Frank Maloney - Gender Reassignment

[CKDexterHaven]

Lived over 60 years with full male privileges - Check
Rose to the top of a male-dominated profession - Check
Right-wing political candidate for UKIP - Check
Homophobic public comments - Check
Believes in family values and traditional morality - Check
Believes in a 'female brain' (like people used to believe in a 'negro brain' and a 'Jewish brain') - Check

Nasty radical feminists are meant to be the reactionary ones but, to me, it is the transactivist movement that is conservative, homophobic and longs for the days when homosexuality was criminalised and men were men and women were women.

Is it cruel of me to suggest that Paris Lees walked out of the Newsnight interview because Paris isn't up to that level of debate? Paris talks about how great sex work and street harassment are for women precisely because Paris has never been a woman for a single second of Paris's life. This is how dangerous it is to have transwomen purport to speak for women.

(Avoiding pronouns to avoid censorship).

I missed the Newsnight thing - what happened?

I was extrapolating from HerrenaHarridan's post.

On the Newsnight thing

sarahditum.com/2014/08/12/no-platforming-and-newsnight/

Tunip Newsnight were trying to organise a piece on Frank Maloney last night. They asked Paris Lees and Gia Milinovich. Gia declined saying she didn't want the death threats that would follow. Then they asked a transwoman who tweets as terrorizermir who is gender critical. The TAs freaked out and hurled abuse at the Newsnight producers then Paris Lees pulled out and Newsnight pulled the piece.that still wasn't enough for the TAs who continued to hassle Ian Katz and the producer on twitter for even considering having this horrid transphobe (a transwoman) on the show. Mind boggling.

Ah, thanks CK, I see.

Thanks, CK and Flora.

linked to from sarah ditum's post - this is what happened from miranda yardley's POV (miranda is terrorizermir). interesting to see what discussion points she wanted to bring to the table

sorry, meant to C&P:

"these are the three points I wished to bring to the table:

A. Kellie’s choice to do this is her own personal decision. I know from first-hand experience what a hard road it is to go through this process, and I wish her all happiness for the rest of her life: good on her. It is important that people can lead their lives how they want to, allowing them to exercise their own freedoms. It is very progressive that people can do what they want, and I support this.

B. In the Daily Mirror piece, Kellie speaks of ‘being born in the wrong body’ and says that she has ‘always known I was a woman’. This raises the question, what does it mean to be a woman? Is Kellie saying that she has a ‘woman’s brain’? What are the implications of asserting that one has a ‘female brain’ for women as a class?

C. Women are socialised as women, and men as men: if men and women were socialised in the same way, we’d all just be humans! This is an idea at the heart of feminism. At what point does someone who has been socialised as a man, which is a violent socialisation, lay claim to womanhood, lay claim to the places society reserves for women, like toilets, changing rooms? The demand for unrestricted access to female spaces, spaces that exist for the dignity, comfort and protection of women, concerns me greatly. I am not saying that all men are violent, being masculine is not innate (just like being feminine is not innate) and so male violence is not innate.

These are just three points for debate about what it means to be trans. It saddens me we are unable to have this discussion, it sends out the message that the trans community is so uncertain of itself that we are unable to analyse ourselves. This has got to be fundamentally wrong."

I don't get this whole 'transwomen have no right to exist' thing. If there are people who literally want to exterminate transwomen they are feminists and non-feminist women. I don't care if men want to live as women I just don't think that makes them women and I think it's extremely problematic for women's rights when transwomen purport to speak for women and when transwomen trample over the few rights and privileges women possess.

That should read 'they aren't feminists and non-feminist women'. So want an edit button.

The Sarah Ditum piece is beautifully written.

Off to read.

Sarah Ditum is amazing.

I don't get this whole 'transwomen have no right to exist' thing... I don't care if men want to live as women I just don't think that makes them women

Respectfully, I think you're contradicting yourself. They are either allowed to live as women, with all that involves - ie exactly the same access and rights as women born women - or they are not.

As far as they are concerned, living as women means exactly that: access to women's toilets and changing rooms, access to battered women's safe houses, access to rape crisis resources, the right to participate in women's sporting events, etc etc. What else could it possibly mean?

I think this really difficult because we don't want to squash anyone or hurt anyone, but realistically I don't think "I don't care if men want to live as women" is compatible with "I just don't think that makes them women."

I don't' think it needs to be so black and white. I don't care whether men wear "women's clothes" and make up and looking "like a woman". That doesn't mean I think they are women or should have access to women's spaces, sports or be considered women statistically. This idea that this means they don't exist demonstrates an idea that a person's existence depends on how they are perceived and treated by others - "if you don't consider me a woman, I don't exist". It's bizarre.

This idea that this means they don't exist demonstrates an idea that a person's existence depends on how they are perceived and treated by others - "if you don't consider me a woman, I don't exist". It's bizarre

Very true.

I agree, flora.

Well of course, and that's why so many anti feminist men line up with transwomen. Not that they care about the welfare of transwomen in the least, but they sure hate radical feminists.

CK I think it goes even further. There is a demand on women to agree that there is nothing to be debated, that everything they say is the absolute and only truth, even though they can't explain it. It's nothing more than gas lighting, bullying and abusive behaviour towards women.

The worst of it is, that we as classes have so many struggles in common. It's divisive, it makes us concentrate on other things. It also, to people who don't know or understand what the issues are, makes us look unreasonable, like bigots.

capt I wouldn't describe it as divisive any more than saying women should join with gay men and it is divisive or "infighting" if we were to disagree on issues (which would be very likely). As classes, women and transwomen suffer under patriarchy but so do gay men and even some MRAs. That's not enough to make a common cause as the underlying thinking is so opposed. The trans ideology believes that feminine = woman. This is the opposite of feminist thinking. Liberal feminists are polluting their critical thinking in an attempt to "include" transwomen in feminism. I don't think Gia, Sarah Ditum or Glosswitch are rad fems (might be wrong) but they are among a small number of libfems thinking critically about he implications of saying "transwomen are women". I believe most women repeat this out of politeness, thinking there are no consequences for women in saying it. When women start to think about the demands currently being made by TAs and the outcome for women, they get called TERFs and told to DIAF or get raped.

I've no idea what defines someone as a radfem or a TERF.

But, I think, while it is crucially important that women should not feel the onus is on us to make common cause with other groups - and honestly, that often happens - there should be some common cause with trans people and with LGBT people and with gay men.

That doesn't mean we agree on everything, or we're not aware of differences. It's perfectly possible to hold on to your own ideology, and recognize it is incompatible with someone else's, while still both of you realize you are ultimately sharing some goals.

Maybe it is naive of me but I did think someone would answer my question, but it's been 3 hours, so...

Guess that leaves me sticking with my original position.

I am female. When I was a child, I hated being female, I wanted to be a boy, because the things I enjoyed were "male things" (construction, maths, tree climbing etc)

I was frequently criticised by my parents for not dressing femininely enough and for "walking like a farm boy".

I hated the onset of puberty because it confirmed the fact that I was a female.

My family and society told me that I was a rubbish female child because I liked and did all the "wrong" things.

I thought that if I was male I could freely do the things I enjoyed without criticism and disapproval.

Plus males had more fun! In my experience, adult males went to the pub on Sunday while the adult females toiled over cooking a roast dinner for their return.

It was clear to me that men had it easier too! Who the fuck would choose to be a woman?!

Without rigid male and female roles and expectations, I could have just enjoyed the freedom of being myself.

The problem here (as I have been screaming for years) is societal expectations.

As PPs have said, MTF trans people have accepted these rigidly defined gender roles, otherwise they would not believe in the nonsense of the female brain ffs!

Frank/Kellie is not a female. Frank/Kellie has not grown up with female experiences. Frank/Kellie is accepting the false eyelashes, skirts, heels, manicured nails and ridiculous fripperies of perceived "femaleness" and is applying them as a caricature of all that is supposedly female.

I am female. I don't wear make up or heels. I wear trousers. I am more female than Frank/Kellie will ever be.