Playboy’s Dumb Response to Meghan Murphy (Men Telling Women What Feminism Is)

Meghan Murphy, owner of the wonderful blog Feminist Current, is being targeted by dudes and fauxfems over a post she did on Laverne Cox’s nude photo shoot. Murphy’s been subject to endless harassment and threats for stating the obvious radical feminist analysis of Cox’s photo. This analysis has been around for years and hasn’t changed.

And men don’t like it.

Noah Berlatsky Wonder Woman Bondage and feminism

Is it any wonder this dude doesn’t know a thing about feminism?

Playboy just ran an article by Noah Berlatsky calling Murphy a terrible feminist and implying she’s a cold evil meanie racist for her standard and appropriate analysis regarding sexual objectification and radical acceptance.

I normally wouldn’t respond to such tripe from a porn mag but in my view it’s kinda cathartic to laugh at men who show up decades late to the party and start expounding on feminism.

Get your collective yawns ready.

Dudebro immediately conflates black women with trans implying Murphy is a racist for understanding that males aren’t females and Cox is NOT female. I know, I know. This allegation has been leveled at me too for agreeing with Murphy.

More than that, trans women and black women, too, are often told that they’re not real women.

This is how dishonestly this ‘critique’ mansplaining begins.

Feminist Meghan Murphy reacted to the photo just as Cox suggests that people often react to black and trans women — with disgust, prejudice and horror. In a short but impressively cruel post, Murphy sneers at Cox for attempting to achieve a “‘perfect’ body as defined by a patriarchal/porn culture, through plastic surgery, and then presenting it as a sexualized object for public consumption.”

Once again we see conflation and a lot of dishonest adjectives. Meghan used pronouns like ‘she’ but I won’t. Cox isn’t a black female and will never experience being female. That’s reserved for the biological sex class: female.

Cox will never have to worry about birth control, abortion, and all those other biological issues black females, all females face that define our sex and have a direct link to our oppression.

Does Berlatsky think black females who are sex trafficked into porn and prostitution are there because they’re empowered? Do black women have agency while they’re making the least on the male dollar? Yeah, probably.

I wonder how much Playboy pays its African models compared to its white models? Or how about the fact that white women are warned not to do scenes with black men? Porn is racist. Radical feminism isn’t.

Didn’t see that one coming did you dude?

Mansplaining on:

Murphy suggests that trans women are “spending thousands and thousands of dollars sculpting their bodies in order to look like some cartoonish version of ‘woman,’ as defined by the porn industry and pop culture.”

They are and your racist, sexist, misogynist, patriarchal magazine is a big part of the problem.

I know you might not have thought about this but the women you put in your magazine are hardly real and as a result we have FEMALES dieting to death, having surgery on their perfectly healthy labias, and spending fortunes on plastic surgery.

Is that acceptance?

Cox isn’t a role model for females. He has spent thousands of dollars to appropriate a gendered stereotype of femininity complete with the semi nude celeb photo. Selling more of the same objectified images might be Playboy’s idea of liberation but it ain’t radical and it’s a hard reality for girls who buy into this perfection on the page.

If you think the myriad of eating disorders of females is acceptance then you’re an idiot.

Cox, for Murphy, is a cartoon: a plastic-surgery-constructed thing, unreal and, in its parody of beauty, ugly. The loathing and contempt are palpable. With black feminist activist Sojourner Truth, Cox, in her nakedness, asks, “Ain’t I a woman?” And Murphy with cold glee, replies, “No.”

Playboy has the nerve to talk about beauty when it sexually objectifies women by selling fake images for males to consume? That’s rich. Remember the terms ‘loathing and contempt. They’ll come in handy later.

And no, Cox ain’t a woman.

That coldness isn’t new. Ideally, you’d hope, feminism would be about fighting for the rights of all women and trying to free all people from oppressive gender stereotypes.

You’re confused dude. You talk about freeing people from ‘oppressive gender stereotypes’ while simultaneously you’re praising Cox for several painful surgeries and hormones to achieve a gender stereotype?

LOLZ

White women have historically been perpetrators of violence against black women’s bodies, and the same entitlement and identity-centeredness in feminism has enabled them to proclaim themselves as the arbiters of womanhood.”

The above statement in his shitty article seems to be plopped in there in true neoliberal fashion to get people thinking ‘racism.’

The person who made that statement also said this on Twitter:

The gender binary is currently being enforced by trans’activists’ not by radical feminists. It’s not radical feminists taking 5 year old boys who like dolls, labeling them trans’women’, carting them into gender clinics, implanting puberty blockers in their arms 6 months at a time, preparing them to surgically alter their bodies before their bodies are even mature, and then lying to them by calling them women.

This same person went on to harass Murphy on Twitter by pairing up and re-tweeting ‘Sophia’ Banks who is laughingly and falsely accusing Murphy of wanting to sue Playboy. Funny thing is ‘Sophia’ was doing the same damn thing while falsely accusing Cathy Brennan of destroying him. In fact, there’s good evidence that ‘Sophia’ made a clone account of Cathy Brennan and used it to garner attention and sympathy on Twitter.

‘Sophia’ also goes after lesbians on Twitter and tweeted that he wants to take down a women’s rape relief shelter.

Recently, ‘Sophia’ was banned from Twitter for harassment.

Porn culture isn’t inclusive, it’s racist and sexist. Next you’ll be standing up for the torture of animals, labeling it inclusive because it’s just a ‘choice’ to abuse animals. Neoliberal rhetoric is ridiculous.

I’m sure there are plenty of black women and black lesbians in the world who don’t quite like their womanhood being appropriated, mocked and sold as a sexually objectified body. This has real consequences for females.

Just as black women have been defined as outside femininity, so have trans women.

What is femininity Mr. Playboy writer? Can you enlighten us radical feminists about what exactly that is?

The Michigan Womyn’s Festival has spent four decades refusing to admit trans women; the organizers appear to have decided to close it down after this year rather than move towards trans inclusion.

That’s a lie dude. Michfest wasn’t closed b/c of twanz.

Trans feminist and author Julia Serano explained that trans-exclusionary radical feminists “subscribe to a single-issue view of sexism, where men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed, end of story … This framing also leads them to depict trans women as entitled men who are ‘infiltrating’ women’s spaces and ‘parodying’ women’s oppression, or as ‘gender-confused’ or androgynous people who transition to female in some hapless attempt to ‘assimilate’ into the gender binary.”

Reducing the analysis so you don’t actually have to think about it is another mansplainy neoliberal tactic.

Yawn.

Trans-women, whose refusal to conform to gender norms subjects them to hatred, contempt, vilification and, not infrequently, murderous violence, are seen as somehow creating or supporting gender norms. In the name of gender radicalism Murphy vilifies a woman because her gender expression is not the same as Murphy’s.

How can you be so dull? Trans is all about conforming and appropriating femininity and masculinity. Those two gender boxes are patriarchally constructed where femininity is seen as the weak submissive and masculine the strong dominant.

Females have no choice as to which box they’ll be forced into. We are put in the subservient ‘woman’s role’ based on our sex from the moment of birth. This is why radical feminists want to eradicate gender, eradicate femininity and masculinity. It’s oppressive for everyone, but particularly so for the female population.

Part of what defines Cox’s experience of gender is, as she says, that black women and trans women are not seen as beautiful. They can be, and often are, hyper-sexualized — and in seeing Cox as overly sexual, and only sexual, Murphy participates in that stereotype. But while they can be sexual things, trans women and black women are not allowed to be glamorous or lovable.

Isn’t it just like a man to employ the restrictive feminine gender adjectives ‘beautiful, glamourous, and lovable?’

P. Marie, though says that for her, “When it comes to sexualized images of us, for me it’s all about agency! Did we consent? Are we respected? Is this our choice? Is this a collection of body parts or erased humanity?”

Ugh. There’s those silly neoliberal buzzword again. Agency and choice are meaningless when you live in a sex and gender based class system under patriarchy silly man. Soon you’ll be telling me an impoverished aboriginal girl got into prostitution because she ‘chose’ to express her ‘agency.’

Murphy sees no humanity in Cox’s picture; only a trans, black woman who, by the very fact of being trans, can have no agency.

What the fuck does that even mean?

But if you look at the picture, what’s most striking about the image is its distinctness and individuality. Murphy claims that the image is too perfect; in fact, though, the picture is remarkable, as a fashion photo, for it’s willingness to let its subject own and celebrate, her “imperfections.”

There is ZERO analysis in radical feminism that strips people of their humanity but there’s plenty of it in your crappy piece and the crappy mag you write for.

Playboy, when not sexually objectifying women,  loves women’s humanity so much they created a ‘Hate Fuck Rating List’ of GOP women complete with misogynist commentary. Playboy tried erasing this piece but not before lots of people saw it and captured it.

Playboy hate fuck rating Playboy hate fuck rating2

I can think of nothing more ‘loathing and contemptible’ than to celebrate ‘hate fucking’ (raping) women aka biological females. Playboy understands biological sex so well I’m willing to bet they’ll put a MtT complete with ‘lady penis’ in their centrefolds for 6 months straight. Let me know how that works out.

Cox is not fashion-model-thin. She’s not fashion-model-petite or willowy, either. She has very large hands, which are not hidden, boldly displayed. In the photo, Cox lies on a blanket; her body taut rather than relaxed, her head in one big, strong hand, eyes closed, a slight smile on her face — like she’s a little embarrassed and amused at being embarrassed. She’s voluptuous and awkward and sweet all at once. In her simultaneous enjoyment of and discomfort before the camera, she seems, in the frankly staged pose, startlingly natural — and beautiful.

The counterpoint here is startling. The fragile flowering white woman vs. the savage black ‘woman’ that pornography is so infatuated with. Ding! Ding! Ding! I found the racism!

He even had to make special mention of how uncomfortable Cox looks and without being conscious of it admits that the image is awkward and staged. This pained look is what men get off on because they can do anything without having to consider the persons humanity. When you break women down into parts for male consumption that’s sexual objectification. You just made Murphy’s point for her you silly wanker.

It doesn’t matter that Cox is male in the sense of what the image represents as long as it appears stereotypically ‘feminine.’ Cox is a fake copy of the sexually objectified sex class known as female. To achieve the copy, to fit into the binary, took painful surgeries and hormones, not acceptance. Whether an actual female or a visual copy the images are interchangeable and that’s Murphy’s whole point. These images strip away any sense of humanity into categories for male consumption. The ‘redhead’, ‘voluptuous’, ‘teen’, ‘big tits’ and so on.

Not only did Berlatsky himself exude the racism, coldness, cruelty, inhumanity and misogyny he was accusing Murphy of, through his own words he found out the hard way just how right Murphy was and how stupid he is.

Here’s another article responding to Berlatsky’s juvenile mantrum:

Noah Berlatsky is going to objectify women straight to freedom » Feminist Current

 

 

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “Playboy’s Dumb Response to Meghan Murphy (Men Telling Women What Feminism Is)

  1. Hey, this is an outstanding radfem analysis. Every word of it is right on point! You are right about our reactions too – Playboy is an old man’s porn mag and will push female subjugation until the mag finally drools off into the sunset. Laverne Cox is displaying a male body cosmeticized to pass as fuckably female. This is trumpeted as a triumph for trans women. It would be depressing if it wasn’t so predictable and hateful toward both biological AND trans women.

    It makes me feel sorry for the great majority of trans women who will never pass this way. They can’t be airbrushed. Cox needs to wake up and understand that she is a symbol – of what, she can still decide – no need to be a symbol of submission to old white men. How about a symbol of a successful Black actor?

    Jonah Mix’s article was also very good. He’s a very young man with strong radfem connections who knows how to write blazingly.

    Thanks, but it’s so damn depressing sometimes.

    • Yes, I thought it interesting that his article doesn’t investigate why Playboy would carry a pic of Cox but none of the other trans persons that dont pass so easily. And there’s a lot of talking about how trans women are subject to hatred and murderous violence without any acknowledgement that that is largely by men that use Playboy and porn. Noah is his own problem.

  2. What struck me about the photo was how BORING it was. Same old porn look, same old porn pose, same old porn retouching tricks, etc. We are exposed to almost this exact same image of all races of women all the time. The article and the Playboy philosophy in it? Old garbage from the fake empowerment school of thought. Yes, porn dudes trying to school feminists on what feminism is/should be is always good for a laugh. Guess it plays well to the libfems who just don’t want to deal with the fact that, as women, they are hated by most men and are being played for fools no matter how many “cool chick” hoops they jump through.

    This is why men are not really women no matter how much they think they are or want to be. They want to be some fake fantasy sex stereotype idea they have of what a woman is. It is so strange that libfems are falling for this but I guess there is no sense trying to apply logic to an ideological fantasy.

    Maybe the trans activists should form their own religion, get it legally recognized and then whatever odd beliefs they have would no longer have to make sense for them to be protected by law. Then societies could sort out how freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion can work so that reality-based people could have their own freedom of association.

    I am rambling today but that porno rag article is enough to make any logical person’s head spin. I need more caffeine now!

    • I’m mainlining my java at present too.

      It took a few days to write this piece and I’m glad it’s a good counterpoint to Jonah’s piece.

      Jonah took the wider lens while I focused in on the two arguments Murphy was making: radical acceptance and sexual objectification.

      I also wanted to hone in on the false accusations the male made of racism, ‘TERF’, misogyny and take down his neoliberal buzzwords.

      What’s poignant for me is his babbling incoherent and unconscious rambling IS indicative of patriarchy’s rigid gendered thinking, along with racist and misogynist.

      The dude is a living, breathing example of what’s wrong in our world.

      • You might want to check out http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/04/27/on-playboys-new-feminism/

        Seems that Playboy is dangling cash in front of people who meet the Playboy definition of feminist. So the porno pimps are actively trying to curate a bizarro world cadre of “feminist experts” now. Funny how no real feminists seem to be acceptable.

        The moolah being offered by Playboy must be enough for any hack to call themselves a fun-feminist and start spewing out the babbling incoherent rambling.

  3. “Black women too”

    Well, thanks for remembering that black women’s womanhood is derided at every turn, I guess; although he still couldn’t help himself, insinuating that black trans women’s “womanhood” is more under attack.

    Particularly when the topic of Laverne Cox comes up, I just don’t see it. People all over the political spectrum, “even” people who should know better, attack the femininity and womanhood of black women all the time. Michelle Obama and the Williams sisters are among the most common targets, even among liberals. Meanwhile, you can’t even breathe that Laverne is anything other than a perfect goddess in a moderate to liberal setting. If Laverne Cox were a “cis” woman who looked like that, she’d get endless amounts of crap from all sides for looking like a man. *Actual* women, though, we’re fair game for those kinds of insults.

    It’s this sort of thing that convinces me that no one’s under any illusions about trans women being “real” women, because no one’s concerned about the feelings of real women. But in polite society you don’t criticize trans women ever. Not even deadbeat dad Bruce Jenner.

  4. I found this blog several months ago while exploring ‘the manosphere’ for a laugh after some sexism in the workplace. This time, it was a link on Twitter, and the blog has taken a turn to hating on transgender people. How disappointing, but I guess it can’t be helped, so… okay :/

    • Recognizing that males will always be males and being critical of transpolitics isn’t hating on transppl. If you think there’s such a thing as lady brain and won’t do even the smallest bit of analysis, then knock yourself out. The door is right over there to your left. I don’t apologize for knowing biology or radical feminist theory nor do I apologize when I apply it.

      • “Liz” is probably another trolling dude. But, this comment reminds me of the days before the public had gotten a lot of education about the Mormon cult. Before the internet was big and before that typical Mormon freak, Mitt Romney, made his run for the presidency, if talked about the abuses in the cult or how I escaped (had to literally run from them back in the 1980s before there was a formal procedure for leaving them – which happened only because they got sued!), people would look right at me, deadpan seriously and say, “Why do you hate the Mormons?”

        Nobody asks that question, anymore because they’ve been educated. It isn’t I who hates Mormons, it’s the men in the Mormon church who abuse little girls and adult women! Now, almost everybody has, at least, heard of this and no one asks me that idiotic question, anymore.

        The same thing will happen here, but it won’t take very long for most people to get a good snoot full of what trans hatred and trans misogyny really mean. That Jenner thing on the tube a few nights ago, which by the way I can see from YT clips of other TV shows was hyped up big time in advance! Everyone I’ve spoken to is absolutely disgusted by it. What we’ve learned is that these men hate us. They hate women. They’re trying to destroy us, to destroy every safe haven we have, either IRL or on the ‘net.

        • I like to think that’s your special way of saying “third wavers” and that I keep in good company. It’s better than thinking “feminists” characterize other women as “mannish”. I have seen that trope used before, but it was usually by straight men against butches…

      • I think you just enjoy confrontation and mischaracterizing other people, that “lady brain” is one of your mischaracterizations, that you believe in your idea of biology, and that you believe in radical feminism as if it were a theory. I don’t think anyone asked you to apologize, though. Biology is a big field and it’s easy to get lost in histology, micro, ochem, A&P, ecology, cytology, and quite a few others. It’s been awhile and I can’t remember them all.

          • “women of majority focused” in my opinion, but okay. My position on trans ppl is easily explained from two points of view. One is equality, so if we’re going to be equal to men, then men are going to be equal to us. Another is language, since “male” and “female” are both defined as “of or denoting” the class…” and some people legally change their class. A third one is applied biology, but I don’t like typing bio essays to people unless they’re actually interested in biology. My courses are mostly A&P and micro because nursing is specific to human healthcare. I wish I could do something more like Barbara McClintock, but the school and the debt is too much for such a small chance in a field so traditionally sexist. Dreams… Kinda off-topic, but what I was about to say is I don’t mind explaining certain areas of biology, but it’s way too big to type out every little thing that applies.

            Tbh “lady brain” doesn’t mean anything to me. Besides being a brain in a “lady”, it’s nonsense. Maybe I read it differently? Do you see it as all pink and glittery or something? Your blog isn’t upsetting (to me). It’s disappointing, like finding out Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic when I used to like some of his movies. It can’t be helped, though. Some people are prejudiced, in a literal sense. I used to be, but I kinda just let it go after encountering enough people who weren’t how I thought they were.

          • So now you’re redefining my own words. I am WOMAN focused. Not MALE focused. Males who have surgery or wear dresses are not women. They are not females.

            Let me ask you a very simple question. We all know women are discriminated against with the pay gap and hiring practices since women, ONLY women, can become pregnant. As a matter of fact, the other day a manager at a company didn’t want to hire a woman because she was inevitably going to have children and take leave.

            If there is a quota system for women to be hired in upper management positions would it be right for a trans’male’ to take that position?

            Lady brain might mean nothing to you but transppl say this all the time. They say their brains are ‘women-like’ and even say there’s scientific evidence to support this. Bruce Jenner said it in the interview. So let’s not pretend that this is not said.

            Name one thing I’ve said in my blog that is in any way comparable to Mel Gibson’s rant about Jews. Quote me.

            You are still here being disappointed and now accusing me of ‘anti-semitic’ behaviour against transppl. Show me one statement where I’ve said ANYTHING that warrants that kind of label. Oh and by the way, I’m Jewish so comparing me to an anti-semite is a very heavy charge that requires a shit ton of evidence.

            I reckon you’ll provide this list of my ‘anti-semitic’ behaviour towards transmales. No, I will not call them women because they’re not.

          • Some of those who you call “males” are “of or denoting” the Female class. How can I “redefine” words by referencing a dictionary? I can only redefine “your” words if you have already redefined them to “your” definitions. Isn’t that maybe just a little hypocritical accusing me of redefining what you redefined?

            That’s not a simple question. We’re discriminated against with the pay gap and hiring practices because of stereotypes: that we’re emotional, incapable, distracting, likely to call in late, call in sick, and yes take leave for pregnancy. My answer is that a trans women likely faces discrimination for the same stereotypes depending on how she looks.

            There is scientific evidence for some of it, like on Wikipedia’s “Causes of Transsexualism” page, but none of it points to pink and glittery. Mostly it was about human Androgen Receptor defects and epigenetics in utero. Some of it was on brains, but mostly size and proportion. One was about how rare “phantom penis” is after MtF surgery. In my interpretation, it seems to imply that sex-typed biological factors influence how people relate to sex-typed bodies. That wouldn’t surprise me. If LGB people can be predisposed for attraction to others’ sexed body types, it’s not a stretch for T people to be predisposed against their own sexed body types. Or maybe predisposed for the opposite? I don’t know.

            What I do know is that many overcompensate by portraying stereotypes. On one hand, it can be annoying or even insulting at times. On the other hand, I understand it as a survival strategy: presenting what they think others want. Whatever is normal. A MtF might struggle a lot to change her voice for the same reason a Lesbian woman might marry a Gay man. And I find that tragic.

            For anti-Semitic parallels, it’s Jews harm Christians vs Trans harm women, denial of Jews’ experience of oppression vs denial of the same for Trans, denial of Jewish names/identities vs denial of trans name/identities, mockery and vilification. It’s not necessarily anti-Semitic. This stuff is pretty standard in class hatred. I mean, they’re taking our jobs? Haven’t you heard that one somewhere else? About “illegal aliens”?

          • Only females are in the female class. There are only two sexes.

            You say there’s no ‘lady brain’ and then go on to argue for it with the phantom penis. You’re missing just how simple this is. You are born male or female (we’re not talking about the rare intersex conditions). If you’re born female you experience the first and primary oppression of being born female. Female is not an identity. It’s a sex class.

            I don’t care if men overcompensate and use stereotypes. They’re just that, stereotypes. As I said, female is not an identity or a stereotype.

            Jews don’t harm Christians. It’s actually the other way round. Jews like me supposedly killed Jesus. Nobody here is denying anyone their rights or their oppression. The point is, females are females. Males who wear dresses or surgically alter themselves can never be women and part of sex class female. Sex class female is being born straight into oppression while being born male means privilege. It’s really simple. Feminists have been talking about this for decades.

            Females aren’t even allowed to be born in some countries. They can’t drive, their reproductive capacity is used against them, they’re raped, beaten, prostituted and murdered, just for being BORN FEMALE.

            I’m concerned with the oldest oppression, being born female. Males are not females. They are born privileged. It’s not their identity that matters, it’s their sex class.

            Men in dresses have been threatening, no platforming and killing whatever culture women have made. The Vagina Monologues, dead. Michfest, dead. Women’s spaces get threatened and murdered.

            It’s nothing but male violence against women.

          • … so you disagree with how the sex classes are defined then? I don’t think I can help you with that :/

            I find the idea of phantom penises funny. Don’t you? I haven’t seen it linked to any sex-typed neuroanatomy, though, so where do you get “lady brain”? Biology is just biology to me. Or are pituitary fsh/lh cycles “lady brain” too?

            “Female is not an identity. It’s a sex class.” And classes are identified… This is getting circular.

            You think MtF trans women are allowed to drive in countries where women aren’t allowed to drive? And that they aren’t raped, beaten, prostituted and murdered? Do you read as you type? Because in all of these, female victims are identified as female by perpetrators of violence.

            The Vagina Monologues is a play. How is it “dead”? Michfest I get; it’s dying, because Lisa is pulling the plug… She says it isn’t because of trans issues, and you say it is. Either waym I don’t see how trans people “kill” it by boycott if their money isn’t wanted in the first place?

        • I also enjoy pointing out stupidity that harms women. Wait, I thought you were so upset with this blog you were leaving? My idea of biology? No, the facts of biology. There are males and females. Not complicated. If you buy into the fantasy land that men become women then by all means, enjoy your new religion.

          I hear menz saying they’ve always been a woman and it’s in their brain. There is no such thing. Even Jenner said he had a lady brain. He doesn’t. Nobody does. He’s trying to colonize women’s spaces by proclaiming he’s a woman when he never will be.

          Men are not women. Women deserve their own spaces. Not complicated.

        • “…your idea of biology…”

          What does that mean, Liz? Biology is a flimsy belief system?
          You can’t opt out of physical reality. If you think biological reality is optional, well, errrrrr, there are people who opt out of the idea that human beings existed AFTER the dinosaurs. The scientific community doesn’t pay them much mind. Maybe I misunderstood your post? Sorry if I did. Your post was unclear and seemed to be written in pomo-speak. George Orwell had a lot of strong opinions on people who misinterpret language on purpose for insidious political reasons.
          You mentioned “radical feminism.” Yeah. I’m wary about people using words and phrases they don’t actually understand. Once again, did I misunderstand your post? Sorry if I did. Your writing is kind of shit. And for serious here, I was a journalist for twelve years and now teach language arts for adult who want to pass the GED.
          I know a lot of people who think their writing is clear when it’s not.
          That’s when I make a point of speaking to them — very gently, after class.

          • It means that many people like to appeal to biology, because they believe that their availability heuristics (for biology) are representative of biological reality. For example, many people believe that there are two sexes: XX females and XY males (no exceptions). If studying for your Bachelor’s Degree (or higher) in any healthcare-related field, then you will likely find alternatives covered in general biology, microbiology, anatomy and physiology, genetics, and etc. The most obvious one is Neuter. Since the strictest biological definitions of “Male” and “Female” reference gamete size and motility, anyone who doesn’t develop spermatocytes from spermatogonia, (and doesn’t regularly eject oocytes from primordial follicles) is biologically Neuter.

            I am in college, and my writing is commensurate. I didn’t mean for you to misunderstand, but years of being called “snobby”, “bitchy”, “nerdy”, “bratty” and (ironically) “stupid” for being reasonably intelligent and for using extensive vocabulary — it’s left me with this really bad habit of speaking lowly in any public capacity. Speaking too highly used to get me in trouble for “backtalking” my father; my mom would step in and they’d both fight. And even now, my husband has poor self-esteem and is not college-educated, so it causes fights when he thinks I am deliberately speaking over him, when he thinks I am deliberately speaking down to him, and when I worry I have spoken over him and politely ask if he knows what I meant (feels insulted).

            I only speak freely with people who are close to me, or with people who directly express their dissatisfaction with my lowly manor of speaking. Generally, people treat me better for it: I’m not a “bitch” to men, and I’m not a “bossy know-it-all” to the other women I work with.

          • “Liz” is really shitting all over this thread with their world salad. Attempting to parse some of those posts can induce migraines, so be warned.

  5. I know who Megan Murphy is, but I don’t have a clue who the rest of these people are. So, some of this is hard for me to grasp. The liberals and their habit of hurling charges of “racism” at anyone who disagrees with them about anything is really getting tiresome, though.

    I saw the article on who is trafficked in the U.S. It’s an interesting article, but when it comes to women being trafficked, being pursued by johns or pimps, it’s hard for me to sit back and look at things from their perspective. Here’s the the facts. If you are the victim of traffickers, you are no better or worse off because of the color of your skin. Rape is not made better or worse in the experience of the woman being raped based on the color of her skin. We all hurt, we all bleed, and when we have miscarriages/still births because of male abuse, it is just as painful and damaging to us regardless of the color of our skin.

    I worked at a night club for a little while several years ago (again, for the benefit of the libs, this happened after my divorce – I wasn’t there because I enjoy perverts) and I found that things had changed a lot. In lots of places, the dancers are gone and have been replaced with prostituted women. There was a white woman there who clearly seemed ill to me. Someone had repeatedly put cigarettes out on her back. There was another cute, petite, young black women there, full of energy. One day when she didn’t show up as usual, I asked where she was only to be told that she’d been beaten up by her pimp. (I never saw her, again, by the way.) It never crossed my mind that being pimped out or being abused by johns was worse for one *group* of women than another because, first of all I don’t have the luxury of an outside perspective on this that all the liberal men and the liberal women with trust funds have, and second because we are all women. We all have the same kinds of problems. We all have to fight off the johns. Any of us could fall into the hands of pimps. The only difference between me and them is a little bit of luck and I know it – I’ve cried about it many, many nights thinking about those women. I had little chance in life, but they had none at all! And, it doesn’t matter what color their skin is or where they came from.

    My point is the abuses of women are not made better or worse based on skin color or anything else that I can think of. Being held captive, being beaten, being raped – these things are horrible regardless of what you look like!

    People who bring race into it this way are speaking from a place of extreme privilege.

    • There’s an interesting trend going on in trans activism right now (at least it’s interesting once you’ve recovered from your head exploding) where any criticism of gender or trans ideology is “racism”. You really have to dig to figure out where this is coming from, and I’m pretty sure it goes like this:

      Trans activists have convinced themselves that trans identity has been common throughout history and has been accepted by every culture other than Western culture. They also believe that when the West colonized much of the rest of the world and increased its sphere of influence into countries it never colonized, this acceptance of trans identity was stamped out. I think this is also why charges of “colonialism” also get trotted out whenever someone criticizes gender or trans ideology. Many trans activists have had a very glancing exposure to this line of thinking, but they did pick up on the idea that non-acceptance of trans identity is due to the West’s racism, so they seize on that and start accusing any gender critical people of being racist.

      Meanwhile, it’s mostly middle class and rich, white trans women who attack gender criticism on this basis. The irony of that isn’t lost on me.

      I haven’t studied the issue in depth, but it has been my impression that acceptance of third genders in non-Western cultures is not really similar to modern identity politics. The third genders are just that — third genders. It doesn’t seem like hijra and two spirit and kathoey people are regarded as women, they’re regarded as different. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that; most of my disagreements with the trans movement would disappear if they stopped insisting they’re real women or real men, but these third genders do not support what the modern trans movement is advocating for, and, if anything, it strikes me as *actually* racist that white trans women are appropriating non-Western concepts that they don’t seem to understand.

      • Kesher,

        Thanks for enlightening me with the gender propaganda behind this.

        I’ve noticed that men, in general, like to bring race into discussions about feminism in order to derail the conversation entirely or attempt to divide and conquer.

        Re: “…it strikes me as *actually* racist that white trans women are appropriating non-Western concepts that they don’t seem to understand.” This is very much my thinking, as well.

        • Oh Christ, is that ever the truth, Kesher. They try to cause infighting between women and try to shame people who are telling the truth. It’s a total neo-con move. Like when pundits start talking about wage disparity and conservatives clutch their pearls and retort, “Gasp! You’re encouraging class warfare! How could you!?”
          Also, their abuse of the word “inclusive”
          has no limits. Mind you, most of these neo-liberal dudebros have no idea who coined the phrase or what it actually means, but that doesn’t stop them from misusing the word to extort sympathy from silly fauxfems who were tricked into thinking pole dancing is liberating and that Queen
          Victoria was actually trans.

          • Hahaha. Your comment made me smile. Today was yet another day on Twitter for the Twanz mob. They cornered a young woman and let her have it for saying males can’t be females.

            It will be posted on here to show the violence these neolibs will sink to. It will be shocking.

            My response will hopefully give people something to think about.

        • Yeah divide and conquer, that’s exactly that. I’ve seen white transwomen accusing black and asian women of being white for disagreeing with them, the irony is not lost on me.

          A while ago there were also a few popular posts from women of color critical of the constant resort to demonization of white women and girls as a social justice approved form of misogyny on tumblr.

          The thing is, criticism never applies to trans activists as usual; and they found the perfect silencing tactic anyway, which has gain a lot of popularity among regular womanhaters lately: just add “cis” in front of “white woman” (or even just “woman”) and there you have the ultimate most privileged oppressor to ever walk this earth.

          Resorting to “terf” isn’t even necessary in these cases, and the amount of abuse other self described “cis women” and trans allies are ready to hurl at the accused if frankly terrifying.

          Even eight years ago in my strongest internalized misogyny days I couldn’t dream to say 1% of what these brainwashed women are saying; some of the tweets directed against Meghan Murphy are really awful.

    • And a place of male hierarchies. Men love to put things in top ten lists, thats another thing that tells me faux feminism is a male movement. I lost two babies through male abortive violence – I cant remember thinking that this would be easier or worse if I were black. Likewise when I was raped five times when I was a child – four of the rapists were black so does that make it better or worse? Didnt seem to make an awful lot of difference at the time. Saying that an experience of violence or oppression is different because of colour or age or disability have already lost their common humanity to an inbuilt list builder.

  6. Re: “Playboy understands biological sex so well I’m willing to bet they’ll put a MtT complete with ‘lady penis’ in their centrefolds for 6 months straight.”

    Yes, they should definitely put their money where their mouth is. If “trans women” are really women, then they should be scouting around for the next trans woman centerfold, she-penis and all, right now.

    In fact, I would encourage any an all “trans women,” including Bruce Jenner, to apply right now.

    • It’s interesting, because I don’t know of any trans women who are clamoring for a Playboy spread.

      There are trans women porn actors who demand the “right” to do lesbian porn. And not the “lesbian” porn that’s for straight male consumption. I’m talking about the very small subset of porn production that’s produced by lesbians for lesbians. Excluding trans “lesbians” from this very small, put-upon part of the industry is “bigotry”. Meanwhile, I don’t see much activism from trans women to make the porn industry cut out the fetishization with “shemale” porn or suggesting that a trans woman has an inalienable right to be in mainstream heterosexual PIV porn.

      They limit their “activism” to imposing themselves on women. They don’t impose themselves on men. And that is extremely telling, both because they know that they’ll get no traction from attacking straight men (straight men know they’re not real women) and because they, being heterosexual males, greatly enjoy attacking women exclusively and breaking down our boundaries.

      • Some people think twanz males attack women to boost their ego. By attacking women they feel they’re more womanly.

        Then there’s the standard male privilege they’ve been born with and raised with from birth and b/c of that see women as less than and easy to attack and manipulate.

        Someone made the comment yesterday that these trans dudes actually hate women so much that trans themselves in order have an ‘woman identity’ to take their anger out on.

        You can see how this anger manifests itself when they attack women.

        • Nothing illustrates the fact that these men are men more than their attacks on women.

          Some of the commentary from those dudes in their forums is pretty telling, too. They hate us and they fantasize about doing all kinds of violence to us – often while masturbating their she-penises and wearing pink undies.

          • In fact, Jenner talking about how he envied women because we are comfortable with who we are (in other words, forced to conform to a gender role stereotype created by other sick men) really made my skin crawl. That’s the basis for a lot of their hatred of us.

            Men are sick!

  7. Sisters, there’s a good research paper out about abuse of children, ie. forcing them into trans. Also examines the fact that Gender Identity Disorder in Childhood isn’t well researched nor is it applied in a systematic fashion by different clinicians. (1) How dresses can make you mentally ill: Examining gender identity disorder in children | SJ Langer – Academia.edu

    Here’s a paragraph from the paper

    Proponents of GIDC have re-lied on the following tautology to support the case for its legitimacy:because cross-gender identification is assumed to be abnormal, any childwho exhibits cross-gender identification must have a disorder. Thislogic illustrates the problem with the definition of mental disorderthat the authors of the
    DSM
    use.

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