Radfem 2012 – Trans acting like a Lynch Mob

The ‘crimen exceptum’  idea is at the base of every inquisition, personal, political, religious or secular State-sanctioned.  The “crime” is considered to be so exceptional, that all the usual rules and processes of common law, especially rational evidence, is not needed to sentence the accused.  You do not need to be tried and convicted on any rational evidence, just accused of it.  Preferably accused by an angry lynch mob which hates you.  Even just a very small lynch mob if they are powerful enough with the support of the state and its various institutions and networks. If the hated accused does go to the law for assistance, it is always a sham, a fake trial and everybody knows the outcome.

Whether it be witchcraft, heresy, treason against the nation-state, a Jew, a Red under the bed, or today – someone accused of transphobia, it is based on the rule of the lynch mob. The crimen exceptum requires the suspension of processes of justice, including the common use of state-sanctioned propaganda and even torture in some cases. Throughout human history, just being a female perceived as being independent of male control systems has always been the crimen exceptum.  Two or more such females seen talking together is the worst crime of all.

The bottom-line of disagreement between radical feminism and trans-activism, is that radical feminism does not believe that pharmaceuticals and/or cosmetic surgery can change a human’s healthy natal sexual physiology.    This view is not based in hate of those individuals engaging in gender transitioning.  It is based on being politically in opposition to the culture, the industries and the institutions which support gender transitioning as a cultural harmful practice, similar to being anti-female genital mutilation practices regardless of how socially sanctioned these practices may be.  Some of us do see this as a violation of human rights, especially the increasing promotion of transitioning cultural practices onto children on the basis on no valid evidence, medical or social.  However, since this is widely acknowledged as the crimen exceptum, we also fully acknowledge that we will always be lynched for it.

Radical feminism also takes strong political positions against the so-called ‘beauty’ industries, that women also engage in the world over.  We are anti- cosmetic surgery industries and related “beauty” practices, as much as the trans-industries, the pornography and the prostitution industries and see them as similar to all the other global capitalist exploitation industries –  of which there is some ‘free-speech’ and ‘right of free association’ allowed for those groups critical of these industries to gather together.  Some socialist and left-wing political groups are in strong and vocal opposition to multi-national global capitalism – should these groups invite and welcome multinationals to “debate” at their conferences?  Should drug and alcohol rehabilitation services, invite drug-pushers to “tell their side of the story” and “debate” the issue, or provide information to participants on how to access the drugs of their choice?

Certain groups of men have always behaved like lynch mobs and organised terrorists towards women who try to stand apart from male-dominant anti-female politics, individually or collectively.  While many peoples can organise and gather together for all sorts of reasons, political or social, (even militant fascist hate groups seem to enjoy the right of free-association and don’t have their gatherings banned, and LGBT groups can organise conferences with both sex and gender segregated spaces without question), but women are not allowed to organise or gather together in male-free spaces no matter how small, for any reason whatsoever.  Will they ban women’s quilting bees and sewing-circles next? The Afghani Taliban also bans women from meeting together for any purpose.  Women, as defined in dictionaries as ‘adult human females’, have no right of association, no human rights, no legal rights, no civil rights to gather together. As in the medieval European witchcraze, this remains the crimen exceptum.

In  “Gender as a Hate Crime” Dianne Post, (Rain and Thunder #41  ) noted that: “When I was lobbying for the inclusion of gender in the Arizona hate crimes statute many years ago, the man who spoke before me said that crimes against women are so common that if they were included in hate crimes, it would overwhelm the system and no one else would get any attention.”

Indeed.  I guess this is why transgender folks can achieve human rights, civil rights and hate crimes legislative protections (including the right to exclude non-trans from their groups) but females can’t, and never will.  Female-hatred can continue unabated without consequence or even being questioned.  It is so ‘normal’ and so widespread, that it is not seen as systemic social-political hate in its own right. Only women who dare to say “No” to men, seem to deserve the public hate of the woman-hating lynch-mobs, as it is the only form of hate, that is socially, culturally, politically and legally sanctioned the world over as discussed here .

But for London 2012 – it appears the British trans-activists have won the Gold Medal for hate against women.   Well done British trans, congratulations on winning Gold! I’m sure it was a bloody tough struggle against all those other keen contenders for inclusion in the top 10 in the international Woman-Hatred Olympics.

  1. RoseVerbena said:

    Their hatred of women has been so palpable during this fight that I am galvanized to work that much harder to exclude them from women-only space. Beware the law of unintended consequences, anti-woman activists.

  2. doublevez said:

    THE++POINT: Humans cannot change their Sex. Males will NEVER be Female. They will never be women = adult human females. They are dangerously, seriously mentally ill. The fact that they are not being treated for THAT is a human rights infraction.

  3. Wonderfully put, Rain. Thank you. But the transactivists haven’t won, at all. They have just made more people realise what hateful, manipulative terrorists they are. This will backfire against them.

  4. allecto said:

    “Female-hatred can continue unabated without consequence or even being questioned. It is so ‘normal’ and so widespread, that it is not seen as systemic social-political hate in its own right. Only women who dare to say “No” to men, seem to deserve the public hate of the woman-hating lynch-mobs, as it is the only form of hate, that is socially, culturally, politically and legally sanctioned the world over…”

    This is so true. And until women can meet and gather together to organise politically we are a long way from liberation. But what excites me is that right now there is a very strong resistance to trans ideology within the feminist movement. Women are moving again.

  5. tiamathydra said:

    Something I remembered a few days ago and got me thinking seriously, was that among Spanish-speaking leftists and ”progressives” (a.k.a fauxgressives), there is the extremely widespread idea that ”feminism” is good and necessary to advance women’s rights and to challenge the patriarchy, as long as it’s not ”FEMALISM” (”hembrismo” in spanish). Femalism, they say, is fascism based on the idea of female supremacy and that women are superior to men and therefore it’s inherently ”misandrist”. This is a common belief among people who are considered leftist, I tell you. Isn’t it revealing? To me it’s alarmingly so.
    Semantic root of the word FEMIINISM = FEMIN = FEMININE.
    Semantic root of the word FEMALISM = FEMAL = *FEMALE*.
    It’s alarming to which point they know what they do and what they defend. It’s all a huge joke on us females. Females must rebel, yes.

    And in case castrated men with dresses and lipstick insist in infiltrating female-only spaces, you know what? We should create female-only secret societies and spread our tentacles from there. I’m not joking, I’ve always known this would be partly the solution, and I’ll go as far as saying that I believe first-wave feminists got secret societies of their own in order to achieve all they achieved. It’s impossible to do it under the male gaze, and they knew it. After all, do patriarchs tell women about how they create their political systems in order to subjugate us? No, they don’t inform us; we find ourselves enslaved, that’s it. Men’s political systems and elites have always been secret, they are masters at conspiracy. Why not copy their strategies? I’ll definitely try.

  6. What a great post and connections you made!!

    Many thanks for this its really appreciated.

  7. karmarad said:

    Thank you for that essay, Rain, which covers so many important points.

    It seems likely, based on the effect produced, that to some extent the vehement objection to having a certain speaker is a pretext for requiring that the transactivist male viewpoint be represented at the conference by at least implicitly requiring that the conference invite transactivist men, or lose its public venue.

    I’d like to add to the discussion that Marilyn Frye, in her book The Politics of Reality, has set forth a number of concepts which this situation illustrates:

    1. The Birdcage. If the media or the Conference Hall look solely at this ‘wire’ which has just been added to the Birdcage of containment and subjugation of women, it does not seem as though a single conference hall in which women are not allowed to meet with speakers of their choice or without inviting men who “identify” as women will cause that much harm. One must step back and see the the whole cage, and how this ‘wire’ strengthens the whole cage by adding another small barrier to a “network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to [the bird’s] flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon” (Frye, pp. 4,5).

    2. Coercion. “The structure of coercion, then, is this: to coerce someone into doing something, one has to manipulate the situation so that the world as perceived by the victim presents the victim with a range of options the least unattractive of which…in the judgment of the victim is the act one wants the victim to do…coercion is extended, ramified and laminated as systems of oppression and exploitation…oppression [is] a systematic network of forces and barriers which tend to the reduction, immobilization, and molding of the oppressed” (Frye, pp. 56-57). The instruction to women organizers that they have the choice of either admitting a faction of men (or at least prohibiting any viewpoint that faction does not approve of), or not meeting at an appropriate venue at all, offers them this kind of “option” and is a mechanism of coercion.

    3. Imagining. “…[W]e need to imagine the possibilities for what women might be if we lived lives free of the material and perceptual forces which subordinate women to men…For instance, much pressure is applied at the point of our verbal behavior, enforcing silence or limiting our speech.” (Frye, pp.76-77). This conference, in its broadest sense, is an opportunity to speak and imagine without the “arrogant eye” of the male generally, and the actions of the conference hall officials in denying use of its venue, in this sense, use transactivist politics as an excuse to silence women from developing visions of an independent future in which women are not limited in their speech.

    4. Separation. “When women separate (withdraw, break out, regroup, transcend, shove aside, step outside, migrate, say no), we are simultaneously CONTROLLING ACCESS and DEFINING. We are doubly insubordinate, since neither of these is permitted” (Frye, p.107) In this case, the radical insubordination consists both in that the women organizing the conference have chosen their own speakers and denied access to men, AND that they have defined women as not including transactivist men (or, at least, the viewpoint they do not approve of). Therefore the interests of two sometimes-at-odds groups, the general male-dominated power structure and transactivist men, jibe in this instance, and the general power structure supports the trasactivist faction.

    The women organizers have set boundaries. They have the legal right to meet as women separate from men. They have the legal right of freedom of speech. The social recognition of the gender and/or sex of transgender people is a current political issue in which transactivist men, society in general, and radical feminist women are working out their differences and relationships with and to each other. Transactivist men and society in general are able to engage in discussion as communities, but there has been an extraordinarily coercive reaction to any attempt by this group of women to engage in independent discussion.

    To require that transactivist men (or only viewpoints they approve of) be invited to the conference is to require women to adopt the definition of transactivist men as to what defines a woman. Transactivist definitions are currently controversial. They are vague and open. Some transactivists insist that any male who announces that he identifies as a woman should be defined as a woman. This definition may include men who continue to live part of their lives as men, who choose to define themselves this way for temporary opportunistic, political, or even criminal purposes, and men who have not undertaken any sort of ‘transition’ via chemical or sugical means. If transactivists do the defining, the organizers will have no control over the participation of men (or their dominant ideology) in the conference. Therefore the effect of this (strongly implied) requirement is to destroy the boundaries the women organizers have set and to take control of the conference with an imposed agenda. The effect is to attempt to prevent this group of women from public participation in politics and social issues of great relevance and significance to them, through these classic mechanisms.

  8. “The woman-only meeting is a fundamental challenge to the structure of’ power. It is always the privilege of the master to enter the slave’s hut. The slave who decides to exclude the master from her hut is declaring herself not a slave.” – Marilyn Frye

    I think that about sums things up. Feminists have declared themselves “not slaves” and MRAs, both in pants and skirts, are pulling out all stops to quash the slave uprising and rebellion in an effort to put women back into the box. Well, it’s nice to want things, boys, but we’re not going back.

    The use of the term “Lynch Mob” is being used appropriately in this piece. I don’t know where people got the notion that lynch mobs only occurred in the deep South of the U.S. and only had to do with racism.

    Here is the definition of Lynch Mob as put forth by Wikipedia:

    “Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people. It is related to other means of social control that arise in communities, such as charivari, riding the rail, and tarring and feathering. Lynchings have been more frequent in times of social and economic tension, and have often been the means used by the politically dominant population to oppress social challengers.”

    MRAs, both in pants and skirts, have both publicly declared that feminists should die in a fire. They are of course referring to The Burning Times, when women were burned at the stake for witchcraft. Because it is surely witchcraft which causes women to declare themselves “not slaves.” In any case, it falls under the category of Lynch Mob.

    Bravo, Rain. Hat’s off to you. Well done.

  9. karmarad said:

    Regarding whether radfems “may” use the metaphor of lynching: many, many women were lynched in the U.S. Lynching is an integral part of women’s history and the struggle of all women for freedom. It is a type of brutal coercion that was used especially against Black women. Witch burnings were used primarily against Caucasian women. All these violent methods are examples of how women have been oppressed, and of course the irrationality and hatred of lynch mobs is a fair comparison in Rain’s essay. In many lynching cases, the fact that the person was female was interwoven with whatever “offense” the lynch mob decided she had committed. We should all look at these cases of women being lynched. A good beginning source is: https://henriettavintondavis.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/black-women-who-were-lynched-in-america/

    It needs to be said that those who criticize radfems as “racist” for comparing current methods of oppression of women with historic methods of such oppression of a particular group of women are merely demonstrating their blind sexism in assuming that “lynch mobs” is a metaphor reserved only for Black males.

  10. Great article, thanks rain!!

    As a response to an accusation that re-using the metaphor of lynching is racist: I’d say it’s misogynistic and malecentered to assume that lynch mobs only apply to POC (which means men of colour by default). It completely suppresses centuries, millenia of history of genocide and persecution of women by men and prevents us from naming it, by guilt-tripping us and calling us racist (which in this context of course isn’t true, but this accusation works really well in shaming us because our subjectivity is so permeated by male violence/male reality, because we have so little confidence in who we are).

    It’s a typical antifeminist strategy meant to prevent us from using terms that accurately describe our oppression – just because they happen to be used by anti-racist men. What they mean by accusing us of racists is that we have infringed the taboo of using words that are only meant to apply to men and their experience of prejudice. Only men are considered human, therefore only men can be considered prejudiced, oppressed.

    I’ve seen so-called antiracists attacking feminists and accusing them of being racist because they used the word “colonised” to describe male occupation of women’s thoughts, space, land, work, bodies, minds, etc. This is just to prevent us from naming what men do to us and make us feel guilty about it – of course, always on the ground that it hurts men’s feelings.

  11. D. Gold said:

    Thank you for having the guts to post this, Rain.
    I’m SO SICK of trans people ruining women’s spaces, or attempting to.
    I do, however, support the trans community, and I do no think they are “sick” like a commenter so disgustingly stated above. (bigotry like that isn’t helping the point of this post, and once again just makes radical feminists look bad.)
    I’ve spent years in queer communities and consider myself a trans ally. I believe that gender is mostly a social construction, but, I am a bit at odds with what most trans people and allies think because I am pro-women’s spaces. There is a reality to our social genders, and women have different gendered lives than trans women do. There is an immense value to women’s spaces, and they need to be protected. The vehemence that trans people feel towards them is also disturbing. It really does remind me of the hate that men feel toward women’s only spaces- this sort of outrage that their privilege doesn’t extend everywhere in the universe. I think it does really stem from privilege and the anger around losing part of one’s social privilege by being genderqueer. Women become the focal point for their anger, because they desire so whole-heartedly to be full-fledged members of the lady club.

    I’ve witnessed all kinds of absurdity around this. I went to a women’s college, and seriously knew trans men who *chose* to attend a WOMEN’S college complain because it was upholding the gender binary. I wanted to tell them to move colleges then!
    Also, very recently a pagan group in Berkeley had to shut-down it’s public women only ceremonies because of the stink that trans protesters made at pagan gatherings. That really, really made me mad. These women only ceremonies (the group also held separate all-gendered, female-identified and trans inclusive, and men’s ceremonies) were focused around the moon and women’s menstruation,and were in the nude, thus they were for women. They were so empowering, and I miss going to them! Why can’t we worship our wombs without pissing someone off?
    Then of course there is the Michigan Women’s Festival, which I am proud of because they have successfully deflected the trans protesters for years now.
    I get the feeling sometimes that all of the anger of trans folks get focused on feminists a disproportionate amount of the time… Why? We’re such a tiny minority, one that is not the main source of their suffering. Leave us, and our beautiful, regenerative women’s spaces alone!!!

%d bloggers like this: