Monday, September 20, 2010
Why The Trans Community Hates Dr. Janice G. Raymond
Posted by Monica Roberts at 4:00 AM

http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-trans-community-hates-dr-janice-g.html

"I contend that the problem with transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence"

Before there was an HRC and its various leaders pissing us off, the Religious Right, Jim Fouratt, The Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, Rep. Barney Frank, Dr. Paul McHugh, the Catholic Church, the Tea Klux Klan, The WWBT's, or Julie Bindel and a long list of radical feminists hating on transpeople, there was the trans community's original Public Enemy Number One.

She is radical feminist UMass professor Dr. Janice G. Raymond. While she focuses her time on her award winning work combating prostitution and the sexual exploitation of women, back in her disco era collegiate days her rhetorical sights were trained on transwomen.

Reading this feels like being stabbed with a knife, it hurts.

Quotestarts in 1977 while she was being supervised in her Boston College Ethics and Society doctoral studies by Mary Daly, the same transphobe who called us 'Frankensteinian.'

That doctoral thesis was turned into the infamous 1979 book entitled The Transsexual Empire-The Making of the She-Male.

No surprise that she was awarded a PHd.

Wonder how many, with equally well researched work, but coming to a different conclusion, were denied because of the intellectually closed mind of Mary Daly and her ilk.

Of all the expected social and political gains that transgenderd people will bring to the modern world, the patently obvious absurdity of a degree as anything other than 4 years of sucking up, must be considered as significant.

QuoteAll transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive

That statement makes no sense. Not because I lack intellectual ability or training, but because it is based upon hyperbolic metaphore. Rape is an offense to basic humanity. It is the imposition of gratification to humiliate and personally destroy another. It can, I suggest, be likened to murder of the soul. It is no more a female issue than famine is racial.

To use this most disgraceful behaviour to attack individual human expression is a disservice to women and humanity.

Contemporary feminists are, of course, just another nazi group. Seeking to establish their client base into a position of separation, exclusiveness and power under the guise of equality. Like all nazis they seek to destroy individualism as they construct society in a manner which best suits their own power base. Individualism encourages thinking.

The media tolerance, even acceptance of their belittling of the evil of rape is worrying for us all. Or it should be.

Quote from: spacial on September 20, 2010, 09:34:23 AM

Contemporary feminists are, of course, just another nazi group. Seeking to establish their client base into a position of separation, exclusiveness and power under the guise of equality. Like all nazis they seek to destroy individualism as they construct society in a manner which best suits their own power base. Individualism encourages thinking.

This has to be the single most offensive comment I've ever seen on this board.  In a short statement you managed to give total credence to the writings of both Raymond and the most fanatical radical lesbian separatists (who have always number very very few among feminists)


I am a lifelong feminist, restored the ancient Cybeline Goddess traditions and run a spiritual home and retreat for Goddess oriented women and I can tell you from long first hand experience that my medical history matters not to even those often tarred as radfems.  When a trans person separates themselves from feminism and denounces it en toto it is almost impossible to see that as anything other than mysogyny and gynophobia..

Added: Almost no one who routinely denounced Raymond's book has ever actually read it.  The first half is a brilliant and highly accurate protrayal of the "girl factory" mentalities of the so called professionals dominating the field at the time.  The second half actually comes as a major shock because it is an abrupt turn to "blame the victim" but if you are familiar with Raymond's fundamentalist Catholic world view which was the same held by Paul McHugh who lied and misrepresented to dismantle the Johns Hopkins gender program, it makes a twisted sort of sense  At the time is was far from an "official" church doctrine although it does represent the current official stance of the Catholic Church.

Things are rarely as black and white as people wish them to be.

Quote from: transheretic on September 20, 2010, 09:58:43 AM
This has to be the single most offensive comment I've ever seen on this board.  In a short statement you managed to give total credence to the writings of both Raymond and the most fanatical radical lesbian separatists (who have always number very very few among feminists)


I am a lifelong feminist, restored the ancient Cybeline Goddess traditions and run a spiritual home and retreat for Goddess oriented women and I can tell you from long first time experience that my medical history matters not to even those often tarred as radfems.  When a trans person separates themselves from feminism and denounces it en toto it is almost impossible to see that as anything other than mysogyny and gynophobia..

Added: Almost no one who routinely denounced Raymond's book has ever actually read it.  The first half is a brilliant and highly accurate protrayal of the "girl factory" mentalities of the so called professionals dominating the field at the time.  The second half actually comes as a major shock because it is an abrupt turn to "blame the victim" but if you are familiar with Raymond's fundamentalist Catholic world view which was the same held by Paul McHugh who lied and misrepresented to dismantle the Johns Hopkins gender program, it makes a twisted sort of sense  At the time is was far from an "official" church doctrine although it does represent the current official stance of the Catholic Church.

Things are rarely as black and white as people wish them to be.

I am very sorry that you feel so offended.

It is undoubted that many feminists are concerned with ensuring that women are not denied opportunity because of their sex.

But those I described as contemporary feminsts, clearly seek to maintain and increase the barriers between men and women. Their repeated misues of the word rape to denigate all men, (All Men are Rapist for example), their infilutration of academia and politics, with the intention of creating a climate of fear and division.

This is nazism. This is the process by which nazis seek to win power. Those that rant about eveyone wanting to kill Jews, that Winston Churchill and the British were responsible of the WW2 murders, while calling for all Palestinians to be killed. Those in Burma, under the guise of re-establishing their version of ancient culture, with themselves at it head, while Burmeese people not of their race are systematically being murdered and enslaved. N Korea, where a cult of personality has caused such fear among ordinary people that they are seemingly willing to starve rather than object.

This is the reality of nazism. They seek to create their own power base by generating fear and division among their client group.

Not an attack upon the values of those that seek to imporve opportunity or to cater for specific needs. Rather an attack upon those that care little for opportunities or specific needs unless it is likely to improve their own standing and power. (One of these contemporary feminsts has declaired that western women's fashion should be catergorised in the same vein as FGM).

We ignore nazis at our peril.

Quote from: Laura91 on September 20, 2010, 10:12:07 AM
I've reached a point where I throw up my hands and say "screw this!!" when it comes to the haters, bigots, and morons that bash trans people. You are never going to be able to change these people's minds and speaking for myself, it's too emotionally draining to focus on it.

I most certainly have no ambitions or belief in changing these people's minds. I don't believe, for a second that they are in any way sincere about what they claim to support.

But I do believe that all right thinking people should take every opportunity to respond to these evil people.

addition.

It is perhaps revealing that, these people, whose influtration of feminism, can cause the very division among those they seek to divide and attack as seems to have happened here.

It is becoming increasing difficult to attack these nazis. They are surrounding themselves in a climate of apparent fear where any who do disagree are automatically associated with the fears the nazis make most use of.

Aside from invoking Godwin's law about the internet and use of Nazis.....

My sincere advice to you is don't transition, the shock to your system if the world ever treats you as a woman might send you over the edge.

Oh, and men and women are different, very different.  And I have been raped, twice.  I also use the word when appropriate beyond the physical act itself as most women do.

Quote from: transheretic on September 20, 2010, 10:53:01 AM
Aside from invoking Godwin's law about the internet and use of Nazis.....

My sincere advice to you is don't transition, the shock to your system if the world ever treats you as a woman might send you over the edge.

Oh, and men and women are different, very different.  And I have been raped, twice.  I also use the word when appropriate beyond the physical act itself as most women do.

As i said, I am very sorry if I offended you. I was attacking people who clearly don't support your interests or mine.

I guess it shows education is only effective when used on open minds.

Quote from: spacial on September 20, 2010, 10:58:11 AM
As i said, I am very sorry if I offended you. I was attacking people who clearly don't support your interests or mine.

Somehow I sincerely doubt you and I have any common interests.  I am a Pagan Feminist woman who has dedicated her life to the overthrow of the Patriarchy and all patriarchal thinking and the universal awaking of Goddess consciousness.

As a bloke I consider myself quite the feminist.
As in, I support the equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities towards both genders.

However, I do understand that spacial wasn't referring to "feminists" but the "feminazies" as they're commonly known.
It's a matter of poor wording/lack of clarity that does the job here I think.

Humon explained the difference well with..


(click image to see original)

There are those out there that call themselves feminists, but they aren't for "equal" rights.
They want to degrade men and dehumanize men in general, as they feel men did to women throughout "all" human history (even if there's evidence women were not considered "lower" in many, many, older societies).
They tend to call "all" men rapists, or potential rapists, or even worse.
They suggest that merely being "male" makes you an avid supporter of the patriarchal society.

And they'll verbally attack and besmirch anyone who disagrees with them, in any way, as well as any man who dares to say they support feminist causes. Saying that being male and supporting feminism is proof that the male's trying to "subjugate" women further, by taking over "their" cause.

I mean...
It just goes on and on and on..

They don't want equal rights, they just hate men.

I doubt that's what you support transheretic, and I doubt that you'd like to be seen in that light,...

Quote from: Miniar on September 20, 2010, 01:01:20 PM
.

They don't want equal rights, they just hate men.

I doubt that's what you support transheretic, and I doubt that you'd like to be seen in that light,...

This follows a blanket apologist interpretation of calling ALL feminists nazis?

If you see my life work in that light, so be it.  It is no secret I consider the vast majority of the transgender identified as mysogynists and extremely gynophobic and we've just been treated to an excellent example of why I feel this way.  Appeals to "right thinking" and "evil ones" are code words not difficult to interpret when one has an extensive background in history, sociology and theology.   

I should have known better than to comment here in the first place.  At the moment I am reviewing what I consider the end of history, the period around the beginnings of the fifth century and my passionate outrage made me incautious.

Quote from: transheretic on September 20, 2010, 01:40:17 PM
This follows a blanket apologist interpretation of calling ALL feminists nazis?

No, it does not.
It follows an explanation of the difference between two distinctly different groups.

It's obvious that spacial was referring to the feminazies, not "feminists", just chose her words poorly.

Transheritic.

I have already apologised for any offense you may have taken from my response. I meant that sincerely and unreservidly.

I made it quite clear I was refering to contemporary feminists when I identified them as nazis. I was not aware of the term feminazies. I will endevour to remember it for future reference.

I use the term nazi in its political sense, as one of the remanants left over after the downfall of aristocricism. I cannot make any apology for this term. It is the term used to identify groups of this type.

I appreciate Godwins Law. Godwin, as an educated observer of the internet no doubt saw this tendency to use the term perjoratively. This is quite common in any social circle. When I was at school, being called a queer or a poof, for example. In social settings, people are often referred to as bastards, even f*****g bastards, when the maritial status of their parents and the activity they are currently engaged in don't apply.

However, the term can still be used in the appropriate context which is what I did, to describe people who, in this case, are seeking to use a popular movement for their own empowerment.

I also gave examples of other groups of people doing the same in different contexts.

I wish you well in your quest to the overthrow of the Patriarchy and all patriarchal thinking and the universal awaking of Goddess consciousness. I'm sure the outcome will be appropriately splendid.

I am very sorry that you consider the vast majority of the transgender identified as mysogynists and extremely gynophobic. But I can assure you I never use code words and suggest you think about why such a notion could have occured to you.

However, I will respectfull suggest that this is not the appropriate forum to be discussing these issues. We have a general discussion forum where such matters can be aired.

Finally, I would like to apologise to other members here for my responsibility in causing this disagrement. I have made this post to hopefully make my position clear. I sincerely hope that anyone who wants to contribute to the initial discussion can put this interlude aside and will do so.

Back in the early 1980's I read the Raymond book when I was first published, just as back in the 1970's I had read the Female Eunuch.

Neither made for comfortable reading but neither should be dismissed in the way that some would wish. they are both serious academic works which deserve a serious reading.

It's a long time since I read Raymond's work, but as I recall she seemed rather determined to feel threatened in some way by the very existence of the trans phenomenon and I found myself wondering why? What was eating at her in that second half of the book?

Those who post surgery adopted the typical passive female role she equated with a buy in by modified males to the traditional male female hierarchy, as it were an attempt to weaken the impact of feminism. At the same time those who professed themselves as neo - lesbian feminists she saw as infiltrators seeking to hijack the power of that same movement.

This seems to me to be a slightly siege mentality, damned if you do and damned if you don't. I also wondered how she would respond to those of us who really do not care whether she sees us a "real" or "fake" are bisexual, gender blind, and why it was important to her what configuration I chose for my genitals, because ultimately, in a medical sense that is all that this treatment boils down to.

Post surgery my body occupied a different shape, but I am the same person. Therefore if I was male before then it is logically perfectly reasonable for someone to maintain that I still am. I naturally disagree about that, but I really don't care anyway. If that is how they care to see me then that is up to them. It does not change my desire to do what I did one iota, nor does it alter my female (or at very least intersex) self identity.

It also seems to me that a fundamental principle of feminism is that women and men should, for the most part, be regarded as equal and interchangeable. That there should BE no gender barrier. Thus the idea that people may cross gender back and forth would seem to me to actually be something that true feminism would be empowered by.

But then as I say the early 80's are a very long time ago, and my memory may simply be getting cloudy.

Feminazi is a term coined by Rush Limbaugh to discredit all feminists.  I believe you know this, what I don't believe is anyone who would use this term is anything other than a mysogynist.

I am not buying either of your explanations...the extreme right wing denouncement of feminism was specifically contemporary feminists.  I am a major proponent of a type of "contemporary" feminism, Wholistic Feminism.  My original entry on that was even referenced right here on this very board.

I'm not sure way a Global Moderator is defending a gross insult to all feminist women because there was zero indication that any separation at all was implied or intended  The term "feminazi" as coined and used is always a blanket insult of ALL feminists

And if there were any justification, the proper term would be "fascist" and not nazi, Nazism was a specific form of fascism of the Germans of WWII, invoking that term either invokes Limbaugh and the extreme right or a deliberate attempt to maximumize the insult in the first place.

Either way I still call foul.

Throughout all of recorded history, something I am familiar with, I can think of no instance of mass murder of men by women or even an attempt at such.  The reverse is not true.  My own historic sister Priestesses were murdered wholesale circa the beginnings of the 5'th century CE.  Some in their beds at the Vatican Phrygianum, the rest hunted down throughout Anatolia.  The most intelligent person ever, the last librarian of the Library of Alexandria, Hypatia, was torn from her chariot by christian zealots and skinned alive with clam shells.  The "Burning Times" of the middleages saw millions of women murdered throughout all of Europe, in some cases not a single woman left alive in a village.  I take this very very personally as a Pagan feminist woman, very personally.  Nazi is used only in invoke a murderous attempt at genocide, that is precisely why it is beyond the bounds of civil discourse unless the subject is actually at that level.  Or are you both Holocaust deniers as well?

Quote from: transheretic on September 20, 2010, 05:05:24 PM
I'm not sure way a Global Moderator is defending a gross insult to all feminist women because there was zero indication that any separation at all was implied or intended  The term "feminazi" as coined and used is always a blanket insult of ALL feminists

Hey I am absolutely NOT defending anyone.

I quoted no one in my post indicating no direct link to previous posts except by theme. For the record let me clearly state that I do not entirely agree with Spacial anymore than I do with you.

My post is NOT to be taken as an endorsement of anyone else's views.

Jenny, she's referring to me.

transheretic, you know full well that neither spacial nor I was referring to "all" feminists.
I was Not aware of who coined the term, and I have never seen it used as a blanket reference to "all" feminists.
The choice of words is poor, yes, but it does not change the fact that there are women out there who call themselves feminists yet advocate oppression and overall hate of men simply because they are men.
Which would be the individuals being referred to.

Quote from: Miniar on September 20, 2010, 05:26:41 PM
Jenny, she's referring to me.

OOOPS!  Apologies everyone! and apologies transheretic too.

And the moral is never take part in potentially heated debated when you have flu and you brain is working on half power.

I'll go back to bed...

Quote from: Octavianus on September 20, 2010, 09:13:32 AM
Reading this feels like being stabbed with a knife, it hurts.

I think it's supposed to hurt, and hurt as much as it can. There are a couple of radical feminists who just can't cope with the fact that we transsexuals don't fit neatly into their theories and this is why they hate us. Plus they hate us cause it's okay to make public hate speeches about transsexuals anyway, you know? (Whereas bashing POC etc. is not considered okay any more.)

Instead of trying to adapt their theories so that they don't clash with the transsexual experience or at least try to listen to us, they bash us as well as they can and/or make us non-existent, ridiculize and dehumanize us. We could laugh about their hate speeches if transsexuals were not at high risk of being assaulted and killed anyway. And if they did not publish their sh*t about us over and over again in big newspapers and magazines and talk on the radio, fuelling hate among the general population. These women are nothing but terrorists.

They think gender is only about gender roles, and that gender roles are 100% from nurture. They ignore that there also exists:

- gender identity (am I a man or a woman?) and
- sex identity (internal body map)

Plus a couple of other things relatet to gender. They needn't even change their gender role theories for us if they just understood that these other two factors also exist, can be hard-wired and are not flexible for everyone - and the reasons to transition for many of us.

Also, transsexuals don't all follow gender role stereotypes, but the medical institutions said we did so until one or two decades ago as they wouldn't let us get the hormones and SRS we need if we did not follow these stereotypes. So we had to play this sh't for them at each visit. E. g., quite a lot of transsexuals had 2 types of clothes, jewellery etc. at home: one "normal" set for real life and one "transsexual looking" set for the shrinks, and some of us also had to lie about their sexual orientation etc. Now if these radical feminist theorists got all the information about us from the shrinks' writings instead of from us, this is how you get the prejudices about us they keep reproducing in their books and essays. They say we enforce patriarchy by reproducing gender role stereotypes. Which is weird as medical institutions were hierarchical and male-dominated (and still are) so they should be very biased and unreliable from a feminist point of view, especially if they exerce power. Or in other words: these radical feminists enforce patriarchy and oppression by relying on the shrinks' accounts. Ooops.

It also seems weird that they say gender roles are arbitrary and flexible, but hate us for flipping them though we might be good examples to prove this theory. Instead they say, we are born men and therefore cannot become women or vice versa based on biology - which contradicts their theory. Ooops.

What transsexuality really is becomes clear if you just take two or three hours time and listen to a handful of transsexuals without close-minded prejudice hindering you from taking their accounts seriously. Sounds easy, hm? Apparently it's too difficult for them. Which leads to another point where feminist principles are not followed: you should listen to the oppressed and not only to the oppressors (that is, gender clinics, gatekeepers and shrinks in the 60ies and 70ies). Oops.

And the weirdest thing about their theories is, they think our gender is the sex we were born with, i. e. trans women are men and trans men are women. Now the trans women get the most crap from them, we FTMs are almost ignored in the discourse. Which means they concentrate on the "male" transsexual experience and ignore the "female" side (from their viewpoint). Whereas feminists usually try as hard as they can to concentrate on female experiences as otherwise they'd reproduce patriarchical patterns. Oops.

Altogether, they contradict themselves a lot when it comes to transsexuality and it becomes clear that their main aim is to bash and scapegoat trans women at the expense of logic and even in contradiction of their own feminist theories and principles. So there's a lot of hate behind it and not much reasoning. In some radical feminist blogs, you can even finding readers' statements such as that they hate us for being so whiny and self-pitied creatures that we celebrate our Day of Remembrance (the day where we mourn our hate crime victims). There's really a bunch of nasty people on the internet.

The radical feminists who cause and caused a great amount of disaster are Janice Raymond, Mary Dale, Julie Bindel and Germaine Greer - know thy enemies (By the way, Bindel became lesbian "for political reasons" (WTF?), and Mary Dale had the opinion that all but 10% of the males should be extinguished.) You can look up their articles and essays on transsexuality online if you're feeling masochistic. But the prejudices behind it can be traced further back, e. g. the "ground-breaking" radical feminist novel "The Female Man" by Joanna Russ, written 1970, spends its complete eighth and last chapter bashing men and trans women. Gruesome.

Not all radical feminists are or were like that, though! But the poison keeps on having its effects.

And I really, really hate these four women for their attempts at making my trans sisters' lives as miserable and dangerous as they can.

A collection of ridiculous theories about transsexualism which sadly have had an impact on transsexuals' lives can be found on Lynn Conways website: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Rogue%20Theories/Rogue%20Theories.html