Meghan Murphy is one of my heros. I feel a kinship with her too. Thanks to her Marxist father she also grew up with a high exposure to Marxist ideals.
American feminists have been in conflict with leftist men for a long time. Second Wave feminism was apparently formed in the '60's by women coming mainly out of the civil rights movement. They left the civil rights movement because leadership wanted their white supporters (both male and female) to take their activism into the larger community in order to expand the overall liberation movement. (According to those who were there,) the former civil rights activists then flowed mainly into the budding anti-Vietnam war movement.
After a short period of time, though, the women got so frustrated and fed up with sexist treatment at the hands of male leadership that they split off--and began to form an independent movement for the liberation of women. The protest at the 1968 Miss America pageant in Atlantic City catapulted them into the spotlight. The rest is history...
Women gleefully threw objects symbolizing oppression into the Freedom Trash Can, but they didn’t burn bras. (Bev Grant)
The leadership of the left (not all leftist men) has remained sexist and has fortified their position against women by encouraging the creation of a "throwaway" class of women relegated to sexually servicing men (legalization of prostitution) and by their unquestioning support of every transgender demand, no matter how potentially damaging to women. No discussion or dissenting opinions are allowed. Those who disagree are shut out of the debate and much worse--death and rape threats, public smear campaigns and attempts to get them fired, etc..
What's going on here? A repressive totalitarian regime enforced by SJWs? Is this just the logical trajectory of the seemingly intractable sexism of the left? Or something else?
Thoughts?
edit: this intrinsic sexism isn't confined to the left but permeates more or less all groupings and institutions thanks to the reigning system commonly called "the patriarchy."
edit #2: I just created a new thread based on the philosopher Augusto del Noce, who was cited in the above "Transgender Totalitarianism" article. I'm intrigued by Del Noce's insights which shed light on the big picture framing this whole debate. His work has only recently been translated into English.
New York City introduces “X” option for sex on birth certificates
By MEGHAN KENEALLY Jan 2, 2019, 5:50 PM ET
New York City has joined a growing number of cities and states that allow people to choose a gender-neutral marker on their birth certificates.
Beginning on Jan. 1, anyone who was born in New York City has the ability to have the gender marker on their birth certificate changed to X, rather than simply male (M) or female (F), and are able to do so without a doctor's note or medical assessment.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the measure into law on Tuesday, marking a milestone in a years-long battle for advocates.
"To all trans and non-binary New Yorkers: We see you, hear you and respect you. Starting in 2019, all New Yorkers will be able to change their gender on their birth certificate to M, F or X — without a doctor's note," the mayor's office tweeted.
“It felt really monumental to me,” said Ethan Rice, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, a civil rights group that advocates for LGBTQ individuals, and a co-chair of the advisory board that worked with city officials to create the law. "It’s great to have something like this come to fruition."
Rice said that the fact that no doctor's note is required is important and represents more than just eliminating an extra step in the process.
He said that self-attestation essentially shows “that the government is recognizing that transgender people, as citizens, are the ones who know what their identity is and are able to tell the government that really, rather than the other way around.”
It collects individual Twitter messages by Trans extremists attacking so-called TERFs and presents them as a really, really long wall of graphic Tweets.
There are numerous feminists around the world and unaffiliated members of the general public who see transgender ideology as dangerous (or simply ridiculous), and are critical of the ongoing silencing and smearing of those who challenge it. But one thing that does seem undeniable to me — something that the left should consider carefully, in terms of their own political strategizing — is that while the left seems to have taken to ignoring or refusing to engage with detractors or those who have opinions they disagree with or don’t like, the right continues to be interested in and open to engaging. And I think this is a good thing.
If it helps the right see more value for women's rights to self determination, we may get a net benefit from this silliness. The, I daresay left intelligentsia, shoots themselves in the head as they maintain a person can declare themselves to be the gender they identify with. They shoot themselves in the foot also if they cannot see the difference between like and is, considering that most people do have that distinction down. It reminds me of the ipso-facto controversy from the Consul of Nicaea times. The question was; was Jesus 'like' God, or was he God. Naturally regular people voted for Jesus was like God, because then he could be easier to relate to and therefor a better model. The priests however wanted Jesus to be declared as actually being God so that God was then far off and they would become legitimate intermediaries between (ignorant) common people and God.
With the trans issue, if you are a person of the acted out expression, rather than being like the opposite sex, then acting out by less committed adventurers is inhibited and gender roles become further rigidified.
A question is, do people that have flexible relations with their gender expression need to declare themselves to actually be a member if the opposite sex? Or would it be more healthy for all involved if they were simply welcomed to act out whatever gender stereotypes they feel a need to. Do please stop before the point where the female gender is more mocked than related to.
First of all thanks to Jerky and Sounder for posting in this thread. Your interest and concern is appreciated.
Below is the video and partial transcript of a Vancouver event that transactivists did their best to block and shut down but failed. The tide may finally be turning. Many women are saying that the talks and the energy were as rousing and inspiring as in the ‘70’s.
Meghan Murphy on gender identity and women’s rights at the Vancouver Public Library
On January 10, 2019, Meghan Murphy spoke on a panel at the Vancouver Public Library about gender identity and women’s rights.
The following is an edited transcript of a speech given by Meghan Murphy on January 10, 2019, at the Vancouver Public Library. The event was called, “Gender Identity and Women’s Rights,” and can be watched in full on YouTube.
First of all, I think that it’s important to acknowledge how brave you all have been just in showing up tonight. Considering what those who dare to even ask questions about — never mind put forward criticisms of — gender identity ideology and legislation are subjected to, and considering the level of bullying aimed at this event specifically, I think that the fact that you are all here sends a powerful message, which is that people still believe in free speech, democracy, critical thought, and debate.
Despite bullying from trans activists and despite the fact that the Vancouver Public Library — a government-run public institution that is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including an obligation to protect and uphold section 2(b), freedom of expression — worked very hard to have this event cancelled, we sold out. And we’re all here, at 9:30PM on a Thursday night. Thank you.
I do want to remind everyone also that a primary purpose and core value of public libraries is access. So, the universal mission of libraries is to provide equitable access to information and to facilitate and protect the right to freely pursue knowledge. Yet, our public library made intentional choices to attempt to limit access to this event; by forcing us to change the time to a rather ridiculous hour on a weeknight; by imposing excess security fees; and by smearing myself, my website, and this event.
In November, after calls from trans activists for the VPL to cancel this event (because god forbid we discuss legislation that has enormous implications for us all but most particularly for women and girls), Chief Librarian Christina de Castell issued a statement on Twitter saying that the VPL has zero tolerance for discrimination and does not agree with the views of Feminist Current. She did not explain what she believed the views of Feminist Current were, nor did she specify which of those supposed views she disagreed with. But, considering the bulk of what’s been produced and published on Feminist Current over the years is aimed at addressing male violence against women and challenging practices, laws, and behaviours that perpetuate dehumanization and naturalize exploitation of women and girls, I wonder if we should just go ahead and assume that Christina de Castell and the library are ideologically opposed to the feminist movement.
In her statement, she also said, “We recognize that Meghan Murphy’s opinions are concerning.” And perhaps I do have some concerning opinions… I think that cats make bad pets… (The most controversial issue tonight, I’m sure! We can talk about it in the Q&A…) I am in favour of a full ban on cilantro… I believe in ghosts… But, we were offered no explanation in terms of which of my opinions are concerning, so it could be any of those things.
Nonetheless, the library did make clear that they are not in a position to censor free speech that doesn’t violate the criminal code. And, despite what trans activists claim, it is not illegal to understand and state that biological sex is real, and that it matters. Which is essentially what me and other women have been smeared, threatened, and no-platformed for saying.
It’s also not illegal to understand that a woman is an adult human female.
It is not illegal to defend women’s transition houses and to argue that when women are escaping male violence they should have access to spaces that make them feel safe, where they can speak to women who understand what it’s like to grow up female in this world, and where they can be assured they won’t be made more vulnerable by having to share a room with a man.
It is not illegal to understand that male bodies and female bodies are different, and that women and girls have the right to compete in sports under fair terms, against other women and girls and not against men, who would in most cases have an unfair advantage due to things like differences in bone mass, bone structure, bone density, the size of their organs like the heart and lungs, and so on and so forth.
It’s not illegal in Canada for lesbians to limit their choices in intimate partners to women only and to refuse sexual partners with penises.
It’s not illegal to demand that our government consider the implications of policies that allow anyone at all to self-identify as women, and to consult the public on these pieces of legislation and policies.
It’s not illegal for women to want access to changerooms free from men. It is not illegal to think critically, to ask questions, and to explore ideas.
It should not be “difficult” for the library to “accept a rental” from those they disagree with, because a library of all places should be the first to support the freedom of expression, and the last to take a public position against our free speech — the free speech of women, of feminists, and of the general public. Despite the fact that the library did keep our booking, I do want to be clear that what they have done and said publicly with regard to this event was wrong, and it was dangerous, and it’s not something that any one of us should accept. This is not just about the issue of gender identity, it is about all of us, it is about to democracy, and ,at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, it is about preventing fascism.
Before we get any further into the meat of this particular issue and debate, I want to define my terms. One of the most frustrating things about this conversation is that we’re often all speaking very different languages, and those who promote gender identity ideology and legislation often refuse to define their terms in a coherent way, which makes genuine conversation quite difficult.
So, when I say “sex” I am referring to biology — whether an individual is male or female. I define a man as an adult male human, and a woman as an adult female human. This is how most of the world for most of history has understood the terms “man” and “woman.”
When I say “gender,” what I mean is the stereotypes and social roles imposed on males and females based on their sex. This is what I mean when I talk about femininity and masculinity. So, ideas we’re told or that we hold in our society about what men and women should be, the social norms we are expected to adhere to, how we should dress, the kinds of jobs we should have, how we should act, what we should look like, what our personality traits should consist of, etc.
When I say “trans activist,” I’m not specifically or necessarily talking about trans-identified people. I’m talking about any person who promotes and supports gender identity ideology and legislation.
When I say “gender identity ideology” or “transgender ideology,” I mean the idea that it’s possible for a person to be born in the wrong body, or that it’s possible for a person to change sex.
When I talk about “gender identity legislation,” I’m referring to legislation that allows people to self-identify as any sex that they want, and to access facilities, spaces, political positions, jobs, grants, universities, and sports competitions on that basis.
I do not use the term “cis,” which is a word created by trans activists to refer to people whose “gender identity matches their sex.” This is because I do not have a gender identity. In fact, no one does. We have bodies and we have personalities, and my personality is not a set of stereotypes. And I refuse to define myself as a set of stereotypes that have been used to defend sexist practices and beliefs throughout history.
I am not, as so many trans activists claim, a biological essentialist. I believe boys should be able to play with dolls and wear dresses if they like. I think they can be just as sensitive and emotional as girls. I think that girls should be able to play with trucks, and roughhouse, and cut their hair short, and refuse to wear dresses. I think that girls can be rational, assertive, and adventurous.
I don’t believe that any person should be discriminated against or harassed because they step outside the gender stereotypes laid out for us and enforced on us in so many ways. And, in fact, as a feminist, I think they should be encouraged to step outside those stereotypes.
What is incredibly ironic about this debate and the way that feminists who challenge transgender ideology are positioned is that feminists have always taken an incredibly liberal, liberatory position on gender. We want people to be free to be themselves, and not feel pressure to adopt masculine or feminine stereotypes.
Yet, we are the ones in this debate who are accused of being conservative or regressive. This, coming from people who say that any boy who loves frilly pink dresses cannot possibly be just a boy who likes frilly pink dresses, but must really be a girl, which of course plays into a long history of bullying boys who step out of gender norms by accusing them of being girls.
I don’t know for certain why our arguments and ideas are misrepresented so drastically by our opponents, but I would guess that it’s because our opponents are not able to make counter-arguments in good faith, so have no other option, in terms of winning, except to lie, bully, and smear.
Today, we’re all told that if we don’t accept the notion that biological sex is determined by an individual’s feelings, preferences, or desires, that we’re bigoted, or that we’re fascist, or that we deserve to be arrested or killed.
Indeed, countless people — mostly men — have sent violent threats to me online for saying what I’m saying today. Organizers of this event received a number of violent, sexualized, misogynist threats through Eventbrite. An individual named Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv recently took credit publicly for personally having me banned from Twitter, and also publicly stated that I have “committed hate crimes” and that I “organized a hate rally” (referring to this event specifically).
This is all because I believe males and females are real, because I believe women’s rights and spaces should be protected, because I believe women have the right to boundaries, and because I ask questions about terms like “transgender” and about the implications of legislation rooted in nonsensical, regressive ideology.
We still don’t know what defines a trans person. We don’t know what makes a male “actually a woman.” Is it surgery? Hormones? Clothing? Makeup? A preference for long hair? There is, to date, no coherent definition of transgender. It can be literally anything or anyone. It is nothing more than a statement, and it is unverifiable. To create legislation around something so vague and undefinable seems odd to me, if not dangerous.
According to Justice Canada and the Ontario Human Rights Code, gender identity is defined as “a person’s internal or individual experience of their gender.” But how a person experiences or feels about or analyzes gender or gender roles does not literally change their sex.
I am told that saying these kinds of things “hurts people’s feelings,” and that therefore I may not say them. But, if we’re going to talk about feelings, why is it that women’s feelings are being ignored in all of this? Why is it that women’s feelings about whether or not they have to share a change room with a man don’t matter? What about the feelings of girls who don’t want to see a dick when they’re changing for gym class? What about the feelings of women who’ve been victimized by men and don’t want to share a room in a transition house with a man? And what about the feelings of women who are being made to compete against men in sports?
Just last month, a male who identifies as a woman named Christina Ginther sued a Minnesota women’s football league after a team barred him from playing. The news media reported that Ginther was not allowed to play because he was trans, but that’s not true. It’s because he’s male. He has a male body, and it’s not fair to the women playing in the league to have to play against a man. The league told Ginther they don’t allow players who are born biologically male because of safety issues. This is the kind of rule that should make sense to anyone who actually cares about and respects women’s right to play sports safely and fairly, who isn’t interested in trampling the rights of others because of their own personal preferences and desires. But gender identity ideology and legislation say that these women don’t matter, that this one man’s feelings matter more.
In Toronto, a woman named Kristi Hanna filed a human rights complaint against the Jean Tweed Center, which runs Palmertson House, a shelter for female recovering addicts, after she was told she had to share a room with a man claiming to be a woman. She said that this man looked like a man, talked like a man, had a beard, was “wearing big combat boots,” and that he hadn’t had any sex-change surgeries. But he was admitted to the Palmerston House anyway. When she and some other women complained about his presence to the staff, the response was, “We’re inclusive.” This, to a woman who’s been sexually assaulted multiple times by men, who suffers from PTSD and insomnia, on top of struggling with substance abuse issues, and who felt so triggered and unsafe upon this man’s arrival and placement in her room that she had to leave her room at the shelter to go stay elsewhere, because she was so stressed she couldn’t sleep. What about this woman’s feelings?
What about the feelings of the 14 female estheticians who were asked to give a male a Brazilian bikini wax, then dragged to court when they declined?
None of this is about “transphobia.” It is about men, and it is about women having the right to say no to men, to not be gaslit and bullied for daring to put their own safety, rights, and feelings first.
We are now at a place where we are not only allowing men to dictate what a woman is, but to destroy hard-fought-for rights won by feminists, very quickly, without any public debate. We are putting women and girls in danger in order to avoid offending the feelings of a tiny minority of people, without a public debate. We are allowing women to be fired, threatened, harassed, smeared, silenced, intimidated, ostracized, and even beaten in order to accommodate the feelings of men. This is what’s actually happening, and I don’t care if this is shocking for some of you here, because it’s true, and I refuse to accept or repeat lies under threat, especially lies that are clearly hurtful.
We can support people’s rights and dignity, and provide them with the services they need without lying and without throwing women under the bus.
There is no need for women’s rights if women don’t exist, and if the source of their oppression is not their sex, but their feelings about femininity. No matter how a woman feels about gender, she will still experience this world as female.
Those who are speaking out about and asking questions about gender identity are not doing so to be cruel. They are not doing so because they’re hateful. They are doing so because they have real, genuine concerns that deserve to be taken seriously and addressed. And if you’re going to do everything in your power to bully and silence people who have those concerns, to tell women that advocating for their own rights makes them hateful, that your beliefs are the only beliefs that matter, and that those who don’t share your beliefs should be arrested or killed, then what is clear is that you are the fascist, you are the hateful, close-minded, oppressive one.
So, you are all free to disagree with anything I say here. You are free to share your opinions, you are free to believe whatever you like, whether it’s that the earth is flat, or that cats are great pets, but you don’t have the right to impose those beliefs on others under threat of violence or a jail sentence. You don’t have the right to threaten me, silence me, or criminalize me for telling the truth.
Heaven Swan wrote:First of all thanks to Jerky and Sounder for posting in this thread. Your interest and concern is appreciated.
D'awww... you're very welcome, Heaven Swan!
Although I don't completely share your point of view vis-a-vis the transgender phenomenon -- there have obviously been a great many people, throughout history, for whom changing genders has been a boon to them in any number of ways, and perhaps even essential for their survival and flourishing -- I nevertheless do have some concerns about the current, rather extreme state of some elements within the trans activist community... both rhetorically and ideologically. Oddly enough, more and more I find that they're behaving in ways that I find familiar from my earlier online battles with the new-minted neocons of the Bush II era, and some of the earlier elements of the alt-right movement. Their communication style is very "blastfax", talking points from rote... very cult-like, indoctrinated.
I believe you're already aware of my thesis that we are in the midst of a very real, world-wide conspiracy whose first target was the online conspiracy community, followed by Men's Rights groups and Pick-Up Artists, which quickly spread into GamerGate, Sad Puppies, ComicsGate and other full blown psyops against various "nerd culture" ecosystems.
This of course is just a very small aspect (a pet project, really) of the conspiracy, which I refer to as the New Fascist International(e), about which I will have more to say in the not too distant future (should my health allow me to complete my work to such a level that I feel it's worth sharing). But it's an important one for their goals.
I believe that the particular psyops described above now all operate in tandem with each other, hand-in-hand, in such a way as to reinforce each other as they build towards their main, overriding desire, which I believe is to achieve the weaponization of our minds against us, in a historically unprecedented way: to make us doubt our own eyes and ears, our own rational faculties, and/or the relative trustworthiness of even the most basic tenets of science.
But I'm getting perilously close to bringing things off-topic! I'll just leave it at that for now, and if anyone reading this has any suggestions for me in terms of reading material, writers whose work might help me forward my project, or news items that stand out as being aligned with what I've described above, please, by all means, send those my way, either here at RigInt, or to my personal email, jerkyleboeuf@gmail.com.
An appeal to logic may be useful here. This person is making a statement denouncing discrimination while using said statement to stifle speech and discriminate against a large group with legitimate interests in regard to said topic. The effect is to require the acceptance of two contradictory concepts in the same space, commonly called cognitive dissonance.
Dissonance can be a fine thing, if we use it as a learning tool. If not it makes one grow old and dependent as all energy is then spent gilding the Lilly.
The gas-lighting victim gets a pass but the govern-mentalists must be challenged, for reasons contained in Heaven Swan's sig line.
Jerky—I’d like to hear more about your fascist internationale theory. I don’t quite grasp what you mean. Sad puppies? I looked them up but still don’t get it. Why are “conspiracy theorists” lumped in with these small and specific internet groups? Have you thought about starting a thread on this?
Sounder—Good point. I wholeheartedly agree. That a library did their best to silence (“no platform”) these brilliant activist women illustrates the censorious mindset that has creeped into the left. (For those who don’t know I’ve been a lifelong leftist).
Lee Lakeman’s talk was outstanding. I’ve been thinking about one thing she said that relates to the discussion about the billionaire funders of the trans movement and their interest in Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Lee has a long history of work in the fight for women’s refuges (domestic violence shelters, etc). She said that she witnessed that the gains made by the woman’s movement, civil rights movement,etc, came about via a slow boil—from the bottom up with lots of meeting and organizing. In the 60’s-‘70’s she only witnessed one top-down campaign —anti-stalking—that went through like a streak of lightning, changing laws overnight. Why? Hollywood stars had a big problem with stalkers and used Hollywood money and clout to back the campaign.
She said that we need to direct our focus at the top, that trans are marginalized and oppressed, that we should look higher. Why are these billionaires pouring so much money and energy into lobbying for trans? Just to have protection to exercise their fetish? (Most rich trans are autogynephiles) They could do that without going through the trouble of changing the laws.
It is now said (by some) to be ' 'incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others' to suggest that there is a difference between acting like something and actually being the thing you are acting like. Theater is now the official reality, the reality of our manufactured consent.
Transgender woman who wore T-shirt proclaiming that she's still biologically a man is accused of 'hate speech' and faces being thrown off LGBT committee at TUC
Debbie Hayton, 51, a teacher, changed her gender from male to female in 2012 Ms Hayton wore a t-shirt at an event saying 'Trans women are men. Get over it' LGBT+ committee of the TUC complained about her wearing the shirt in August
By Joe Middleton For Mailonline
Published: 20:46 EST, 22 December 2019
A transgender woman is facing disciplinary action for wearing a t-shirt proclaiming that she is biologically a man.
Debbie Hayton, 51, a physics teacher in the Midlands, changed her gender from male to female in 2012.
She is now potentially facing expulsion from the LGBT+ committee of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) after wearing a t-shirt saying 'Trans women are men. Get over it.'
Ms Hayton wore the t-shirt at an event in July, organised by campaign group Fair Play for Women, as reported by The Sunday Times.
In August, 12 members of the committee sent a complaint about Ms Hayton to Frances O'Grady, the general secretary of the TUC. Debbie Hayton, 51, pictured left, a physics teacher in the Midlands, changed her gender from male to female in 2012 +3
Debbie Hayton, 51, pictured left, a physics teacher in the Midlands, changed her gender from male to female in 2012
They said that by wearing the t-shirt Ms Hayton had 'gone beyond discourse, and the expression of alternative viewpoints, and is now propagating hate speech against the trans community.'
Nicola Williams, founder of Fair Play for Women, told the newspaper: 'Accusations of transphobia are thrown at women so often for so little that the word has lost all meaning.
'When even trans people can get called transphobes, I hope people now understand how ludicrous and far-fetched these attacks have always been. The trans movement has been hijacked by gender extremists.'
The case comes shortly after an employment tribunal ruling last week upheld the dismissal of Maya Forstater, 45, over 'offensive' tweets questioning government plans to allow people to self-identify as another gender.
The judgment sparked fierce debate online, with social media users tweeting their support - and opposition - to Miss Forstater's stance using the hashtag #IStandWithMaya.
Harry Potter author J K Rowling tweeted out her support for Miss Forstater using the hashtag #IStandWithMaya
Harry Potter author J K Rowling tweeted out her support for Miss Forstater using the hashtag #IStandWithMaya
Harry Potter author J K Rowling posted using the hashtag, saying: 'Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security.
'But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill'.
Miss Forstater, who worked for the Centre for Global Development, was let go by the think tank after sharing her views on reforms to Gender Recognition Certificates.
The case was viewed as a test of whether gender critical views - that there are only two biological sexes and it is not possible to change between them - could be protected philosophical beliefs under the 2010 Equality Act.
Employment Judge James Tayler rejected that view in his landmark judgment, which said Miss Forstater's views are 'incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others'.
Ms Hayton declined to comment.
A TUC spokesman told the Daily Telegraph: 'The TUC is working with union representatives from across our elected LGBT committee to hear everyone's perspectives and find a way forward.'
It is good to hear from some women that have released themselves from the grip of this social contagion. I hope they are ready and able to deal with the new round of TERF-baiting that will be coming their way. Apologies if the link to collegefix is offensive, but the article is fair and sticks to the subject.
Julia Johnson - University of South Carolina •December 19, 2019
Trans identity reinforced by the hostility of the community to doubts
The LGBTQ+ lobby in America claims to champion visibility, conversation and acceptance. A group of young women, however, claims the lobby is ignoring their voices.
Largely missing from discussion of transgender issues, such as gendered bathroom disputes, women’s sports and transgender children, is the phenomenon of those who detransition, and why they do so.
The Pique Resilience Project, created by four women in their early 20s, aims to bring the conversation of detransitioning to the forefront. They describe themselves as “four detransitioned and desisted women with the goal of sharing our stories and providing information on detransition, as well as support for those who may be questioning their gender or identity.”
The quartet says they all experienced rapid-onset gender dysphoria and identified as transgender men for much of their teenage years. They have all since “detransitioned/desisted, and have been able to explore other individual factors that may have caused or exacerbated our dysphoria.”
Brown University’s Lisa Littman, assistant professor of behavioral and social sciences, published a study on the phenomenon and coined the ROGD moniker last year. The university removed a statement promoting the study following claims that it was anti-transgender, and later mischaracterized the nature of corrections made to the study.
The College Fix reached out to the women of Pique Resilience Project via direct message on multiple social media platforms as well as submitting a contact form on their website. They have not responded, but they have talked about their project with other publications as recently as earlier this month.
MORE: The Equality Act, or the Female Erasure Act?
‘I really did not have any doubts until the second I started transitioning’
The four women identify themselves by their first names only on their website, but they have not hidden their current appearances. They also host a podcast called Danger Ramen, though it hasn’t been updated since this spring.
The Pique Resistance Project tells visitors to its FAQ page that the founders are “left-leaning and do not adopt conservative beliefs,” making them common among “detransitioned and desisted people.” They also object to being described as “trans exclusionary radical feminists,” a slur often used by trans activists against women who question trans ideology. They “align with many gender critical beliefs” but do not seek to “exclude” anyone.
In a video titled “Detransitioning Q&A,” the young women answer questions about their experiences.
Dagny, 23, explained that she began testosterone during her teenage years because she had her parents’ blessing. She said that if she were made to wait until 18 to begin testosterone, she likely wouldn’t have begun it at all. “I really did not have any doubts until the second I started transitioning.”
Jesse began testosterone promptly at 18, and explained that it was an important step to realizing that she did not want to transition. “If I had not started [testosterone], I probably wouldn’t have desisted.” Had she not begun transitioning, she would have kept wishing for the “forbidden fruit.”
One of the questions asked was about the women’s doubts about their transition. They all admitted to having doubts.
Helena, 21, admitted to having doubts about herself and also about the trans community. She says she primarily explored transgenderism on Tumblr. She explained that the conversation on Tumblr was seemingly one-sided, and there were views held by the community that were something of a litmus test for belonging.
Helena claimed that it was “hard to for me to think outside of transitioning; so hard for me to consider any other path for myself.” That’s because the doubts she had “were so vehemently shot down.” Because Helena was unable to explore the possible ramifications of this decision, she felt transition was the only option.
They all agreed that they seriously repressed any doubts they had, because they wholeheartedly believed that transition would alleviate their dysphoria and validate their feelings.
At one point Helena mentions that her three best friends in high school all identified as transgender and then desisted. This affirms researcher Littman’s conclusion that “a process of ‘social and peer contagion’ may play a role.”
In other words, gender dysphoria is more likely to be environmental and learned than naturally occurring. “According to the parents surveyed, 87% of children came out as transgender after spending more time online, after ‘cluster outbreaks’ of gender dysphoria in friend groups, or both,” the study found.
It seems that some societal pressures were at play in their decisions. Jesse, 21, explained wanting to “prove myself,” be “authentic,” and have people like her. Between these feelings of wanting to belong and being surrounded by an online trans community that did not provide much recognition for detransitioners and desisters, these women felt that hormone therapy was the right and only path for them.
MORE: YouTube partially demonetized him for talking about detransitioning
Social worker accepted her ‘ridiculous answers without questioning them’
National Review recently interviewed Helena, who said “she is worried that voices like hers are being ‘silenced’ and shut out of the transgender debate. She also worries that there is a lack of therapeutic and medical support for detransitioners.”
Helena further explained that she dealt with a lengthy history of mental disorders in her teen years, including an eating disorder, depression, anxiety, and ADHD symptoms. She claimed that her choice to transition was somewhat fueled by a desire to be accepted, seeing that transgender voices were taken as authoritative and their opinions seemed to hold more weight in online communities such as Tumblr.
It only took a 30-minute meeting with an LGBTQ+ social worker for her to be granted testosterone. “It’s actually pretty ridiculous, the answers that I gave, and she like accepted those answers without questioning them,” Helena said, reflecting on the meeting.
“What we went through was stressful and detrimental in a lot of ways, so that motivated us to create something for other struggling young people,” another member, Chiara, said in an interview with The Velvet Chronicle.
The publication, founded by trans-skeptical lesbians, said the 22-year-old feels “fortunate that her mother didn’t allow her to undergo medicalization.”
MORE: Mothers in shock as daughters come home with mustaches, no breasts
Chiara believes that “not ‘fitting in’ can fuel dysphoria and cause girls to adopt a mistaken trans identity.” This is why societal gender roles should be less “restrictive,” she said: “There is no reason to force young girls into a box; they should be allowed to be themselves and build a life without worrying about upholding an outdated role.”
She had a difficult time getting her story before an ideologically sympathetic audience, as many left-leaning publications refuse to give detransitioners or desisters a platform. “It’s definitely a bit frustrating that the only people who will give us a platform are generally more right-wing, since none of us are conservative,” she told the publication, which prints her full name.
Chiara and her mother were also featured in an Economist article more than a year ago, under pseudonyms Janette and Rachel. Her mother revealed that gender therapists all urged gender affirmation and treatment at Chiara’s age of just 16.
According to Littman, the Brown University researcher, “some adolescents may embrace the idea that they are transgender as a way of coping with symptoms of a different, underlying issue.”
Chiara’s gender dysphoria seemed to go away after therapy, and she believes that she latched on to the transgender ideology as a coping mechanism for depression and past sexual abuse.
What the fuck is wrong about the left that such a large portion of it embraces a basic category error as a central litmus test for 'belonging'?
How does the cohort of Judges, Administrators, Educators, Journalists, Social Workers and contagion victims that cannot distinguish the difference between 'like' and 'is', grow so large?
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
DrEvil » 05 Jan 2020 17:37 wrote:^^Social contagion? Are you fucking kidding? Are you seriously comparing transgendered people to a contagious disease?
Memes are contagious. Not the people.
How do explain a social circle of middle school or high school girls all deciding at the same time that they're transgender, except for social contagion?
Denying that some transgender identification ain't real is not going to help anybody who genuinely, desperately needs it.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight, that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
Of course not, it's the use of the word contagion I have a problem with. It's a word with very negative connotations, and coming form Sounder that's no accident.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
DrEvil » 06 Jan 2020 10:54 wrote:Of course not, it's the use of the word contagion I have a problem with. It's a word with very negative connotations, and coming form Sounder that's no accident.
If he hadn't omitted the "social" that one time, no problem? I'd be less upset with him for calling some transgender people "contagion victims" and more upset with the institutionalized trans groupthink which helped brainwash some women into hating themselves to the point of chemical and surgical alteration and which now encourages silencing those same women.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight, that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
:focal(714x699:715x700)/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/5f/06/5f067544-6ef3-44f4-b441-4950eedab485/protest_bev-grant-wr.jpg)
