The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

RadFems vs. Trannies: Will Feminists Let ‘Gender Queers’ Boss Them Around?

Posted on | April 12, 2014 | 75 Comments

The ongoing conflict between radical feminists and transgender activists, which I first noticed in January and revisited last night in the context of the Dana McCallum rape case, has escaped the notice of mainstream liberal journalism. Liberals tacitly side with the transgenders in pretending that the radfems — a/k/a TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) — have no legitimate grievance.

What the TERFs perceive is that male-to-female transgenders are cynically seeking to usurp and co-opt the “feminist” label for their own advantage, thus shunting aside biological women and demoting them to second-class status within their own movement.

Of course, the instinctive conservative reaction to all this is to pop some popcorn and enjoy the schadenfreude. But the very fact that liberals want everybody to ignore this obscure conflict should be a clue that the conflict is, in fact, highly significant. Much like the Hugo Schwzyer “male feminist” controversy, which long raged on the margins of Gender Theory discussion before erupting into headlines, the TERF war against transfeminism (and vice-versa) tells us a lot about the problems of contemporary progressivism.

Let’s start with Cathy Brennan’s site Gender Identity Watch. Cathy Brennan is a radical lesbian feminist whose adamant defense of “female-only space” against transgender intrusion has made her a primary target of the anti-TERF campaign. Make no mistake: Brennan’s enemies are trying to destroy her, going so far as to petition the Southern Poverty Law Center to label her site a “hate group.”

Well, who is hating whom?

Brennan has chronicled some of the obscene, violent and threatening reactions she has received from transgenders and their allies, and why? Simply because Brennan won’t back down from her radical (“essentialist”) view that womanhood is a matter of biology and genetics, as opposed to the gender identity view that womanhood is a “social construct.” It doesn’t matter, for the sake of this discussion, whether you agree with Cathy Brennan, although I do. (“The science is settled!”)

Brennan probably hates my heteronormative patriarchal Christian conservative perspective even more than she hates the transfeminist gender identity crowd, but that’s OK: Cathy Brennan has a right to hate me, and her hate does me no harm.

Well, why can’t the trannies tolerate Brennan’s hate? Because it hurts their precious little feelings, that’s why!

The anti-Brennan crowd contains some of the most pathetic whiners imaginable, who insist that being called by their preferred label is so crucial to their identity that it’s an act of hate to use the wrong label.

Exhibit A? Charlie Hale, a British “genderqueer, kinky, polyamorous pan/bisexual” male who insists on the pronoun “they.” (No, I’m not kidding.) Hale wrote a guest column for a feminist blog calling for ostracism of anyone who associates with TERFs, a column which got a mocking rebuttal from a TERF blog here. When I say “mocking rebuttal,” I mean, they re-posted some of the photos Hale posted on Twitter:

Despite being male, Hale identifies as a “queer feminist” on Twitter, where he/”they” constantly whine(s) about “cishet male sexuality,” i.e., the way normal men have sex. Also, Hale is avidly pro-abortion, which is rather convenient in view of the fact that there is a near-zero possibility that Hale could ever be capable of making a woman pregnant, even if any woman were insane enough to wish to be impregnated by him. (Or, I should say, “them.”) Among his/”their” work is “An Introduction To Non-binary Transgender Identities,” which might just as easily be entitled, “How to Cooperate With Charlie’s Psychotic Delusions of Infinite Human Plasticity.”

What Hale’s “genderqueer” agenda boils down to is a desire to compel everybody to participate in his/”their” hallucinatory approach to sexual identity, an ongoing project of deconstruction: “We’re here! We’re queer! We’re hopelessly confused!” Neither male nor female, gay nor straight, “genderqueer” is sexuality as a multiple-choice exam in which the answer to every question is “none of the above.”

You may well ask, “How do people get that screwed-up in the head?” Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they spent so much of their adolescence wacking off to hentai cartoons that it left them permanently incapable of relating to normal human sex. However, you may wish to read Charlie Hale’s account of his adolescence:

I love queer, nerdy, kinky sex — and it’s the only sex I’ve ever known. At 16, I had my first “proper” relationship: it lasted about 3 and a half years, all told, and we were each other’s first sexual partner. On top of the standard teen sex-related anxiety, we both had unresolved gender issues . . . that neither of us were aware of at the time. . . .

(Charlie’s teenage girlfriend became a “transman,” i.e., a female-t0-male transsexual. We need not wonder why.)

This made following the “normal” scripts of sex quite difficult: PIV sex was basically impossible and, frankly, didn’t interest me a massive amount. As well as getting very acquainted with using my hands and mouth, it turned out we both had kinky interests, too: we laid our hands on a few toys (as far as we could in our nervous, impoverished teenage state) and messed around, experimented, and tried to find out what it was that worked for us. . . .

(So, “PIV sex” — penis-in-vagina, normal sexual intercourse — “was basically impossible”? Let me tell you something, Charlie: Whenever there is a vagina in my vicinity, it’s always possible.)

Creativity is what I think defines queer, nerdy, kinky sex: the ability to experiment and — as is often essential in the case of trans people — improvise. The world outside of cisheteronormative  sex is a wonderful one, but the social scripts surrounding sex are so strong that it doesn’t really come easily. . . .

(Pardon the unintentional double-entendre.)

While I had a very curious mind, and I’d had fantasies for years, the thing that really spurred us to experiment was the fact we couldn’t do what “all the other people” were doing. Our bodies and minds weren’t cooperative — due to things that, in hindsight, were probably caused by dysphoria — so we had to make our own way.
It wasn’t always rosy. Not following the ideas of sex that had been drilled into us was liberating but also challenging. Many times I remember my partner despairing, thinking that they weren’t “good enough,” because their genitals “didn’t work.”

Eh, you can read the rest of “Young Weirdos in Love,” if you wish. You get the point: Charlie spent three years in a dysfunctional relationship with a girlfriend whose vagina he never managed to penetrate with his penis, a failure he attributes in hindsight to “dysphoria,” probably because he doesn’t want to confess his own helpless sexual ineptitude. With his sour-grapes rationalization handy, however, he dismisses “cisheteronormative sex” with some intellectual jargon about “social scripts” that had been “drilled into us,” and congratulates himself on the wondrous “creativity” of “queer, nerdy, kinky sex,” as if normal male-female couplings are devoid of creativity.

This failed male, then, presumes to tell feminists they must banish from their conferences and publications — “no-platforming,” as it is called — anyone associated with radical feminists who refuse to accept transgenders as being the same as women. So if a feminist author participates in a “non-inclusive” (TERF) conference, then she must be blacklisted from other feminist conferences because, to quote Charlie Hale, “Inviting such speakers not only negatively impacts the climate of the movement, but actively makes marginalised people feel less safe and welcome in the event and the movement as a whole.”

And thereby — voila! — a man appoints himself the arbiter of who is acceptable within the Official Feminist Movement.

Does anyone think radical feminists are going to let themselves be bossed around by pathetic sissyboys like Charlie Hale?

Oh, hell, no.

If hard-core Marxist lesbians wanted to be bossed around by men, they might as well just invite me to their conference — call it “The End of Feminism: Surrendering to the Patriarchy” — and then they could all take turns making me sandwiches.

 

Category: Feminism, Gays

Comments

75 Responses to “RadFems vs. Trannies: Will Feminists Let ‘Gender Queers’ Boss Them Around?”

  1. Durasim
    April 13th, 2014 @ 9:01 pm

    Progressives think you can change your sexual orientation, as long as you change it to something that is not heterosexual.

  2. Rubix's Cube
    April 13th, 2014 @ 9:37 pm

    “it is Charlie Hale, and his lot, who will inherit the Earth”

    We shall not last.

  3. WarEagle82
    April 13th, 2014 @ 9:58 pm

    I don’t know whether you are making a serious point or not, but I have been waiting for this to happen.

    Absolute truth has been tossed aside. Anything goes.

    Everything can change except sexual orientation can only go from straight to gay and never the other way.

    But everything else can change. Today, I “feel” like a man. Tomorrow, what if I “feel” like a woman? Why can’t I “feel” like a left-handed, half Asian, half African lesbian next week?

    Who is to say I can’t put this on job applications? Perhaps, list it on a job application for a major university?

    And if the heteronormative patriarchy gives me grief about it, why can’t I sue their butts off?

    And what is next? Well, what if I feel like a cat next month? And the month after, a dog? Nobody can dispute what I “feel” because my “feelings” are the inviolate and irrefutable and self-affirming. To tell me otherwise is “something-ist” and only vile people do that.

    We are so far down the road to insanity it is hard to know what comes next. But you can be sure that it will be crazier than today.

  4. Käthe
    April 13th, 2014 @ 10:24 pm

    Funny you should ask about feeling like an animal…google “otherkin.”

  5. I’m Still Confused | The Lonely Conservative
    April 14th, 2014 @ 12:26 am

    […] Stacy McCain does a bang-up job of keeping us up to date on the happenings of the radical feminists and transgenders. It looks like the trannies are shaping up to be the feminists’ arch enemies. To be honest, I can’t keep up with it all. Cis this, normative that, patriarchy over here, gender identity over there. Heck, I’m just trying to figure out how to pay our tax bill and put food on the table. That being said, it’s important to keep up on the culture the progressives built, weird language and all. […]

  6. Adjoran
    April 14th, 2014 @ 12:38 am

    If Paradise to him is an earth devoid of all but a few humans in prehistoric conditions living lives that are nasty, brutish, and short, it is.

    Who knew the radical LGBT+ crowd was as anti-humanity as the Greenies? I thought they at least enjoyed a good dance club.

  7. Behind_You1
    April 14th, 2014 @ 12:42 am

    I’ve seriously seen “godkin” out there on the interwebs. These people are out of their frigging minds.

  8. WarEagle82
    April 14th, 2014 @ 7:00 am

    “Funny” isn’t the word I would use. I saw that term some time ago.

    The impact of harmful genetic mutation on the general population is overwhelming

  9. K-Bob
    April 14th, 2014 @ 8:09 am

    I was searching for the famous line by Henry Fonda, where he says:

    A man worth shootin’ is a man worth killin’

    So naturally with safe search off, the variants of the word “shoot” turned up a lot of pr0n-related items. Most of which you just learn to ignore.

    But this one caught my eye as being particularly related to Stacy’s beat lately:

    HuffPo: The Sexxxtons Mother-Daughter Porn Duo Seek Father-Son Sex Scene Partners (NSFW, even though no photos)

    I mean, the title pretty much says it all. I wonder if they’re school teachers.

  10. Patrick Carroll
    April 14th, 2014 @ 9:04 am

    Charlie Hale is having us all on.

  11. Dana
    April 14th, 2014 @ 9:09 am

    It looks to me like the woman at the top of the article would eat your sandwich before you ever got close.

  12. BillClintonsShorts17
    April 14th, 2014 @ 9:30 am

    Yes! They ate ALL the sandwiches!!!

  13. Anamika
    April 14th, 2014 @ 9:32 am

    Better don’t get close to her, she could eat you if you don’t make that sandwich.

  14. ajpwriter
    April 14th, 2014 @ 9:35 am

    Stacy, I get why you’re drawing the spotlight on this carnie slapfight, but might I remind you of Nietzsche’s line about staring into the abyss?

    This whole conflict is the place where reason goes to die.

  15. Frankly Bored
    April 14th, 2014 @ 10:47 am

    At what point in this race to Hell does someone simply yell: “Infinity! I win!”? But then I suppose the infinitely plastic sexualists would start a war between those who are simultaneously all possible sexualities and those (posers) who (think they) are sequentially expressive of all possible sexualities… Imagine the tangle of micro-aggressions and phobias! Many Shuvs and Zuuls will know what it is to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

  16. Jerry Beckett
    April 14th, 2014 @ 12:19 pm

    I like my women like I like my coffee: ground up and stuffed in the refrigerator.

  17. Dreaming the Unpossible Dream | Rotten Chestnuts
    April 14th, 2014 @ 12:23 pm

    […] then hie yourself on over to The Other McCain and let him enlighten you.  (Seriously, the dude’s like a pit bull.  Once he’s got it in his jaws, he […]

  18. robertstacymccain
    April 14th, 2014 @ 12:57 pm

    Yes, I know. But if we are near an abyss — if the abyss seems to be growing like one of those Florida sinkholes — the situation requires that someone warn us of our proximity to the impending catastrophe. Having taken notice of the feminist abyss, I keep returning to inspect it and report back what new horrors I’ve seen. Beware!

  19. Conservatronic
    April 14th, 2014 @ 3:06 pm

    I can’t be the only one who thinks that Charlie Hale looks like a young Geddy Lee.

  20. @SharylAttkisson: Now She Tells Us? | Regular Right Guy
    April 14th, 2014 @ 7:22 pm

    […] RadFems vs. Trannies: Will Feminists Let ‘Gender Queers’ Boss Them Around? […]

  21. Sex Roles: ‘Me Tarzan, You Jane’ : The Other McCain
    April 14th, 2014 @ 9:29 pm

    […] which in hindsight we can see as a logical result of feminist ideology and rhetoric. Likewise the controversy between radical feminists and transgender activists was little expected by adherents of either cause. The reason most people — including many of […]

  22. Frankly Bored
    April 15th, 2014 @ 8:29 am

    Adjoran – Your 1. should probably end with: “Would you like a nice stick of butter to gnaw on while you wait?” just to be polite.

  23. Getaway Thursday Wrap-Up | Countenance Blog
    April 17th, 2014 @ 9:32 am

    […] And let’s send you to your long Easter weekend with this.  LGBTQMIAPDLOLPLPLTH have really outdone themselves this […]

  24. the Revision Division
    April 18th, 2014 @ 6:00 am

    […] THE WAR RAGES ON: RadFems vs. Trannies: Will Feminists Let ‘Gender Queers’ Boss Them Around? […]

  25. FMJRA 2.0: Shout : The Other McCain
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:38 pm

    […] RadFems vs. Trannies: Will Feminists Let ‘Gender Queers’ Boss Them Around? […]