ever means the penultimate Category B because the former and latter deviates from the trans-experience-as-Dualism argument – an anathema for TERFs.

This is one point on which I agree with Williams: the concept that they designate as “gender identity” is purely subjective and culturally constructed, and has no biological reality. But for FETAs to use gender as a replacement for sex, gender has to be innate and immutable.

If that was the extent of “gender identity” for FETAs, then there would be no debate at all, because it makes no claim about reality. It is because FETAs make claims about reality that there is a debate. FETAs claim that sex does not exist, FETAs claims that a person who was socialized man can actually be a woman (and vice-versa), FETAs claim that penises and vaginas are not sexed organs. These are false claims about reality that are important in undermining feminist thought, and they all rely on “innate gender identity” as their support.

Williams then mentions socialization, which is rather surprising in a FETA article since, as I mentioned before, it’s the elephant in the room insofar as their worldview is concerned. But she’s only bringing it up to score a point:

For the TERF, socialization can act as the essential sexed essence stand-in that confers male or female binary status upon the body and as such, it is perfectly acceptable to appeal to it.

But this is a lack of understanding of what essentialism is. An essentialist is someone who believes that there’s something innate in the individual, something in their nature, that dictates their behavior, and socialization is not innate. Therefore it cannot be a “sexed essence stand-in.” All it means is that being socialized into any social construct (such as religion, race or gender) molds people’s behavior. This is an obvious fact. Williams doesn’t even try to address this (rightly, since trying to refute it would just be ridiculous), which is why I say she only brought it up to score a point.

Simply expressed, the role of sex in the genderist mind is to validate and naturalize gender, i.e. behavioral expectations or prescriptions. This is not how radfems talk about socialization: they do not claim that being socialized as a man validates and naturalizes men’s aggression against women, quite the contrary. They are very keenly aware that gender, like any other form of socialization, can be unlearned, something which cannot happen in the essentialist schemas of the genderist and the FETA.

For socialization in a person to be a stand-in for essence, it would have to be, in a meaningful way, part of who the person is. But “being a man” or “being a woman” is not a meaningful identification for many people (including most radfems), not because they are “trans” or “genderqueer” (nonsense concepts in themselves), but because they acknowledge that they were socialized into gender and that it’s not part of who they are.

One last point. Keep in mind that she argued that gender identity is not innate in this very same section when you read this:

Maybe at some point in the future it will become an undisputed scientific fact that trans people experience our bodies in the way that we do as a result of some neurological structure that is triggered due to some genetic/epigenetic causality, but, regardless, the point is that for many trans folk throughout the world, transition is about addressing the way we experience our bodies.

But this directly contradicts her earlier claim. If she believes it is possible for gender identity to be innate, then it cannot be a subjective or cultural construct. She glosses over this with a “regardless,” not realizing the enormity of what she’s just said. That seems to be the one constant of this article: lots of glossing over or gliding over major points of contention, and obsessing over little details meant to portray radfem arguments negatively.

It was hard for me to get through Williams’ article because it is permeated with crass ignorance and arrogance, a pathetic combination. These are the extremities to which a person trapped in an irrational ideology have to resort in order to look credible.

65 thoughts on “FETAs accusing radfems of essentialism: the ultimate trans projection.

  1. Miep August 24, 2015 at 21:50 Reply

    Awesome, thanks for finding that.

    • Francois Tremblay August 25, 2015 at 00:11 Reply

      Finding what?

      • Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:12 Reply

        Finding a good cartoon Francois. I liked it. Ty.

        • Francois Tremblay August 25, 2015 at 03:30 Reply

          Yea.. no problem.

          • Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:51 Reply

            You get yelled at occasionally. I pay attention.

            I have this whole wimmin blog to manage. I am good with this.

  2. Independent Radical August 25, 2015 at 00:47 Reply

    I think that when liberals use the term “essentialist” it is basically an excuse to avoid thinking and to avoid conducting any genuinely scientific research into cause and effect. In my experience, any explanation for an action that is not “choice, choice, choice, agency, agency, agency”, is condemned as essentialist, assuming of course that you are criticising the action and that is what it really comes down to.

    Sometimes liberals say that an action is biological, innate and inevitable (e.g. pornography consumption, using prostitutes, promiscuity, etc.) other times they will say that it is an out of nowhere choice (e.g. make-up, sex change surgery). They may even admit that a behaviour is socially influenced (e.g. breast implants, deciding to work as a prostitute). Any of that is fine and non-essentialist and agency respecting so long as you approve of the behaviour and do not try to get rid of it. And if an explanation makes the public like you better (e.g. the claim that being gay is innate), they will use it, whether it is true or not.

    So let’s all just be honest and admit that the real issue is that liberals endorse dominating and submissive behaviour, while radical oppose it (regardless of its cause). They want a world where people are free to dominate and submit as much as they please, even with all the horrific consequences that we know that leads to (in extreme cases, the creation of brutal dictatorial orders, within both governments and corporations) and we want to end dominance and submission as much as possible. Why can’t we just skip ahead to the real issue? Probably because if we did so, we would reach a dead end due to conflicting values.

    • Francois Tremblay August 25, 2015 at 01:13 Reply

      Hear, hear! But we should at least point out that their use of words is profoundly dishonest.

  3. oopster74 August 25, 2015 at 01:22 Reply

    You make a good argument, but it doesn’t take into account a lot of things. Yes I’m a trans lesbian, you may not agree, that’s your right, but, you have people like the aforementioned Cathy Brennan, who one hand says she doesn’t hate trans people, and on the other hand talks about us like we’re the scum of the earth, and you can’t have it both ways. Why am I a transsexual? I don’t know, I probably never will, but I’ve wasted enough time trying to figure it out, I’m not going to spend the rest of my life trying to figure it out and being miserable, when I can do something about it and just get on with living my life relatively happy.

    Some people’s view of transwomen is a creepy guy in a dress wanting to hang around the ladies toilets. They’re aren’t transwomen, they are creepy men in dresses, but some people don’t see the distinction.

    I’ve commented on blogs and been given a fair hearing, and then I’ve outed myself as being trans and been treated completely different. These are stereotypes for the most part that these judgements are being made on. Why not actually sit down with some trans people for a drink, chat and you’ll find that were no different to anyone else. We’re not the big bad that some people make us out to be, we are still a hated and misunderstood minority unable to influence policy to the extent were accused of.

    • Francois Tremblay August 25, 2015 at 01:42 Reply

      Yea that’s just great oopster, but my entry is not about being pro or anti trans. In fact, I don’t really talk about transgender people at all. What I do talk about is the trans lobby and the lies they put forward to justify their reprehensible actions. I really don’t give a shit what you are or how happy you are (well, you are a pest, I know this much, but other than that I don’t care).

      • oopster74 August 25, 2015 at 02:14 Reply

        But you say that the trans lobby spreads lies?

        • Francois Tremblay August 25, 2015 at 02:24 Reply

          … yes. Such as the ones I discussed in the entry you are currently commenting on.

          • oopster74 August 25, 2015 at 02:25 Reply

            What about the lies that some radical feminists spread?

            • Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:16 Reply

              Lmao

            • Francois Tremblay August 25, 2015 at 05:01 Reply

              Name one, please.

                • Francois Tremblay August 25, 2015 at 14:56

                  Where’s the lie? FETAs ARE after radfem. We already know this and denying it won’t help your case. It’s not a “conspiracy,” any more than conservatives going after abortion or liberals going after gay discrimination is a “conspiracy.”

                • oopster74 August 25, 2015 at 15:09

                  Read the thing to see.

                • Francois Tremblay August 25, 2015 at 15:34

                  Already read it, there was no lie. You’re just wasting my time with your FETA bullshit.

                • oopster74 August 25, 2015 at 15:51

                  Other than cheese, what is FETA?

                • oopster74 August 26, 2015 at 01:24

                  A simple explanation would have helped. Firstly, I’m not a feta, I think everyone should be treated fair and evenly, secondly, well there is no secondly. If everyone is treated fair and equal then no one has cause to complain do they.

                  Yes, there are most likely people you could describe as fetas, but there are also people you could describe as terfs, because people are people and a lot of them are assholes, morons, nimbys and generally ignorant and bigoted of other people.

                • Francois Tremblay August 26, 2015 at 03:42

                  “A simple explanation would have helped. Firstly, I’m not a feta”
                  I never said you were and explicitly said you were not, so drop the persecution complex.

                  “Yes, there are most likely people you could describe as fetas, but there are also people you could describe as terfs”

                  Name one radical feminist who is trying to exclude transgender people from anything, you bald-faced liar.

                • oopster74 August 26, 2015 at 03:44

                  Cathy Brenan, Gallus Mag (don’t know her real name), plenty of radical feminists that comment on both blogs.

                • Francois Tremblay August 26, 2015 at 04:23

                  “Brenan wrote a letter to the UN trying to deny basic human tights to trans people,”
                  Please point me to the entry on her blog about “denying basic human rights to trans people.” If you are telling the truth, I will apologize publicly on this blog. If you are lying about this, you’re banned. You are just wasting my time with lies after lies and I don’t want to have to deal with this forever.

                  “they don’t allow transwomen at their radfem conferences (not that any would want to go but that’s really not the point)”
                  Oh no, how dare a group refuse to invite its opponents at their own conferences??

                  “they complain when trans women are allowed on dyke marches”
                  Gee, I wonder why they would do that. Again, it’s not an “exclusion” to set up spaces and events for specific groups. Transgender people have their spaces and events too.

                  “they spread lies and rumour as though it were fact. How much evidence do you actually need?”
                  Give me the entry about Brennan denying transgender people basic human rights. If you tell the truth, I will apologize in view of all. If you are lying, you’re banned. It’s that simple.

                • oopster74 August 26, 2015 at 05:00

                  Radfem conferences deny entry to transwomen, transwomen are women. Radfems don’t believe transwomen are women so don’t see that they discriminate in this case but they clearly are, as they don’t allow transmen to their conferences. If they don’t see transwomen as women, then how can they see transmen as men, so they are clearly discriminating against trans people.

                  Some dyke matches allow transwomen to attend, some don’t. The ones that do get shit from the terfs.

                  Brennan’s blog is full of her wanting to deny equal rights to trans people, just pick a blog entry at random to see that. If you want me to find you an example, then I’ll do it about 9pm UK time as I’m currently busy at work.

                  Do a Google search for the UN letter, it’ll take about 2 minutes to find.

                • oopster74 August 26, 2015 at 05:30
                • Francois Tremblay August 27, 2015 at 02:26

                  Not sure what you’re talking about. Do you mean this?
                  http://sexnotgender.com/gender-identity-legislation-and-the-erosion-of-sex-based-legal-protections-for-females/2012-submission-to-the-un-commission-on-the-status-of-women-the-legal-category-of-sex-and-understanding-the-status-of-women/

                  If so, could you please point out the part where there is any talk of exclusion of transgender people? If this is not the correct letter, then point out which is the correct letter. Because from where I stand, you are a fucking liar.

                • oopster74 August 27, 2015 at 02:30

                  Ill have another look for it later, busy at work right now.

                • oopster74 August 27, 2015 at 04:29

                  Not really, that’s a follow up letter a year after the original one. Essentially what I gather is that under the guise of protecting women, she was throwing transwomen under the bus, she’s clever like that, making it look like she’s not a hateful person, but a champion for women, when if she did things properly, she’d get a lot better results, instead of being reviled by so many people.

                • Francois Tremblay August 27, 2015 at 05:46

                  For the love of God, please stop giving me your fucking *opinions*. Frankly, I don’t give a shit what you think, since you’ve demonstrated with your commenting history on this blog that your thoughts are generally (not always, but generally) useless. What I want to see, and the ONLY thing I want to see from you moving forward, is where Brennan has excluded transgender people. I don’t want to hear any more of your *opinions* about how radfems are mean hags for wanting to have their own events or groups, or how insecure you are about your looks, or whatever.

                • Francois Tremblay August 30, 2015 at 15:33

                  Still waiting on that proof, oopster.

                • oopster74 August 30, 2015 at 15:43

                  I’ll have some free time to do it Tuesday night.

              • Francois Tremblay August 26, 2015 at 03:47 Reply

                I’ve been reading both blogs for months, and I have never seen either of these women try to exclude transgender people from anything. Desist at once from this baseless mud-slinging, you lying dog.

                • oopster74 August 26, 2015 at 03:59

                  How can you in all honesty say that??? They are so anti trans its unbelievable! Brenan wrote a letter to the UN trying to deny basic human tights to trans people, they don’t allow transwomen at their radfem conferences (not that any would want to go but that’s really not the point), they complain when trans women are allowed on dyke marches, they spread lies and rumour as though it were fact. How much evidence do you actually need? It’s all there in their blogs!!!

              • Francois Tremblay August 26, 2015 at 16:01 Reply

                Oopster just give me the fucking letter you keep blathering about and then shut up.

                • oopster74 August 27, 2015 at 01:28

                  It’s at one of those links I posted. Try searching for “Cathy Brennan in letter” on google and it’ll come up, I think it was in 2011, and there’s a follow up letter from 2012.

      • Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:17 Reply

        Lolololol

    • Independent Radical August 25, 2015 at 04:55 Reply

      “Yes I’m a trans lesbian, you may not agree, that’s your right, but, you have people like the aforementioned Cathy Brennan, who one hand says she doesn’t hate trans people, and on the other hand talks about us like we’re the scum of the earth, and you can’t have it both ways.”

      Do you insist that lesbians allow you to jam your male genitalia into their vaginas or else they are transphobias? Because trying to guilt people into sex does make you pretty scummy. You can’t want to be included in the category of people who have vaginas rather than penises and then insist on using your penis. That’s also trying to have it both ways. I don’t know if you act that way but male-born transpeople do.

      “…you’ll find that were no different to anyone else.”

      That’s what we have been trying to tell you! You are the ones insisting that you are different and special by using labels like “trans”. You’re just another ordinary gender noncomformist and your body is fine as it is (no surgeries or other prettiness-related modifications required). Why is that such an offensive idea?

      • oopster74 August 25, 2015 at 05:10 Reply

        Firstly, I’ve had surgery down below so don’t have a penis to jam anywhere. Secondly, if a lesbian doesn’t want to have sex withe, then that’s her choice, if she’s abusive when telling me that, then she may be being transphobic.

        I’m saying we are as normal as anyone else, but with a medical condition called “gender identity disorder”, and if treated like any other medical issue, there wouldn’t be the fuss there currently is. You’re a lesbian, good for you, you’re a gay man, great, you’re straight, brilliant,.

        Grouping all trans people under 1 umbrella of a stereotype and saying we’re all the same is ridiculous. If I were to say all women are the same, I’d be making a sexist comment. If I said all black people were the same, I’d be making a racist comment. Both comments would be ignorant. If I said “studies have shown that all women are xyz” or “studies have shown that all black people are abc”, then they maybe sexist / comments too, depending on how they’re phrased.

        I treat people how I find them, and hope others treat me the same way in return. Treat me nice, I’ll treat you nice, act like a douche to me, I may act like a douche to you, but I’d hope that I’d rise above it, but I’m only human and far from perfect.

        Being transsexual (and I’m being specific to transsexual people here), is a genuine medical condition, and we don’t transition for attention or to piss people off. Most of us lose some friends and family in the process and it isn’t easy, but it’s better in most cases than the alternative. I spent my teenage years being utterly miserable and depressed as I had no one to confide in. If I had, I might have still transitioned, but I also might not have, and found a different way to resolve my issues, but I did what I thought was best for me at the time.

        • Independent Radical August 26, 2015 at 08:54 Reply

          “Secondly, if a lesbian doesn’t want to have sex withe, then that’s her choice, if she’s abusive when telling me that, then she may be being transphobic.”

          Or maybe she just really does not want to have sex with you? I am not going to insist that women be all nice and sweet when rejecting sex. They need to make their point loud and clear. But what if it was not just about you. What if you met a lesbian who did not want to have sex with penised people no matter how feminine they acted and no matter what they felt about themselves on the inside? Would you respect her choices? What about women who do not like the thought of being with anyone who’s body has been drastically altered through surgery, because they find such surgeries disturbing?

          There are plenty of men who refuse to have sex with women who have gotten breast implants, because they despise women who they see as “fake”. Their choices are not controversial, yet the decisions of women to reject sex with male-bodied people or people whose genitals have been surgically altered are (within the trans community at least). I am not going to presume to know how you feel about lesbians who reject sex with MTFs (as a group, not just individuals), but the trans community as a whole does not seem to kind to them.

          “I’m saying we are as normal as anyone else, but with a medical condition called “gender identity disorder”, and if treated like any other medical issue, there wouldn’t be the fuss there currently is.”

          You cannot belief that your body and mind are completely healthy and also believe that you have a medical condition. Which is it? A healthy penis is never a medical issue in my view. Just as small breasts, large noses, leg hair and all those other stigmatised yet harmless traits are not medical issues, no matter how a person feels about them. People who feel bad about harmless traits should be encouraged to recognise that their bodies are in fact perfectly fine and that their bad feelings are a product of society. They should not have such feelings reinforced.

          “Grouping all trans people under 1 umbrella of a stereotype and saying we’re all the same is ridiculous.”

          I didn’t say that (unless you count “gender nonconformist”:as a stereotype). I pointed out that there were male-born transpeople who felt that they had a right to access the bodies of women (and lesbians who refused them were transphobic) and I asked if you were one of them. Can you honestly say that you are not one of them and that lesbians have a right to reject sex with male-bodied people as a group? Because if so then I will apologise for any implied accusation against you that you feel I made.

          “If I said “studies have shown that all women are xyz” or “studies have shown that all black people are abc”, then they maybe sexist / comments too, depending on how they’re phrased.”

          I don’t think the phrasing really matters. A sexist claim is a sexist claim no matter how you spin it and whether a statement is scientifically valid is a seperate claim from whether it is sexist.

          “… we don’t transition for attention or to piss people off.”

          I never said you did, but I am not going to endorse surgeries which have no real medical justification, aside from negative inner feelings about a body part, which can be used to justify cosmetic surgery in general and yet nobody is insisting that such surgeries, when requested by biological females, be seen as a human rights (not at the moment at least). I do claim to know what your motive for sex change surgery was, but I daresay it was psychological rather than physical (which does not mean that I think you were completely crazy, I just think you had mental reasons for getting the surgery which had nothing to do with any actual physical problems you experienced).

          “…it’s better in most cases than the alternative.”

          What is this horrific alternative? Leaving a healthy body part alone? Encouraging people to recognise that having a particular kind of genitalia does not mean that you have to behave a particular way? Boldly defying gender norms by being a non-masculine human being with a biologically male body and declaring that both are perfectly fine? I think I like those options better.

          “I’m hardly pretty, I know that.”

          I did not intend to make a comment about your prettiness. A body does not have to be pretty to be a good body in my view. I think a good body is one that is healthy and can do things (including things your body might not be able to do, like experiencing sexual pleasure).

          “You don’t know me well enough to tell me if my body was fine as it was or not. You wouldn’t expect someone to tell you that, so why is it ok to tell me that?”

          Were your genitals afflicted with cancer or some other serious disease? Because if not, they were fine, by my standards. Why do I have to know you as a person in order to determine whether your body was okay? Do you insist that your doctor have a complete knowledge of your personality before they tell you whether you have the flu or not? You seem to be acknowledge that certain kinds of personalities (or minds) belong in certain bodies and I object to that idea. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a mind-body mismatch. I think that any personality/mind/brain can inhabit any kind of body and none of those combinations would be “wrong”.

          Actually liberals regularly talk about how “all bodies are beautiful” and insist that I love my body no matter what. They do not say this to me as an individual, but I believe I do fit in the category of “all”. I find it annoying. Not everyone wants to be beautiful, some people (largely men I admit) do not care and I think liberals ought to respect that instead of trying to shove the “beauty” label onto women. I also think they ought to be fighting against the culture that promotes body hatred instead of trying to force positive thinking onto women. But why is it empowering for them to make universal statements about the wonderfulness of human bodies (then turn around and endorse extreme, cosmetic surgeries, like breast implants), but wrong for me to say similar things regarding genitals?

          • oopster74 August 26, 2015 at 09:35 Reply

            Wow! That’s a long list of questions so I’ll answer one of the first ones now and try the rest later. If a lesbian rejects me because she doesn’t find me attractive, fair enough. If she treats me badly in her rejection, she’s a douche, I think we can all agree that people that do that are douches. If she rejects me because I’m trans, that’s fine, if she rejects me in a douchebag way because I’m trans, then she’s a douchebag. That seems simple enough to understand I think. It’s not so much the rejection or the reason for the rejection, it’s how the rejection is made. If this were an issue over race, would you consider her racist regardless or not?

            On a related note, I’ve had lesbians be attracted to me and chat me up, and I’ve turned them down due to the age difference (what is it with 18-21 year olds going for older people? Makes me feel old and would make me feel like a right perv!).

      • oopster74 August 25, 2015 at 05:12 Reply

        Sorry, didn’t see your last paragraph. I’m hardly pretty, I know that. I’ve had relevant surgeries (nothing facial related).

        You don’t know me well enough to tell me if my body was fine as it was or not. You wouldn’t expect someone to tell you that, so why is it ok to tell me that?

  4. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:13 Reply

    I still think this is a good cartoon. Just saying.

  5. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:15 Reply

    I spread it around because it rather rocks,.

  6. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:15 Reply

    Just saying.

  7. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:15 Reply

    Lol

  8. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:19 Reply

    It’s really hard when your entire agenda is about hating women.

  9. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:20 Reply

    Teh poor menz

  10. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:23 Reply

    Hey sweetie, I know this is hard.

    But anyone who pays attention to you knows that you don’t hate humans.

  11. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:52 Reply

    More than o k

  12. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:53 Reply

    Thank you for asking Francois

  13. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:54 Reply

    It is going better the usual

  14. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:54 Reply

    Better than usual

  15. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:57 Reply

    Heart heart heart heart

  16. Miep August 25, 2015 at 03:59 Reply

    Lol thanks for making this, I am so stealing.

  17. travis August 25, 2015 at 08:30 Reply

    So believing in the Big Bang is rational?

    • Francois Tremblay August 25, 2015 at 14:52 Reply

      Yes.

      • travis August 25, 2015 at 22:23 Reply

        “What is hard for the non-believers to understand is how this singularity came about to be and what triggered the inflation. That is unknown to us yet, even though I have my theories.”

        Sounds like religion to me :D

      • travis August 25, 2015 at 22:24 Reply
        • Francois Tremblay August 25, 2015 at 23:03 Reply

          Good old fallacy of “science can’t explain everything, therefore science can’t explain anything.” That’s a tired and creaky argument. What exactly is your point? Are you trying to discredit science so you can support FETAs? Because that’s laughable.

  18. stchauvinism August 25, 2015 at 14:48 Reply

    Reblogged this on Stop Trans Chauvinism.

  19. […] against the concept of biological sex, but there are plenty of FETAs who do (I analyzed one of them here). Their sole argument is that male and female are not absolutely, totally, 100% separate concepts: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: