Transgender is infuriating. How doe an unadulterated fiction, a psychosexual projection, trump matter, history, experience, and reason? Isn’t this trans cult men’s rights writ large and aggressive? Isn’t it an unrestrained force meant to erase women-as-class?
And how does an ostensible tiny minority pull off such a worldwide power grab in two decades? Why hasn’t it vanished from the social map? Obviously it’s being promoted by some of the same hefty operatives that form and shore up male hegemony, global markets, big tech, and the medical and psychological establishments. But how does transgender survive on the ground? How has it built a consensus of liberal support? What is it that convinces its idealist, activist base?
It obtains popular support by a galling and dizzying reversal of women’s victimization, which is built on a resolute denial of the whole concept of power and male supremacy–to which it itself is staked. This stupefying insistence that it’s not men who hold women in subjection, but women who oppress men, is right out of the MRA playbook. And trans is not only saying that “men suffer too” but that they, as self-declared women, are more aggrieved, and violated than society’s most historically, culturally, and politically oppressed caste.
The trans movement owns to the provocative misogynist culture that spawned it, and that protects it as a culturally sanctioned oppressed minority. Its power, influence, and yes its endangered category status, has grown in leaps and bounds because of this social agreement. But without its victim appeal it would have little corroboration, recognition, or political effect.
So liberal support is key to backing the laws, policies, suits, and grievances which advance a minority, injured party cause. Liberal means tolerant. It means championing the persecuted. It means nonjudgmental and nonthreatening. It tends to hang out in the foreground of things and favor feelings and caricatures when they’re pitted against reality. And principally, liberal means women and, most critically, liberal feminists, who represent the most dominant (in numbers and influence) sector of women’s politics.
So trans camp recruits an army of liberal women as a bulwark against its women critics. These women, besides comprising an indispensable support network, serve front line duties against their own dissident sisters, getting to lead or join in verbal assaults and threats, backing and participating in harmful public harassment, organizing the de-platforming of radical feminists speakers, and getting their “trans sisters'” critics banned, suspended, and screened (censored) from the social, news, and blog media.
This constitutes an outright theft of a women’s own support system. It’s divisive to feminism, extractive of its resources, and destructive to radical feminism. It’s bad enough that women, who barely exist on their own behalf, must be further plundered–this time for active duty in their own demise.
That radical feminists rise up to reject the undercutting of women’s political reality, and confront this mockery of women’s oppressed status, is no surprise. What is shocking is that this opposition gets used by the trans cult as a most powerful example and centerpiece argument for its martyrdom hype. You’d think they were the Christians being fed to the lions, the innocents being sacrificed on the witch’s pyre. They shout out: “No TERFS, no KKK, no fascists here today” as they attempt to shut down conferences, lectures, and panels which are critical or questioning of their actions and so-called politics.
All is pointed offense because the fiction is so flimsy that any affront to it causes hysteria and temper tantrums. When your identity is nothing but a concoction of female stereotypes, what is it but self-reification? How else to explain that men who self-identity as women haven’t the least interest in either women’s rights or men’s systematic domination of women? Nor do they see fit to name, expose, or protest the men who are their own sole victimizers.
No, trans has one declared enemy, and it’s not conservatives who its wide liberal base washes out, but rather gender critical radical feminists. They are the only check on its fundamentalism, the only betrayer of its twisted rhetoric, and the only threat to its patriarchal seal of approval.
So power must out and its these demon women who must be targeted. Thus debasing terms and epithets like “transphobic,” “TERF.” and “cis-gender” are rolled out and even mainstreamed to indoctrinate and assure
any wavering members of their liberal base as to trans victim status, and to stifle speech, quash action, and deter debate in its radical feminist critics.
“Transphobic” is a term that was dead upon arrival. “Phobic,” is a suffix used in psychiatry, that when used politically, is invariably employed as a blanket term for one’s objectors, critics, and opponents. Its purpose is to identify a hateful and fearful enemy in one fell swoop. So, as in its original use, anyone who questions homosexuality is tagged as “homophobic,” and yet only a very tiny percentage have a pathological dread of being gay themselves, and even fewer thus project gays an avowed enemy.
Since any type of non-recognition is a “form of violence,” transgender uses “transphobic” manipulatively to dismiss, trivialize, and depoliticize its challengers and protesters. Any critique is flagged as “hate speech;” protesting the crimes of trans pedophiles is called “deadnaming” (using their pre-trans name), and women speakers who outlast de-platforming, are sent death threats and called “Nazis, who should be raped.”
This totalizing term “Transphobe,” depleted of vitality and filled with empty certitude, points to a singular lack of understanding that trans activists’ have of their own ideological and colonizing identity. What trans determines to be “pathological hate speech” in others should revert to itself, to its own toxic language and unhinged threats. For whatever fear doubters and nay-sayers have of trans, it’s not from an over-riding malady called “transphobia,” but from a realization of a frightening male alignment which calls for a political act of resistance against a dominating masculine blob– and a visceral outrage at its victim status reversal.
TERFS is the blunt expletive radical feminists get pasted with whenever their voice registers with this omnipresent (to women) reality. It means trans exclusive radical feminist. Which is another perfidious reversal. Yeah, like women have the power to exclude and repress men. And I suppose radical feminists and lesbians, the most blackballed or segregated of all women and, in this case, subject to trans’ flagrant occupation of all of its spaces and communities, are in in position to even defend, let alone “exclude.” But “exclusive” is what they get for having the audacity to question transgender’s illegitimate power, its alleged progressivism, or its concealed authoritarianism.
However, what TERF more readily means is bitch, slut, dyke. It’s an arrogant, cocksure insult to deliver abuse, harassment, threat, while shamming the scream of an injured self. “I’m going to line you up against the wall…. I’m gonna cut your throat” it hawks hysterically. It’s a weapon used to shut its “unscrupulous” and “insensitive” radical critics up, by shaming, guilt tripping, condemning, and punishing them with its bully horns, bully fists–and bully suffering. And it’s schooled into a host of squawking anti-TERF cultists who, with their mansy-transy sisters, act as a horde, waving its victim flags, as it dismember a tiny hamlet of “femi-nazis.” So, TERF is the warrior call of the so-called aggrieved and “stricken,” adopting revenge as its calling card on the body politic of women.
The trans tag “cis-gendered” which is in theory applied to anyone born female, is aimed almost exclusively at radical feminists. Said with a sneer, it means their foes are privileged, and separatist. But, more pointedly, it assigns inferior status to those of mere biological origin, or maternal birth. It’s a snipe at imprinted “binary” identity. So the performance of female, or female impersonation, is celebrated, while female itself is forbidden. “Don’t mess with my fluidity! baby.”
The cult says there are no sexes, no sex class, no women’s identity, and no feminism. Those who say otherwise are uppity and “cis-gendered” women who have no regards for trans self-identity nor for their demand to be welcomed to all “lady spaces.” Women, you see, exist to subordinate themselves to men, so trans dudes should not only get dick privilege but gender-emphatic, exceptional woman privilege. And they pronounce their own feminist credentials as superior to these unfeminine, ingrate, man-haters whose biological selves serve as boundaries to transgressiveness and disembodied machismo.
If the gulf between men and women is as wide as ever, that between trans men and women is even wider. Yes, the calculated cult claim to oppressed status has secured a large cohort of liberal female support, but the bitter truth is that this is an impoverished, unilateral relationship. For trans is constructed on an adolescent refusal to look at women’s history, culture, and identity. It blanks out on the very subject it’s assumed to have fully mastered–women. It’s a monologue which excludes even its most sympathetic supporters–and precludes self-interrogation. So, the solidarity gained, based on the whiteout of dissent, is more vacuous posturing than anything else, and comes at an intellectual, moral, and political cost to all involved.
But what about the suicides and murders? How to account for them? Of course, they’re real afflictions, but it’s the way they’re skewered. Most of these occur in the sex underworld, where drugs and violence proliferate, and where no one hears the screams of murdered prostitutes. In this male zone of porn, fetish, kink, and s-m sex, it’s obviously females who are predominantly tortured, victimized, and enslaved. Or trans men of color, who are often poor, downpressed, and living as prostitutes themselves. But when trans murders make headlines whether in the mainstream, progressive, or LGBT media, the context is missing or truncated. The murder then becomes a thing apart, a debater’s scorecard stat, while its agent, invariably male, is kept under wrap. Thus, these tragic deaths are less associated with oppression, than to a self-justification for oppressing. For if any reference were to be made to men-on-men violence, male approval of trans would be jeopardized, as would trans’ war against radical feminism.
No way trans sells men out and boost radical feminism by naming men as violent oppressor. That would be a loser’s collusion, not a winner’s. And yet how to claim oppression when you corroborate with the subjection, ownership, and deprivation of women by men. So, trans doesn’t give a bleep about the intensified sexualization of women and girls, nor about the uptick of sex slavery and sex tourism, nor about women’s efforts to abolish prostitution, and curb the availability of violent pornography. On the contrary, trans actively defends and promotes all of the above forms of women’s dispossession.
Only an oppressor can deny the history of the oppressed. Transgender is obviously not about radical change but intervention against radical change. It denies women’s oppression to spotlight its own. It augments their domination by attacking women critics of patriarchy. It locates itself beyond communication and understanding, while enacting a dislocation and displacement of women. It chooses to ride its own trumped up perpetual emergency rather than resist the literal war on women. So, its cult appeal to a marginalization and suffering, which is tightly bound to the rollback of women’s rights and to the demise of feminism, is a monumental fabrication.