There Is No Such Thing as a Lesbian With a Penis!

Originally posted on YouTube by Magdelan Berns


Challenging trans truth

Originally posted at Transcendence: Youth Trans Critical Professionals

 In our work in UK universities and schools and in our own lives we see ‘transgender’ as an identity receiving widespread support and increasingly incorporated into mainstream liberal culture.  Television programmes, films, magazines, and newspaper articles promote the idea that girls and boys can be ‘born in the wrong body’. A life-time of injecting hormones is decreed to be a necessary part of transitioning, and children and young people are being assigned for surgical intervention. It is popularly thought that these medical interventions help match the sexed body with the individual’s true ‘born’ gender.  In addition, changes in the law, in combination with medical truths, are instrumental in defining transgender as an equality and human rights issue. On the whole society is steered toward being receptive to the moral claims of transgenderism; although there are dissenting views these are relatively seldom heard.

Continue reading…

All Women Have Vaginas

This is an edited repost of a Tumblr post by little-wolf-teeth, who has since deactivated their account.

Some people claim that the statement “all women have vaginas” reduces women to just that trait and reinforces the idea that the only important part of a woman is her genitals.

But this is false; having a trait does not mean you are nothing but that trait.

E.g. “All dogs have four legs” does not mean dogs are nothing but legs.
“All elephants have big ears” does not mean elephants are nothing but a set of giant-ass ears.
“All male lions have manes” does not mean male lions are nothing but a walking pile of long hair.

If I say “All people with pale skin have a lack of melanin in their genes”, is that reducing all pale people to nothing but the lack of melanin in their genes? Fucking no lol. Stating a scientific fact – that to be part of class or group X, you must possess trait Y, is not reducing anyone down to being nothing but trait Y. It’s simply saying for you to qualify as a part of this group, you must have this specific trait. That’s it.

The qualification of being female (which is what women are) is that you have XX chromosomes and the anatomy necessary for producing ova.

That does not mean that’s all women are, nor, by any fucking stretch of the imagination, does that mean that the only important part of a woman is her XX chromosomes or female sex specific anatomy. Like come on. All it says is that to be a woman, you must be female, and to be female, you must have XX chromosomes and female sex specific anatomy. Everything above and beyond that makes you 100% as valid as a living, breathing, living, experiencing, loving, laughing, working, struggling, thriving woman, just like any other woman on the planet. But you are still female, you are still a woman. And that is not something you can opt in or out of because biology is unchangeable.

You seem to be thinking that a person’s identity as a man or woman is the ultimate totality of their identity as a person, that there is no identity outside of being a man or a woman, or that the identities of men/women as men/women, respectively, encompass all we are and all we’ll ever be. So to you, reducing the definition of a woman down to biology means to reduce the entirety of your personhood down to biology. But that is a false and misinformed perception. We are more than our respective sexes or the gendered expectations that come tied to those. The fact that you have knit your personality and your gender into one uniform identity is not the fault of radfems or science or biology itself. And just because it threatens your perceptions/conceptions of yourself and your political movement does not mean it is inherently untrue or that it is actually the threat you perceive it to be.

Womanhood is not the sum of a person’s personality or identity. Womanhood is simply the lived experience of females, in all their multifaceted diversity.

Saying “whether or not they experience womanhood” in regard to females is meaningless. There is no womanhood but that which is experienced by females. Womanhood is not a subjective experience that can be opted in or out of. It is the experience of female people, plain and simple. Any experience of womanhood by a female is a valid experience, because it is simply that – the female experience. That’s all it is.

Now, you wanna know what does reinstate the notion that the only important part of a woman is her sexual or reproductive anatomy?
 Calling women:
“Uterus havers”
“Vagina people”
“Pregnant people”
”Period havers”

Reclaiming Women

Originally posted by Stephanie Davies-Arai at Wales Arts Review

There’s a strange thing happening to the distinct group formerly known as ‘women.’ The change in meaning of the word has crept up on us but it has become so established this past year across the media, government, public institutions and women’s groups that I find myself wondering ‘Who is International Women’s Day for?’ I don’t know anymore, I’d have to check with the organisers: ‘When you say ‘women’ who do you mean?’ The only answer permissible would be ‘anyone who self-identifies as a woman’ because anything thing else would be exclusive of transsexual males and therefore ‘transphobic.’

Already I can hear the sharp intake of breath from those shocked at that term ‘transsexual males;’ already I have declared myself ‘transphobic’ by not using the term ‘trans women.’ I do use that term sometimes out of courtesy, but I use accurate terminology here because that’s what this piece is about. A ‘trans woman’ is a male who identifies as the opposite sex, that’s all, no judgment. ‘Transsexual male’ is accurate and facts in themselves are neutral.

Clarity of language is important, words and their meanings influence thought; it matters to be factual.

Continue reading…

Tomboys and sissies: where we’re going wrong

Originally published by Bronwyn Winter at The Age

I would like to live in a world where ‘male’ and ‘female’ cease to be categories of social distinction, to the considerable advantage of those labelled ‘male’ and the considerable disadvantage of those labelled ‘female’.

I would like ‘gender’ to disappear as a mark of social categorisation and prescribed behaviours, even if ‘sex’ – the number of ‘Xes’ in our  chromosomes – inevitably remains one mark of biological diversity, and differing needs, among us.

But we do not live in such a world, and gender continues to separate humanity into two classes. As such, it is a deeply political question. It shapes our collective social experience as sexed beings from the day we are born, and we cannot disappear that experience and acquire another, simply through an act of will. Biology is not everything, but it is not nothing either – as any intersex person surely knows, and as all women know.

Throughout history, any specificity of women’s embodiment or needs has been ideologically constructed as justification for considering us weak, incompetent and unclean. We know, deeply, viscerally, that embodiment is a political issue.

Continue reading…