The Great Fishing Expedition 2016

Men are always thinking up new ways to intimidate and harm women. 2016 will be no different. We’ve come to expect this from the men’s rightsers but it also comes from transactivists, who are aligning themselves closer to MRA’s than ever before. The TransAdvocate has started a new 2016 feature called Conversations. Two men, John Stoltenberg and Cristan Williams, editor of the Transadvocate, are attempting to rewrite radical feminism, to make it more palatable for men. *yawn*

I found out about this new development on Twitter, when I came across Lucyfire’s tweet.

Cristan Williams: a man bent on rewriting radical feminism to suit himself

I find even the name of this new feature hilarious because women aren’t part of the conversation and with all the transactivists no platforming radical feminists it busts the hypocrisy meter. Maybe they mean all the conversations they won’t be having while they silence and intimidate women? At least that would be honest.

I read their description of this project:

It is an encounter between ‘old school’ Second Wave feminists of all birth assignments who are not adverse to learning something new,

Learning something new? There is nothing new here. We’re not going to redesign feminist theory to fit your fetishes. This is talking down to women in the most patronizing way possible.

‘Birth assignment’ is another wacko term which shows these men know nothing about radical feminism. People aren’t assigned, they’re born either male or female. Why would a man want a uterus if ‘biology doesn’t matter?’ Yet plenty of transactivists (men) are rallying for uterus transplants.

As an aside on uterus transplants, there is strict criteria that the recipient must be female. In fact, in the 1930’s a transdude died from the procedure. No male will ever have a functioning uterus, ever. These types of experiments show, in themselves, that biology is a THING and that it matters. Radical feminists know it matters, in the sense that our female biology is personal AND political.

Stoltenberg is repudiating radical feminist theory and using a dead woman who can’t speak for herself (but who did), to do it. Stoltenberg is rewriting Andrea’s positions. Taking women’s hard work and using it beat other women over the head is not feminist but it’s just what we’ve come to expect from men.

When I asked Stoltenberg why he agreed to collaborate on this Project, he said, “Andrea Dworkin, my life partner of 31 years, repudiated sex essentialism, meaning she did not believe there are innate characteristics that define us. Instead, she believed, we are a ‘multisexed species.’ Since Andrea’s death in 2005,  I have become increasingly concerned that the radical feminism I first learned from her was being misappropriated in the name of ‘real womanhood’ in ways that not only shun and derogate trans women but also betray the fundamental radical feminist insight that male supremacy is premised on the lethal fiction of ‘real manhood.’”

The only expected and predictable betrayal here is from male supremacists like Williams and Stoltenberg.

Many radical feminists have heard Stoltenberg’s lazy revisions of Dworkin’s work and there are many articles that expose his opportunism and fictions. In fact, Derrick Jensen called him out but good in this response he did on Gender Detective.

In the project proposal, Williams linked an article by the TransAdvocate called ‘Sex Essentialism, Terfs, and Smelly Vaginas.’ I won’t link it because it deserves no attention. The title itself displays the misogyny we’re all familiar with. It actually sounds like one of Elam’s titles. The funny thing is Williams also lives in Houston, just like Elam. What is it about Houston? Is it the water?

When I first came across this new project I got this heavy feeling in my stomach. I had to think about it for a few minutes and then the light bulb moment happened.

These two men have taken this right out of the MRA playbook. Obnoxiousness rules the day. Their hope is to anger women and start a fight. The key will be for women not to play. We don’t have to get angry. We simply have to ignore them and this entire project will fizzle out. No serious radical feminist will get involved with it.

Stoltenberg, in a bid for attention, went back to Jensen’s old article and left a comment announcing this project. In fact, he’s going to all the radfem blogs he’s aware of and leaving a copy/paste comment announcing this new project. It’s the Great Fishing Expedition 2016 with two men bent on harassing women and getting us to acquiesce. Don’t fall for it.

Sure, we can laugh at them while they do their mantrum and fling shit from their diapers but we don’t have to respond and give them what they want.

I’ll be watching from the sidelines as liberal feminists kowtow to these men and pretend they’re radical while doing men’s dirty work for them, which is exactly what’s going to happen.

72 thoughts on “The Great Fishing Expedition 2016

  1. First time poster long time reader…

    The ‘Great Fishing Expedition’ is also to gather information on women that Williams disapproves of. He may cross-check with his database created to keep details of all the women on the internet that know penis is male, his work on ‘the’. Remember that every time you comment on a transactivist’s blog, you’re leaving them details of your email address and your IP, which can be used to harass you across Social Media and email.

    Thanks for reminding women that the best way to stay safe from these men is to decline opportunities for contact.

    And Happy New Year Mancheeze!

      • One way you can be safer if you want to comment on libfem blogs is to use Tor (which disguises your IP address) and use an email address that can’t be traced to your real name. Some sites won’t let you leave comments if you use Tor, but most will. It’s very easy to download and use and absolutely necessary if you’re dealing with trans activists and/or MRAs (same thing). They are vicious males.

    • Love your name, please comment all you want!

      TERFs are getting to be cool now. The attacks didn’t work and there’s a lot of realization now and a lot of people saying shit they’re right!

  2. The background on Dworkin’s phrase “multisexed species” that Stoltenberg continues to quote needs to be expressed. First of all it comes from the 1974 book by Dworkin “Woman Hating.” Dworkin was in her mid-twenties and this was her first book on feminism, I believe.

    Therefore the book (written in 1972) was written forty-five years ago.

    A free pdf of the book is at this link:

    Dworkin’s comment is contained in a speculative late chapter (Chapter 9) written about the possibility of an androgenous society. She calls the chapter an “attempt” and “modest and incomplete”. I would compare this chapter to late chapters of Firestone’s “The Dialectic of Sex” in which Firestone, having made her points, decided to let loose and speculate about artificial uteruses freeing women from childbearing and so on, speculations which came to overshadow the carefully-wrought theory earlier in her book and drew a huge negative backlash against the whole book.

    In Chapter 9 Dworkin explores whether gender is on a spectrum and she does say that based on the evidence she cited, she decided it was. She said transsexualism (I did not see a reference to transgenderism) would disappear in an androgenous society, as it would be unnecessary.

    At that time the fetishistic nature of some transgenderism, in which some or many autogynephilic MTF transgender people insist on adopting stereotypical presentations of femininity, had not been studied. Also, transgenderism had not adopted the posture that MTF trans people are women. In fact, transgenderism as an activist political movement barely existed, and many of its positions are anti-androgeny. I would like to see something Dworkin wrote in the 80s on the same subject, to see how her thought developed, but I don’t know of such a statement, maybe somebody else does.

    Just how speculative Chapter 9 of Woman Hating is can be found in this quote from that chapter promoting bestiality –

    “Primary bestiality (fucking between people and
    other animals) is found in all nonindustrial societies.
    Secondary bestiality (generalized erotic relationships
    between people and other animals) is found everywhere
    on the planet, on every city street, in every rural town.
    Bestiality is an erotic reality, one which clearly places
    people in nature, not above it…Needless to say, in androgynous community, human
    and other-animal relationships would become more
    explicitly erotic, and that eroticism would not degenerate
    into abuse. Animals would be part of the tribe
    and, with us, respected, loved, and free. They always
    share our fate, whatever it is.”

    And, regarding incest, she wrote –

    “The destruction o f the incest taboo is essential to the development
    of cooperative human community based on
    the free-flow o f natural androgynous eroticism.”

    If SAtoltenberg is going to keep telling us that Dworkin’s speculations in Chapter 9 represent her mature thought, he should also mention that the quote comes from a chapter of a very early book in which Dworkin also spoke approvingly about bestiality and incest. If he isn’t willing to do that, he should stop using that quote.

    • Lilinoithefoggoddess, my response to this VERY useful information is 😱😱😱. Thank you. People said a right lot of shit in the 70s. Everything bad had to be good, everything had to be fitted into a single model or theory. Ugh. Then the very people saying this wildly unlikely or simply wrong stuff, grew up. And the posturing as radical, with the bestiality and incest :: rolls eyes:: ended. And theory making became more sophisticated and useful.

      One thing that emerged from the Bohemian left kind of stuff you describe was an understanding of predatory abusiveness. That there was all this invisible cruelty going on in families and other places. Which one could say reached its apotheosis in the 80s when it was suddenly discovered that child sexual abuse was an age-old problem. And that real empirical evidence pushed all the happy talk bestiality, happy talk S&M, as in The Joy of Sex, off the stage of history. Some people are still stuck in that bohemian left mentality. I think that’s what explains all the “allies” and their willingness to believe the obviously untrue scattershot histrionic accusations of transphobia against people who are merely critics. You see the same thing in the pro euthanasia movement. In their minds the anti-euthanasia people are religious zealots like the antiabortion crowd. That there are left wing well-informed disability types like me who are opposed to euthanasia because the doctors will fuck it up will not register with the pro euthanasia people and they refuse to know it. Even though they understand about the need for consumer protection in everything else on earth. But euthanasia “has” to be a thing that’s only about they themselves being wildly progressive and heroic against the evil bad auntieuthanasia right-wing zealots. And I think it’s the same with transgender. People don’t look too closely at what transgender is supposed to be, and if they did the idea presented is so multiply self-contradictory and just an incoherent mess that they would quickly look away. So they’ve decided it’s For Good just like the euthanasia people decided about that, and anyone who opposes it is therefore The Bad. ThisWay of looking at things certainly save time on analysis. You slot everything to stereotypical good guy bad guy stuff and don’t have to analyze it all!

      So that’s what we’re up against, that actually helps. It really is a willful bohemianism, a desire not to figure things out and be aligned with processes in society to fix problems. It’s just a desire to have good guy and bad guy things and be very pleased with oneself.

      • Petuniacat, you are so right about the 1970s. For radical feminists, the breakaway was into a place no one had ever been, outside men’s supervision and control. Consciousness-raising in women-only spaces was a method of freeing women’s minds, and there was so much speculating and throwing out ideas that never gained traction because they didn’t hold up. So much had never been said, like you say about childhoos sexual abuse. Dworkin was talking about freedom of ideas, and testing taboo topics, she wasn’t saying any of those speculations were her ironclad positions. On porn, prostitution, and violence, she developed into a powerful, mature thinker. I wouldn’t look to her on other topics for a grounded analysis, especially pre-1980.

        • Exactly. Writers and feminists DEVELOP their positions over time. She certainly wasn’t saying child sexual abuse was ok. Stoltenburg is simply trying to get attention and money by using a dead woman to flog other women.

          Typical male supremacist activity. Using dead women.

        • Andrea would be fighting alongside us for girls and women’s privacy rights. She would not accept the transactivists constant no platforming or their misogyny. She would easily recognize it as what it is: male supremacy.

        • This is a really good blog post on the subject, too, which points out how Dworkin was trying to entirely re-conceive was meant by sex and eroticism anyway, as opposed to the way they have been patriarchally defined.

          “She is talking here about a wholly new, completely restructured, re-created, revisioned definition of what is erotic, to include ‘many profound and compelling kinds of sensuality,’ and along with that the ‘destruction of … genital sexuality as the primary focus and value.’

          What Andrea Dworkin wrote about bestiality and incest is only problematic if sexuality, sensuality, and the erotic are conflated with genital sexuality. But historically, radical feminists, including Dworkin, have sought to challenge the idea that sex ought to be shut up to genital intercourse between a man and woman and have sought to expand the notion of sex to include many kinds and forms of intimacy and connection, many forms of sensuality, and to view the erotic not as shut up to genital urges, impulses, feelings and acts only, but as a force, a human drive, a source of creative power which informs our creative work as women as well as virtually all of our relationships. Nourishing, life-giving, pleasurable sensuality need have nothing at all to do with the genitals. …

          …I think it is very clear here that Dworkin is talking about an expanded and revolutionary view of the erotic and of sexuality and sensuality. She defines the erotic as “touch and nonverbal communication.” When she says relationships between humans and animals would become more “explicitly erotic,” she isn’t making a statement about genital sexuality or any sort of patriarchally-envisioned or defined sexuality, she is making a statement about touch, nonverbal communication, respect, love and freedom.

          If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. If, for you, sexuality, sex, the erotic, sensuality equals a penis in an orifice, then you will read these paragraphs and see a defense of bestiality. If on the other hand you are always looking to change the world, to challenge the patriarchal status quo, if you are always looking to redefine and revision and re-create what has been used to oppress and subordinate you, then what you read in these paragraphs will be very different.”

          • It might have been better if she’d dispensed with calling it “sexuality” and just called it “therapeutic touch”. I don’t feel a need to add to the definition of sexuality beyond the genitals; the primary biological reason to have sex is to join genitals to make a baby. That sexual behavior is also a type of social behavior and is also pleasurable when wanted by all participants is secondary to the biological purpose. (Which is why contraception is so necessary.) If you’re touching one another in other ways there’s no reason to label it sexual if your aim is not to get the other person off. OBVIOUSLY, if we are touching kids in therapeutic ways, we’re NOT trying to get them off so why even bring sexuality into it? Best left alone.

    • Regarding the trans issue, Dworkin’s head would explode if she could see the porn-soaked trans movement today. Given how closely trans activists align with sex “work” and porn culture, I find it hilarious when they try to claim Dworkin would be supportive of trans issues. She’d see through the woman-hating “women” for what they are — woman-hating men.

      • Yes — transgenderism is inextricable from porn/prostitution. That’s why this “conversation” will either explode or disintegrate (and there are already hints this will likely happen).

        Stoltenberg may be able to obfuscate the meaning of “essentialism,” and perform other tricks and reversals enough to make the trans temporarily happy. But there’s no way he can sell or spin radical feminists’ staunchly anti-porn and anti-prostitution positions.

        Despite the brotherly love that’s blossoming between these two men, he just can’t do it: Dworkin’s and MacKinnon’s work, as well as his very own, is still too “exclusionary” (snort) for the misogynist, porn-addicted autogynephiles and MRAs who are among Cristan Williams’ ranks. They’ll put up with John for the fun of watching him hurt, insult and condescend to women, before they find him much too SWERFy for their tastes and kick him to the curb.

  3. These guys are fucking evil. Biology isn’t optional. You can’t appropriate feminism because you’re a pornick, sexist male.

  4. Just as there is no such thing as a woman with a penis, there is no such thing as a male feminist. Why do men have to talk so much? As is always the case, the surface might be acceptable, but if you scratch it, you find there is the smelly turd that is misogyny lying in wait underneath.

        • I became a feminist in 1983. In those days Feminism was a pretty strong force and many men I knew really did put their shit under the microscope because of it. It sounds like a war footing and that you are really saying ‘it is not possible for a man to be a feminist’. Which I disagree with.

          • Hi Malc!

            You have already demonstrated why men cannot be Feminists. Assuming you’ve been lurking this blog for a while, it’s very telling that this was the moment you decided to lose your shit. HMQ has written countless articles, reporting the depraved behaviors of misogynistic males….and I don’t recall seeing your name pop up in the comments of those. So, what does this mean? It means you don’t give a fuck about anything except your ‘right’ to call yourself a Feminist. To hell with how women feel about your intrusion…. this is all about YOU and what you want. Actions speak louder than words, and thus far, you have shown that you are only offended by women stating that “men can’t be Feminists”. Where is your disagreement with the MRA/PUA/MGTOW claptrap? Where is your activism? Where is your Male Feminist™ blog?

            *cricket chirp*

            Yeah… that’s what I thought.

          • Don’t seem to be able to replay to your last comment. No ‘reply’ link. I’m not a lurker. I followed a link from Twitter. I’ve not seen this blog before. I’m not offended either. I’m a trans inclusive feminist. Do you believe people are biologically fated to to fall one side or the other of a political divide? Why would assignment dictate a person’s stance on equality? I have a wife, two daughters and two sons. Why would I not want these people, especially my daughters, to inhabit a world free of misogynistic threat? You assume my loyalty to the hegemon trumps love. My activism? Maybe my activism is to make meaningful changes in my own family – to impress certain things upon my sons, to seek to empower my daughters. To actually live and embody my feminism rather than just blogging about it. I’m sorry you feel your sacred space has been invaded. I don’t disagree that the world is full of depraved misogynistic males. It concerns me a lot. For obvious reasons

          • It’s simple, Malc. Males are not females. Penis is not female. Apples are not oranges. A is not B. Females are oppressed solely on the basis of their female sexual reproductive system and trans activism tries to erase this. Trans inclusive feminism is not feminism. Feminism is for the liberation of females from patriarchal oppression, not for males who want to enforce harmful sex-role stereotypes (gender) of femininity. The rights of females and the goals of trans activism are in direct opposition.

          • You can tell when men come to vomit their bullshit. They say things that are totally incoherent and ramble about all the shit they’re doing that has no impact on anything.

          • I’m a trans inclusive feminist.

            Ah, so that is why he showed up.

            Nothing to see here, folks, Move along.

        • I don’t think that biological genetic assignment based on tokens of penis or vagina or reproduction really covers the complexity of human genetic identity, or ever has. We see evidence from the stone age of transgender individuals treated with honour and dignity. “Females are oppressed solely on the basis of their female sexual reproductive system”. Females are oppressed because masculinity is associated with dominance. Again, a cultural evolution, or partly or mainly so. There’s a lot of strong feeling here and I respect that. It’s not debatable in this space. I didn’t come here to make a case for men. I don’t have any straight male friends. I seem to avoid them. I don’t believe the transwomen I know are really men trying to pull off some incredibly devious trojan horse assault on feminine sacred space. My original response was to the idea that there are no male feminists. I disagree with that. I have known a number over the years and I am one. Not an ‘ally’. A feminist.

          • Well, you just showed how misinformed you are and once again how men are NOT feminists.

            Now stop taking up space here because you’re just wanking all over it and women are saying ‘no’ to you.

          • “There’s a lot of strong feeling” – this has nothing to do with feelings, Mr. Patronizer. I’ll not be engaging further with you as you don’t seem to understand the role of a man in feminism (or the difference between sex and gender, for that matter). Imagine being white and barging onto a black activist’s site and announcing “Hello. I’m here. I feel black and I’m a black activist! Now pay attention to me as I am going to tell you everything you’re doing wrong.” Wouldn’t happen, right? Yet, here you are, the man, trying to tell feminists what to think and do. Arrogant. Typical. And effing annoying. Definitely not a feminist and definitely not a feminist ally. And now, I’ve wasted enough of my gynergy on you. I typically don’t engage with mansplainers. But every once in a while I like to make sure y’all haven’t changed one bit in your methodology. Please go educate some of your ‘stone age’ men. We already know what we’re doing here.

          • Excellent response. He was so here to teach us wimminz that he’s INCLUSIVE! He just wants women and girls to give up their privacy rights because he’s INCLUSIVE!

            He’s a nitwit.

          • Oh shit, he came back and dropped another mansplain bomb, along with several incredibly ridiculous fallacies.

            We see evidence from the stone age of transgender individuals […]

            o_O lolwut? Did you smoke a doobie before you wrote this?

            Females are oppressed because masculinity is associated with dominance.

            Wrong. Females are oppressed for being female. Males observed our physical differences, and deemed them inferior. Did you flunk history? Have you ever read a bible? Gender isn’t real, biology is…and that has been abused, by men, to maintain dominance over women, you fucking nutter.

            My original response was to the idea that there are no male feminists. I disagree with that.

            And so you just had to run in, waving your dick around, and put us in our place, correct?

            I have known a number over the years and I am one. Not an ‘ally’. A feminist.

            No, you are a misogynistic scumbag. You have demonstrated this by a complete lack of respect for the very group you claim to support. You don’t give a damn about any of this; you just want to be able to appropriate something that does not belong to you. You want to pretend you are different from ‘those other men’, and you are angry because we refuse to indulge you in this fantasy. Accept this and run along.

          • “Females are oppressed because masculinity is associated with dominance.”

            The stupefying stupidity of this statement is beyond comprehension.

          • Identity is not genetic. It’s a social contract. You can’t really have an identity that only comes from yourself, others around you have to verify it too. This is why MtTs lose their shit when we tell them they’re male. They need us to see them as female for them to really believe they are. And this, boys and girls, is why gender can never be biological and why gender identity springing entirely from the psyche of the individual does not actually exist.

            We do not see “evidence from the stone age [sic] of transgender individuals”. Transgender is a modern, industrialized concept. What we actually saw was individuals who didn’t follow gender norms being honored instead of punished. If you look at actual two-spirits from the time before Native cultures began to be infected with industrial transgenderism nonsense, a two-spirit in a Lakota band (for example) was still seen as male. He just happened to be a male who didn’t live by masculine norms. And prior to industrial transgenderism there were no female two-spirits. And they didn’t exist in tribes/nations that didn’t have rigid gender roles. I have this information, by the way, from a Native person. Not a white person interpreting other white people’s books. These are the closest examples we’re going to get to how Stone Age people probably did things. When you can do whatever the hell you want, you don’t tend to want to pretend to be someone else.

            And that’s all it is. Pretense. If you grew ovaries when you developed in the womb, you’re female. If you grew testes when you developed in the womb, you’re male. If they come up with some way to gene-splice a male embryo to grow ovaries they’re probably not going to be the embryo’s ovaries and he’d still be male. Just thought I’d block that loophole right now. You are what NATURE “assigns” you. All we humans do is observe what’s already there. You need two cells to make a human baby, therefore humans have two sexes. Intersexed are not a third sex, they have a birth defect. Same way eyes are for seeing but we still have blind people.

            None of this is difficult.

            And you’re not a feminist.

        • How the hell would we know if there were trans in the stone age?! Have they found pictures of men in high heels painted on cave walls?

          • That’s what I was wondering. Either this guy has invented time travel and communed with the cave-trannies or he is living in some sort of trans bliss la la land.

          • Yeah, seriously. Maybe he heard this craziness in one of those “gender studies” collage courses.

          • See, I didn’t even laugh at his cave troll tranny shit. I just reacted with utter disdain and loathing. I suppose it’s because I spend so much time sifting through male bullshit online that my first reaction is to tell him to GTFO.

            I leave the funny shit to y’all to pick out and mock. 🙂

          • Not to defend him but perhaps there were remains of people who “cross-dressed” for the time period they lived in. We have the more recent example of Native American tribes with two-spirits. But two-spirits in these tribes (before they were infected by modern industrial transgenderist philosophy–and they are, if you pay attention now) were always male, and always SEEN as male, just males who lived different roles. And you didn’t find them in all tribes/nations, just the ones with the more rigid gender roles. There is a lesson here, but of course Dudebro is missing it.

            (I know this whole conversation is from almost a year ago. Sorry.)

  5. You have a link to the Transactivist blog and the title is so perfectly antagonistic to radical feminism: “(Re) Introducing Inclusive Radical Feminism.”

    What “re-introduction”? Radical was never inclusive – of men, the only group they’re pushing. The whole point of radical feminism was to develop feminist theory away from men and away from men’s theories. That’s why radfems are the only feminist group that isn’t massively appropriated by men.

    Any man (or born-male person) who calls himself a radical feminist is trying to destroy radical feminism.

  6. Yeah this is a pretty big effort. I see the Transadvocate is saying how much Sandy Stone is looking forward to redefining radical feminism.

    “In 1979, the lesbian feminist scholar Janice Raymond mounted an ad hominem attack on Stone in The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male.[10] Raymond accused Stone by name of plotting to destroy the Olivia Records collective and womanhood in general with “male energy.”

    So like, we’re supposed to be happy Sandy Stone is happy.

  7. This is really disappointing. Andrea would be very annoyed methinks. Also, “Cristan” Williams reminds me of a Klingon. That these assholes think they ever pass is a laugh a minute.

    P.S. I started to write a comment last night but fell asleep, so I hope it didn’t go through and I’m posting the same thought twice.

  8. Narcissists hate being ignored, which is why that’s often the best way to handle them. They thrive on attention, even negative attention.

    On that note, I happened to visit the Transadvocate the other day, and I was tickled by how few comments even the more outrageous articles had. Seems like Williams isn’t getting the attention he craves, so he had to up the ante.

  9. The “male feminist” can best be summed up as a dude who desires the ability to practice his misogyny without consequence. He can be disrespectful, dismissive or straight up vulgar, so long as it’s prefaced with “I’m a feminist”. It functions as a get out of jail free card, basically*.

    *Only works on LibFems.

  10. Pingback: separatism is the only real movement | No More Paper Towels

  11. Pingback: separatism is the only real answer | No More Paper Towels

  12. Hi House Mouse Queen. thank you for your reply. I decided only to put up andrea’s websites on the page after all. However I am compiling a list of resources and your blog post on this topic will be on it. The page is now up at A RESPONSE TO JOHN STOLTENBERG FROM NIKKI CRAFT. If you would like to delete my earlier request so it does not divert from your discussion it would be preferable to me. But whatever you decide is fine. btw, i have no idea how that graphic got by my name, and what it may be.

  13. Pingback: The Great Fishing Expedition 2016 – Critiquing Transgender Doctrine & Gender Identity Politics


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s