Misgendering is violence

How many times have you heard this? Murderer of insight, closer of discussion, “misgendering is violence” is bandied around every time a person-usually a woman-has the temerity to state that a man with a fully intact male body or a surgically created fistula remains a man, and no amount of lipgloss will change that. In their libfem starter kit, every good partiarchy-appeasing handmaiden receives a handy flashcard containing this information, along with “transwomen are my sisters” and “478329 transwomen have been killed THIS YEAR ALONE {citation needed}.” This aids in drawing false parallels between the radical feminist critique of transgenderism and male homophobic violence.

Whenever this argument is trotted out, radical feminists will point out that calling a bloke in heels Mister is hardly violent, and attempt to refocus the attention on the perpetrators themselves-inevitably other men-who are committing this violence. This doesn’t go far enough. What needs to be pointed out, in detail, is that the language of social justice is being hijacked to defend the most privileged: honky arse fucking white men, who happen to get boners when they wear lingerie, and are pissed off at everyone calling them weird for it.

When a marginalised group is facing systemic abuse, it comes from every angle. A modern example here in Britain would be immigrants. Newspapers write disgusting, dehumanising articles about them, governments legislate against their inclusion and far-right groups visit actual violence upon them. When establishment figures and institutions write defamatory articles about marginalised groups it gives credibility to the violent acts these groups face on the streets. We saw this recently when two men beat a homeless man in America, invoking the anti-immigration rhetoric of Donald Trump.

When transactivists say “misgendering is violence,” they are invoking this. They are saying that trans people, particularly MtTs as the most visible examples of transgenderism, are in danger of street violence and discrimination. They therefore don’t agree with ideas that are critical of transgenderism, and will violently oppose and protest any media source, academic or individual that puts forth these “violent” ideas.

Violence isn’t always hitting people in the face. Structual violence is violence. Exclusion from society is violence. Radical feminists are fully aware of this. So why are we still promoting these “violent” ideas? Don’t you know that calling a man in a dress a man is exactly the same as calling for these men’s extermination?

This is fucking nonsense. We’re supposed to believe that if everyone ignores what their senses tell them and treats trans women as natal women then they will magically be treated much better, as natal women are never the victims of violence or sexual assault-that particular axis of oppression is specific to trans women only. We are also expected to believe that radical feminists have a unique position of influence over violent, entitled homophobic men. This is reflected in statistics, where over 70 percent of men arrested for violent offences against MtTs cited Sheila Jeffreys as the main reason for their crimes.

Take Germaine Greer’s recent kerfuffle with Cardiff University and the usual sewage-pipe outpouring from the mealy mouths of they-them queers and vajazzled libfem handmaidens that occurred as a result. Violent! Transphobe! TERF! But what did Greer actually say in that interview? She said:

-She is not opposed to sex reassignment surgery
-She would use female pronouns for MtFs
-…but MtFs are still men.

This is not a violent position. It poses no danger. MtFs will experience no harm to their physical person because a small and increasingly marginalised group of women refuse to distort their reality in favour of fetishistic, misogynistic men. They’re just men doing what men do-pitching a shit-fit when someone tells them “no,” like the deluded toddlers they are.

Gender non-conforming people get misgendered all the time. An example of this is Brandon Teena, the subject of Boys Don’t Cry, who was beaten to death when her sex was discovered in a homophobic, misogynist attack. Once again, men were the aggressors. GNC women face violence-actual violence-for acting outside their assigned gender role. So do GNC men. Radical feminists know this. This is why radical feminists are gender abolitionists. It is the idea of gender and the strict policing of gender roles which leads to violence. It is misogyny and homophobia. Radical feminists say “you are a gender non-conforming man. You should not be subject to violence for being a gender non-conforming man. But that is what you are.”

The truth is inconvenient dudes. But women know the perpetrators of violence. It isn’t us. Men are not a marginalised group, and no amount of mascara is going to change that.

Misgendering is violence

The Cake is a Lie

For my first post, I thought I would write about something with real weight and importance, so I will be documenting an interaction I had on Tumblr. I know, I know. I promise I have more important things to write about. I’ve read loads of radical feminism, like that Angelo Dorking and Shellsuit Firestone and everything. Please stick around.

It started with this-

My comment was in response to a post stating that radical feminists were worse than particularly abusive johns, because not only do radical feminists get off on women’s suffering, they don’t even have the decency to pay for this enjoyment. I trust that I don’t need to elaborate on why I thought this point was insane.

I was out drinking at the time and answering on my phone, which is probably why I decided to be facetious.

I really thought this would be end of the interaction. My debating partner would realise that she was engaging with someone called “lesbian asshole” and that I was clearly being an asshole. But lo-

She was deadly serious.

While this is clearly hilarious, I felt guilty. This is a good person-someone who doesn’t want to cause unnecessary harm to others through misgendering (which, as we all know, is deadly violence, causes the death of 8974923 trans people a day, etc etc.) But this person’s political priorities have caused her to have such a skewed interpretation of what is truly important, what is violence and what is not. The root, as ever, is individualism, one of the Four Cyclists of the Capitalist Apocalypse (Greed, Choice, Individualism and Freedom).

You see, criticising an oppressive system-the global sex trade which eroticises and perpetrates the rape of women and children-is immediately misread as a personal attack on the people trapped within it. People are not being taught the critical faculties to think systemically, while the liberal individual is seen as the be all and end all of not just political rhetoric but everything. Criticising the global sex trade=wanting anyone who participates in it to die.

When I brought the discussion to my personal, individual rights being infringed upon, by claiming my gender identity was a sweet almond cake filling, the other party was thrown off guard and immediately capitulated. It doesn’t matter that what I was saying was absurd. She has been conditioned to always trust the sovereignty of the individual, respect people’s “choices,” no matter how irrational and never, ever question.

This political position (which is actually deeply apolitical, concerned as it is with simply continuing the status quo) is where critical analysis goes to die. It is thought death. And while my first response to this interaction was to laugh like a drain, the more I thought about it, the more uncomfortable I felt. This is normal. This is what activism is now.

I got drunk to forget the stupid, toxic world I was born into and comforted myself with the fact that it’s likely going to end very soon. I find myself doing that a lot recently.

The Cake is a Lie