Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Bronwyn Williams

‘I am not a Woman’ – Transsexuals and Transgender Women Speak Out

First published August 20

This article is Part 3 in the series ‘Silencing and Censorship in the Trans Rights Debate’

Today, the dominant discourse in the transgender rights debate insists that transgender women are ‘women’. It is not uncommon to hear the argument that, because they are women, their biology is female and it is ‘transphobic’ to suggest they are biological males.

The term ‘lady penis’ is often used to describe their genitalia, without a trace of intellectual embarrassment, by trans rights activists and others who style themselves as ‘trans allies’.

Those who reject the cognitive dissonance inherent in insisting a biological male can somehow – through a bizarre manipulation of logic – be biologically female, are routinely subjected to harassment and abuse, and that includes transgender women who dare to stray from the imperatives of the trans rights rule book.

Transgender women who don’t wish to appropriate the title ‘woman’ for themselves, who acknowledge they are biological males living, to varying degrees, as women, and who recognise the inalienable differences between their life experiences and those of natal women, are not spared the venom directed at those with a ‘gender critical’ view.

If they acknowledge that ‘sex’ and ‘gender identity’ are NOT the same thing, they earn themselves a place in the TERFdom, and the unending vitriol that goes with it.

Most of these transgender women – these trans infidels – keep their opinions to themselves. They observe the vilification of those who go public with such ideas, and they keep a low profile, in an effort to maintain their hard won sanity in a world gone mad – see The Trans Women Who Say That Trans Women Aren’t Women –

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/12/gender_critical_trans_women_the_apostates_of_the_trans_rights_movement.html.

Some, however, speak out. Perhaps the best known of the trans ‘gender apostates’ is UK writer, Miranda Yardley. Yardley self-describes as a ‘transsexual man’, and writes extensively (see http://mirandayardley.com/en/), and to his detriment (he is permanently banned from Twitter, for example), about the nonsense being perpetrated in the name of trans rights. He says –

‘Sex is a biological reality based on reproductive potential, and gender is a social system that harms women through stereotyping behaviour, by giving women the negative stereotypes and men those that are positive; gender itself is oppression, not a civil liberty. All transwomen by definition are biologically male, socialised as boys then usually ‘transition’ as adults, although in the present climate it appears to be coming acceptable for children to ‘transition’, which should be examined critically rather than accepted unconditionally. That our underlying biological reality remains fundamentally unchanged is not a value judgement, it is a morally neutral statement of fact, neither good nor bad, it just is and being a woman is not a feeling or an opt-in’ – see https://medium.com/@mirandayardley/transgender-ideology-does-not-support-women-2d00089e237a .

And also –

‘This is not about me. This is part of a much larger, broader attack on the rights of women.
If women are now no longer able to publicly acknowledge that an adult human male is a man, this takes away from women the ability to describe their own lived lives: they can no longer use meaningful language to describe their interactions with members of the dominant sex class:
• Women lose the language and ability to differentiate between themselves and the dominant sex class;
• Women lose the language and ability to describe themselves even as women;
• Women lose the language, right and ability to describe the perpetrators and acts of sexual violence;
• Women lose the right to challenge the sexual enslavement and exploitation of members of their own sex class.
We are in a world of proscribed truth and compelled thought. Whatever your political stance, this should strike you cold with terror’ – see http://mirandayardley.com/en/i-permanently-banned-twitter-make-worry/.

A like-minded group, Transsexual Voices Matter, recently released a statement in response to proposed legislative changes in the UK to allow amendments to birth records on the basis of self-identification.

Among other things, they expressed concern –

‘about the rights of women of all ages and from all walks of life whose safety would be compromised by the uncontrollable self-identification of some men as women, their demands of access to female only spaces, their frequently demonstrated express misogyny, disrespect for the biological needs and specific rights of the young girls, mothers, lesbians and many other, traditionally, female only, social groups.
While we greatly value the rights of the transsexuals, we would object to any ’trans rights’ encroaching and gradually erasing women’s rights or creating inaccurate medical, sports, criminal, consumer, political or any other statistics’.

And –

‘We are strongly concerned about the rapidly increasing transphobia some of our members have been experiencing for the first time in many years as a result of the intensive media activity of the ‘transgender activists’…’

Transgender activists, about whom they say –

‘(s)ociety in general should not be allowed to be made a victim of the ‘loudest’ social activists imposing on everyone else their new rules and definitions’.

Transsexual Voices Matter operates a secret Facebook group. Enough said. If they spoke this way publicly, the backlash from trans rights activists would be intolerable.

Nevertheless some, like Miranda Yardley, are weathering that particular storm, and facing down the ensuing tide of personal insults.

Yardley recently engaged in a YouTube discussion with fellow gender critical transgender woman, Rya – see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyUNuD8WUSY. Two thoughtful, well read transsexuals who firmly believe a male born transgender person’s experience of ‘womanhood’ can never even come close to emulating that of a natal female. In the current political and social climate, their views are the grossest form of heresy.

Common sense is heresy.

Others brave enough to follow this path are YouTube blogger, Isla Rose – see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZOZY6A62XY, and American transgender person, Hope Giselle – see https://www.facebook.com/hope.disguised/videos/vb.100001530096061/1878968378830814/?type=2&video_source=user_video_tab.

Even high profile Australian transgender ‘woman’ Cate McGregor (previously Malcolm McGregor) acknowledged, following her transition in 2012 that –

‘She isn’t saying that she is a woman….only that she lives as one.

“My experience of what it’s like to be a woman is obviously different to that of a born-woman”, she says – see https://www.nowtolove.com.au/news/real-life/cate-mcgregor-talks-transitioning-from-male-to-female-10273.

‘Obviously different’ should be, well, obvious, but in a very short time the ‘trans women are women’ crusaders have succeeded in erasing much of the language and many of the experiences unique to female born persons, from ‘correct’ everyday discourse.

We are living in an age of enforced adherence to a nonsensical notion of womanhood. After centuries of sex-based oppression, ‘woman’ is no longer a biological reality but a ‘feeling’. Overbearing, entitled male persons who, for whatever reason, have a sense of themselves as women are making sure EVERYONE falls into line with their self-identity. They are cutting a swathe through what little sex-based protections women have – lobbying for laws that validate their feelings and suing the arse off women – or anyone, but mostly women – who dare to ‘misgender’ them.

A male person in women’s clothes can be every bit as hatefully misogynist as the drooling louts in the local pub.

Miranda Yardley, and the transgender persons who share his views, are an island of sanity in the trans rights debate. They recognise the uniqueness of their situation, and how it is inevitably unhelpful for them to claim to be the ‘same’ as natal women.

Their voices are small and often frightened, but their grasp on reality is clear. Until the more vocal trans rights activists take a step down and LISTEN to the truth they speak, women’s rights will continue to take a battering and trans people will not get the practical support they need.

GLOSSARY …

Gender Apostates – many groups in society have their apostates. People who reject the ideas and proscriptions normally associated with their group. For example, a NSW born rugby league follower who supports Queensland in the State of Origin competition.

Gender apostates are transgender persons who reject the trans ideology that says ‘gender identity’ supersedes ‘biological sex’ as a determinant of who is, and is not, a man or a woman.

Gender Critical – gender critical persons are those who reject the trans ideology noted above. They are often radical feminists and apostate transgender people.

Women Speak Tasmania is a network of individuals, led by women and open to women, men, and transgender and intersex people who support our work for women’s rights. We put sex before gender.

EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …

Silencing and Censorship in the Trans Rights debate (1)

Silencing and Cencorship in the Trans Rights debate (2)

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
21 Comments

21 Comments

  1. Mentor in Prewvention of Violence

    August 21, 2018 at 1:58 pm

    Perhaps Isla has kindly answered my questions at point 11.

  2. Mentor in Violence prevention

    August 20, 2018 at 8:58 pm

    Clearly a delicate and complicated topic to stay abreast of, not the least women’s efforts to reclaim the political language of women’s reproductive rights and shared language to define shared social interests and safe spaces for women’s services. Thank you, Bronwyn and Isla.

    I cannot help wondering though, that in some countries both women and also persons who struggle to express their preferred gender identity can be oppressed by authoritarian regimes .. both women and also persons of diverse gender identity are clearly in need of human dignity and can feel very frightened.

    I hope my comment is OK to share, as no offence is intended. In my opinion, oppressive regimes are characteristic of militarism, and are ghastly forms of fascist religion imposing upon due diligence and good governance .. as well as an expression of patriarchy.

    What do other people think?

  3. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    August 20, 2018 at 12:53 am

    I think Cait brings the classic post-1970 ‘libertarian’ line to this discussion about the evils that period has introduced, as Indulgence capitalism has rolled out its agenda for the deregulation and privatisation of the economic and social systems.

    One of the tactics of that push has been to hijack language in support of irresponsible disinhibition posing as liberty and egoistic consumer entitlement posing as human rights. And in so doing, they began to construct the totalitarian language framework that has become the joint libertarian humanities/economics free market versions of PR/marketspeak.

    The Gender lobby and Institute of Public Affairs run not only the same deregulatory agenda, but the same authoritarian language style. It relies on vacant assertion that does not require of itself, or its implicit assumptions, to justify themselves.

    The aim of such language is to generate enough power and momentum to turn it into an oracular, totalitarian, closed and self looped language that no ordinary punter feels that they can escape or question.

    So ‘discrimination’ is converted from the proper use of intellect and reason to critically discern opportunistic bluff and bluster, to ‘judgementality’ (ordinary exercise of judgement) and ‘prejudice’ (beliefs we don’t like or approve of).

    ‘Exclusion’, ‘inclusion’ and ‘equality’ become self pumping expressions of entitlement that pre-imply any contradiction to be unreasonable and prejudicial, without ever leading any evidence or argument to that effect.

    That is just a bland assertion that any social claimant ‘we’ approve of automatically qualifies for whatever ‘we’ demand, by sacred right. ‘We’ assume this to be a self evident truth, which ‘we’ do not have to prove or argue .. because ‘we’ are in the charmed circle of the ideological cognoscenti , ie ‘those who know better’ than ordinary mortals. Isn’t that right, Cait?

    Thus these terms become authoritarian propaganda memes, and their users, like Cait, have the brassy cheek to call opposition the ‘authoritarian’ ones in the same way that Trump accuses the mainstream press of ‘fake news’. What a larf, but not really, because if one keeps characterising opposition as ‘authoritarian’ or critical reporting as ‘fake news’, it eventually sticks; you know, propaganda 101.

    As the social system deregulates and rules-based behaviour and the mechanisms for producing it are eliminated, and rational defences against it are destroyed, this authoritarian language finds its way into the ultimate authority secular societies have: science.

    The whole notion of ‘dipole’ reproductive gender has been systematically stripped of its reproductive function/meaning and turned into a ‘sexistentialist’ ideological construct of self identifying fantasies so broad they can mean anything .. which then becomes ‘a science’ much in the same way eugenics was in the twentieth century.

    On that basis, one can keep finding new gender variants in the same way Medieval scholars would argue for the number of angels that could be fitted onto the point of a pin, but instead of using the language of theology, it is now ‘science’.

    One can say gender and racial ‘science’ in the same breath, because both are ideological agenda wrapped in a ‘scientific’ credo, while using its jargon and methodology to pump itself up.

    Oh, and bless my soul, Cait .. ‘simplistic’ .. another spurious claim without the slightest evidence being led for it. She blithely assumes that she can get away with it, and perhaps most of the time, she can.

    People like Cait are so conditioned to totalitarian language that I don’t think they even realise they are using it, just like the heresy hunters of the Counter-Reformation. And they react in exactly the same reptilian way as their predecessors if someone calls their bluff .. with as much condemnatory violence in language and manner as is within their present means.

    She speaks the words of liberty and openness, but her language has the same authoritarian closure as that of all the great totalitarians of the past.

    It is a sign of the times. This is not a personal attack, because Cait’s assumptive language style is now commonplace. Everyone is using and on board with it, which is what makes what I am saying seem so dissonant.

    I am deeply grateful to Bronwyn and Isla for having the courage to stand up to not just irrational ideology, but for something that will empower women to re-assert feminist reregulation of a social system that is being parasitised by deregulatory opportunists who can smell the feckless weakness inside it.

  4. Isla MacGregor

    August 20, 2018 at 12:24 am

    #5 … This article is about transsexuals and transgender women speaking out about gender identity, and if transgender women are “women”.

    Can you explain how the views of transexual man Miranda Yardley, transgender person Rya Jones, American transgender person, Hope Giselle, and transgender woman Isla Rose are discriminatory and judgemental, contain flawed reasoning and constitute fundamentalist rhetoric?

    I am interested in understanding your arguments about this.

  5. Simon Warriner

    August 19, 2018 at 11:35 pm

    Re#15 … Clear, concise and excellently written. Best rant I have read in ages, and I heartily agree.

  6. Joanna Pinkiewicz

    August 19, 2018 at 11:30 pm

    #5 … I read the Robert Jensen article, very good. Thanks for the recommendation.

  7. Bronwyn Williams

    August 19, 2018 at 11:13 pm

    # 4 Cait, you say – ‘I’ve never had, and I doubt there ever is, an internal examination when entering women’s spaces’.

    Let’s assume you are a male to female transgender person. If so, what ‘women’s spaces’ would you enter? Ladies change rooms? Ladies toilets? Female-only gyms? Women’s domestic violence and sexual assault services?

    Why would you use women’s facilities and services? Because you would be rightly scared for your safety if you were to use, say, a men’s change room or a male toilet? Because men are unpredictable, and have been known to savagely attack male people presenting as female. Because for some, being a bloke is a team game, and they can’t have ‘girly’ types letting the side down.

    If women are supposed to understand and accommodate the needs of male to female transgender persons, including their need for safety, why are they entitled to denounce female persons as discriminatory when they seek to preserve their own rights – their own safety?

    For your information, Cait, as many as one in three women and girls, worldwide, experience physical and/or sexual violence, mostly at the hands of a male person – see http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women. Almost universally, these women would prefer NOT to have to share spaces with male strangers – you know, men who they neither know or trust, sporting the tools with which they were assaulted.

    It matters not to them if the male person ‘identifies’ as a woman. They are not thereby reassured, and their trauma is not dissipated.

    Trans rights activists have already made major inroads into sex-based protections for women. In Tasmania, they have been lobbying for some time for legislative changes that will allow transgender persons to alter their birth certificates on the basis of self-identification alone. This is a universal aim of the movement, and armed with legal ‘female’ status, male to female transgender persons will have unfettered access to spaces, services and the very few opportunities previously reserved for biological females.

    How is this fair?

    No-one is suggesting all male to female transgender persons are potential abusers of women. But, if one man takes the opportunity these changes allow, and perpetrates an assault on a female person, it is one assault too many.

    Women – half the human population – should not be obliged to cede their right to safety to satisfy the demands of less than one per cent of that population.

    Why are transgender persons not fighting for their OWN spaces and services? Why are the most vocal trans rights activists male to female transgender persons? We barely hear a peep out of female to male transgender people.

    We could be forgiven for seeing this phenomenon as yet another iteration of the patriarchal oppression of women. For centuries men have colonised spaces and exploited and abused native peoples. They have damaged our environment and thoroughly suppressed women. With the supply of suitable targets running low, in a fucked up world, women now have to deal with male persons who want to rewrite biology, appropriate womanhood for their own purposes and invade female spaces.

    But, wait a minute, you’ve given me a good idea. If male to female trans persons are as benign and inclusive and assured of their place ‘on the right side of history’ as you suggest, maybe they could make a small concession to women and their need for safety, and submit to internal examinations before entering female-only spaces. It wouldn’t unduly bother women to do this – the vast majority of us have had people rummaging in our vaginas on a regular basis since we were teenagers.

    Maybe the trans rights activists should ‘man up’ – sorry, ‘woman-up’ – and do the same.

    PS I didn’t understand the Niqab reference. Could you explain?

  8. Joanna Pinkiewicz

    August 19, 2018 at 11:06 pm

    “I thought critical thinkers like Judith Butler had laid to rest these arguments about ‘who is a woman’, demonstrating how many circumstances undermine claims of authoritative definitions as a basis for discrimination.”

    Judith Butler has no final word over the subject of ‘who is a woman’. She maybe of interest and adding to ideas on gender, it is certainly not conclusive.

    My gender identity varies vastly form many other women, but what binds me with 50% of the population is the fact that we are biologically female. Biology should not restrict my freedom to express myself with fluidity or my role in the society but it guides many functions of my body and the function of the female body has been exploited, controlled or ignored by our society.

  9. Joanna Pinkiewicz

    August 19, 2018 at 10:42 pm

    #1

    The benefits of living in societies that are “open” to external influences (believes, economy, culture) is that they bring diversity, personal freedoms and growth. The dangers are that they loose cohesiveness or become unsustainable (due to reliance on exploitation for growth). These forces exist within democratic, economically and socially liberal countries.

    If we don’t have a traditional, tribal identity, we are perfectly right to debate various social trends and ideologies to examine their consequences.

    Gender and gender identity often emerged before in history in societies at their peak or their decline. It is certainly fine to discuss them here or any other media form. The discussion should be fierce in my view.

  10. Tessa

    August 19, 2018 at 10:10 pm

    If you had read the articles, or listened to Jensen’s talk, he does not ‘align a tiny minority as a central cause of climate change’ at all. How ridiculous.

    Often levelled at critiques of transgender *ideology* is the charge that they are saying transgender people per se are the threat. Not so. This article critiques the policies put forward by certain people who identify themselves as transgender. Those policies have broad implications – i.e they would allow *any male* to access female only-spaces, services, positions etc. Read that again…*ANY* male. A great article was written by Paige Gleeson over a year ago and published on TT detailing how a man was able to take up a position reserved for women by simply self-identifying into it. Funnily, trans activists did not like this very mush – saying he was not genuinely identifying as female. What happened to the trans policy of self-identification in that case? Out the window, because this incident exposed the danger of self-identification – they had to distance this incident from it somehow. An earlier article in this series referenced a recent case in Canada where a woman was forced to share a bedroom in women’s accomodation with a man ‘self-identifying’ as female. There are thousands of examples like these you can find with a google search…Because the threat to women only spaces is proven very real by all these case studies (which trans activists love to claim do not exist at all), to think this is a non-issue you must, by logical necessity, take the position that there should be no such female spaces, services or policies *at all*. If that’s your position, it’d be handy to just be that straight about it – then that issue can be debated on it’s merits. But typically, transactivists insist on the continuance of sex-segregated spaces – they just want to shift the boundaries of who can access them.

  11. Isla MacGregor

    August 19, 2018 at 10:09 pm

    #5 Excellent reference Tessa.
    Robert Jensen writes:

    [i]In this essay I argue that the success of the trans movement and our collective failure to respond adequately to climate change are both manifestations of this inability to accept limits and the fear of challenging systems that distribute power and wealth. When we ignore crucial questions about complex problems, from the most personal to the global, we find ourselves adrift—not only confused about policy but unable to advance important conversations about our most basic conceptions about the world….

    The cover story of Time magazine’s June 4, 2014, issue, “The Transgender Tipping Point: America’s Next Civil Rights Frontier,” illustrated the success of the trans movement in equating any questioning of transgender/transsexual identity as a form of bigotry; to challenge the trans ideology is seen by some as opposition to civil rights. A longstanding radical feminist critique of trans ideology—which does not attack individuals who identify as trans but offers an alternative way to challenge patriarchy’s rigid, repressive, and reactionary gender norms—has been largely sidelined in this discussion….

    This is especially true of radical feminists, who understand gender as a category that establishes and reinforces inequality in male-dominated, or patriarchal, societies. To resist patriarchy, one does not need to switch gender categories but can, through individual and collective action, refuse to accept the constraints of patriarchal gender norms whenever possible. Ironically, men who claim the identity of a woman, or vice versa, actually reinforce the rigidity of gender norms by suggesting that to cope with discomfort created by those norms one must switch categories; such an act does nothing to challenge patriarchy but instead bolsters one aspect of patriarchal ideology. Attempting to transcend the problem—the “genderqueer” position of defying the system by refusing to be categorized as man or woman—offers no coherent strategy for ending the violence and discrimination that patriarchy produces.[/i]

  12. cait

    August 19, 2018 at 9:08 pm

    Good god! Case in point!

    #5 cites someone who uses the very arguments I have critiqued to align a tiny minority as a central cause of climate change, and #8 says trannies stole his car, presenting no evidence at all .. side from his patriarchal dismissal of any other woman’s ability to punch him out.

    The article’s arguments remain internally flawed and diametrically opposed to any claim of preventing oppression. Fight oppression with oppression! Really!

    I am much more afraid of people claiming the right to judge and discriminate that I am of any trans person .. unless they have an AK47. The threat to society from intolerance and discrimination is just so much greater!

    I’m sorry that you feel so threatened. I can see there’s no point in responding again because fundamentalist rhetoric never addresses to its own hypocrisies.

    Maybe sharing your experiences with white supremacist’s (who also rail against minorities, particularly women, claiming rights) would assist in critically addressing such flawed reasoning.

  13. Isla MacGregor

    August 19, 2018 at 8:42 pm

    #4 … Is this a discourse you do not think we need to have? As trans-rights activists repeatedly charge .. “The debate we don’t need to have”.

    Making a comparison between Eric Abetz and TT is interesting considering the Editor of TT actually supports freedom of expression. Would you rather TT’s editor did not publish our informative articles?

    Each of these articles outlines different and essential aspects to the women’s rights debate and the need for women to have women-only safe spaces.

    The divergent points of view presented in these articles are essential to informing public debate on the impact of laws detrimental to girls and women.

    The addition of ‘gender identity’ to the Tasmanian Anti Discrimination Act and the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act , without express clarification as to the interaction of this addition with the existing characteristic of ‘sex’, has resulted in women being put at risk through laws enforced through Equal Opportunity Tasmania exercising its [i]authoritarian discriminations[/i].

    Most women do not accept male rights to self-identify and enter women-only spaces.

    Articulating the great [i]societal risks[/i] that women are now being subjected to as a consequence of laws protecting gender identity, and not sex, is pointing out the obvious .. but often not published in the main stream media especially here in Tasmania.

    The first 3 Parts in this series of articles outlines the tactics used against any persons who express their views on trans-ideology contrary to those of trans-rights activist crusaders. For any matter in the public interest where there are attempts to shoot the messengers, often using [i]toxic[/i] language to do so, the public will only pay more attention to what is being said .. not less.

    Thankyou to Editor Lindsay Tuffin for publishing our series of articles in a media climate plagued by bias and censorship on these issues.

  14. William Boeder

    August 19, 2018 at 5:50 pm

    Strange how the times of the present era have enabled a whole new method and means to take root that goes on to describe a whole new nomenclature of transitional species that represent which portion of what is desired by some person’s want to inflict upon our societies of today.

    60 years ago the only trannies known of were transistor radios. Yet today one must not react to the bizarre choices decided by a small clique of persons who appear to have something they are no longer happy with too much of something else.

    Transgender females nowadays sporting a huge penis but no vagina, then transgender males sporting female hormone enhanced breasts yet no rudiments of a vaginal piece of bodily design.

    Then in the reading of this article, there is a surprising new variation of the human species.

    Some number of years ago I became attracted to a tall, statuesque blond woman, I mentioned this fascination to a work-friend who said I had better watch out for myself as the statuesque blond was the product of a sex change surgical procedure and had become a wild-tempered female person with the fighting skills of a male mixed martial arts practitioner that was so well skilled she could knock a man out with a single girly punch. I began a whole new stock-take of the persons in this gaming machine lounge, I noted the wispy-bearded slim shaped woman that wore stubbie shorts and steel-capped working boots to demonstrate I person that may stand up to urinate yet chose the female toilet to deal with her huge intake of pot glasses of beer.

    Her companion was a beautiful young woman who would cause a man to feel quite proud, and highly esteemed, to be in the company of this super attractive female person.

    The suburban region of Collingwood near Melbourne was the known host city to the new-wave of a combination of both human species, a species so fierce and hostile one would dare not remove one’s eyes from staring straight ahead while anticipating that the traffic lights will smarten up a bit to change from red to green .. in case one’s casual side-glance would set the stage for a violent confrontation with a road-rage infused mixture of a male-female hormonal imbalance with the punching power of a prize-fighter. The male appearing female was the person to be careful of that in that region one careless blink of an eye could attack another of her ilk and begin to reshape that person’s head.

    I can only assume that on the night my car had been stolen from my employer’s huge venue car-park where after I had immediately reported this same to the Northcote police, then when I was approaching the main front entrance to re-engage in my occupation, there across the roadway parked out the front of this gaming venue was my stolen vehicle returned to almost the precise location from where it had been stolen, though the trip meter advised a distance of 48 kilometres had been run up. Well, may it have been by one of the new styles of transgender benders common to that part of Melbourne?

    As a common point of interest, the current Women’s Mixed Martial Arts World champion (135 lbs) is a Lesbian in the name of Amanda Nunes, a person who does not rely on performance enhancing drugs of any kind, yet a person with the instincts of a trained killer.

  15. Samantha

    August 19, 2018 at 3:07 pm

    Here’s another angle – a woman speaks with a man’s voice (her dead lover): A play now in Melbourne: https://theatreworks-premier.eventfinda.com.au/2018/dybbuks/melbourne/st-kilda-east

    In Yiddish mythology, dybbuks are the unresolved souls who seek to find form through living bodies. This new work from Chamber Made evokes the many ways that the dead inhabit female bodies through language, voice, memory and desire.

    Part performance, part concert, part exorcism, Dybbuks combines mythic stories, traditional Yiddish songs with contemporary composition to present a feminist re-imagining of S. Ansky’s iconic Dybbuk story.
    Through original and traditional text, music, song and image, Dybbuks deconstructs ideas of the possessed female body, exploring the way in which women across generations continue to embody, preserve and revive the dead.

  16. Tessa

    August 19, 2018 at 2:58 pm

    #1 … Oh, the other thing I thought worth addressing in your comment Cait, is this issue of having a ‘right to discriminate’. It is widely accepted human rights law/doctrine that some discrimination is positive – where it works to redress existing inequalities. Under human rights conventions, Such as the ‘Women’s Convention’ (CEDAW) or the Convention against Racial Discrimination (CERD) ‘special measures’ to redress inequality and discrimination are included as a kind of ‘exception’ to general non-discrimination principles, and indeed State Parties to the conventions are encouraged to make use of these. Female-only services are a prime example of these, as are affirmative action policies for indigenous people, or people with disabilities. But all of these measures are void if anyone can identify their way into one of the target groups. That’s what the ‘sex before gender’ in the Women Speak by-line refers to .. maintaining this ability to draw boundaries around certain target groups so as the measures remain effective.

  17. Tessa

    August 19, 2018 at 2:47 pm

    #1 … Hi, Cait. You might be interested in Professor Robert Jensen’s article ‘Ecological and Social Implications of Trans and Climate Change’, in which he discusses the connection between the ideology of transgenderism and our ecological crises. He ties both back to our patriarchal culture. Find it here: https://dissidentvoice.org/2014/09/ecological-and-social-implications-of-trans-and-climate-change/

    If you find that interesting, or if you prefer to listen rather than read, you might like to check out the talk Jensen gave at UTAS last year on World Environment Day .. addressing ‘Male Supremacy, Human Supremacy and the fate of the ecosphere’. In this talk he did not address transgenderism directly (from memory) but he draws similar links between patriarchal ideology and our ecological crisis as in the above article.

  18. cait

    August 19, 2018 at 2:39 pm

    I find myself drawn into an discourse on TT that I would never have expected. Claims of right to discriminate and exclude seem more at home in Eric Abetz’s newsletter than in TT.

    The series of articles by the author present the same argument, again and again, based on the assumption that transgender people present a threat. It would appear that the threat is based upon appearance, however, because I’ve never had, and I doubt there ever is, an internal examination when entering women’s spaces, and so therefore, transgender women who ‘fit the criteria’ must not be seen as a threat. But I shall address the argument made.

    The argument for the discriminatory claims, simply put, appears to be that because there are some transgender people who identify with difference, they then become exemplars, allowing their views to be applied to all. Clearly, there are people with divergent views, which is an important factor in protecting societies from authoritarian discriminations.

    However, applying those individual views as a justification for condemnation and exclusion is a very fraught argument. Applying that same notion to other women’s rights issues illustrates those risks. Simply because some women self-identify a certain way, and are happy to wear a Niqab, the author should be happy to be bound by the same rules.

    I thought critical thinkers like Judith Butler had laid to rest these arguments about ‘who is a woman’, demonstrating how many circumstances undermine claims of authoritative definitions as a basis for discrimination.

    Some of the comments (noting how few people have engaged with these rants) demonstrate the societal risk of condemnation of minorities, with phrasing used, that when applied to race or other claims for discrimination, become clearly toxic.

    Separatists are problematic for societies as they are based on simplistic fundamentalist assumptions. The simplistic arguments presented here have not demonstrated any overt threat to women from a gender diverse society, only to the claims of authority to exclude others.

  19. Tessa

    August 19, 2018 at 1:12 pm

    Thank you Bronwyn and Isla for continuing to give voice to these different narratives on transgenderism.

    This article really highlighted for me the Orwellian nature of the popular ‘trans rights’ movement: Penises are ‘lady sticks’ or a ‘strapless” (like an ‘in-built’ sex toy), vaginas are ‘front holes’, but surgically constructed cavities in place of removed penises are ‘vaginas’. What a reversal! Additionally, the language and doctrine of ‘gender identity’ ultimately posits that whatever a person says is their sex, literally is their sex, and that the material reality of their actual sex is irrelevant to this assessment – this is an amazing exercise in doublespeak. The more ambiguity, the more reversals, the better for confounding the masses.

    Not to mention that the political demands of the transgender movement are that a person’s self-defined ‘gender identity’ be treated for all social and legal purposes *as their sex*, and yet they still sometimes throw out definitions of sex, gender and gender identity that are different from each other. That, is doublethink – and it also has the political effect of further confounding anyone who might feel that this is all not quite right, but they can’t quote pinpoint why. It puts out a bunch of different narratives that people of different persuasions can latch onto so as to be seen supporting this social justice cause of the moment – so long as they don’t think about it too much. And certainly don’t question it! That would be double-plus not good!

  20. Isla MacGregor

    August 19, 2018 at 1:06 pm

    Miranda Yardley makes it very clear how discrimination against women is impacting on their everyday lives and their voices …

    [i][b]‘This is not about me.[/b] This is part of a much larger, broader attack on the rights of women.
    If women are now no longer able to publicly acknowledge that an adult human male is a man, this takes away from women the ability to describe their own lived lives: they can no longer use meaningful language to describe their interactions with members of the dominant sex class:
    [b]• Women lose the language and ability to differentiate between themselves and the dominant sex class;
    • Women lose the language and ability to describe themselves even as women;
    • Women lose the language, right and ability to describe the perpetrators and acts of sexual violence;
    • Women lose the right to challenge the sexual enslavement and exploitation of members of their own sex class.[/b]
    We are in a world of proscribed truth and compelled thought. Whatever your political stance, this should strike you cold with terror’[/i]

    #1 Cait, do you think this is about you?

  21. cait

    August 19, 2018 at 12:48 pm

    Wow! Tasmanian Times seems to have a fetish with so many articles on this issue!

    It’s as if it’s as serious a problem as our general political or environmental threats.

    The argument that ‘it is our right to discriminate’, ie, “sex before gender” seems so at odds with the general tone of this journal.

Leave a Reply

To Top