[–] madderthanhell 30 points (+30|-0) Edited

Brilliant. This line stands out:

The “transsexual empire” is thus a Trojan horse in the battle between the sexes, helping men to seduce unsuspecting women, or women who ought to know better, to join forces with their oppressors.

[–] goneharolding 22 points (+22|-0)

That, and half a dozen other flawless quotes. It’s a little spooky to see our exact arguments in such a familiar yet distant context. Not to mention how aggravating to think TRAs were clocked so accurately 40 years ago... Did no one listen??

[–] moxelan 11 points (+11|-0)

from what I understand, speaking against queer theory and transgenderism (in academia) has been frowned upon for decades. I imagine no one really expected it to crash into the mainstream like it has, as no one really predicted just how much social media would arrest so many peoples lives. I don't think TRAism would have caught on so much without it.

[–] hmimperialtortie 10 points (+10|-0)

No one in a position to do anything about it.

[–] goneharolding 12 points (+12|-0)

Maybe not at the time, but if they had started organizing then (like some others we know) we would be living in a very different world. It strikes me how most of us felt blindsided by Trans Rights and antifeminism, but this was all already understood so long ago. I read a snippet of an article about how San Francisco lesbians faced this stuff back then, Dr Em has a whole series about it which I definitely haven't had time to read, sadly. What I really want to know is how the resistance was subverted back then. Why did their campaign endure and ours didn't? Seems to me there's bound to be some valuable lessons there.

[–] drdee 22 points (+22|-0)

This book really opened my eyes to how much women's history we've forgotten:


Somewhere in the book Spender writes about how men's history is directional while women's history is cyclical--every couple of generations we have to 'rediscover' important women and their work; for some reason women's history and women's accomplishments just never 'stick'. This is a really sobering example of that. So the wider question for me is how do we stop this cycle, and stop forgetting everything women say and do every few generations?

[+] [Deleted] 13 points (+13|-0)
[–] emptiedriver 7 points (+7|-0)

It seems like it is such a small number of people who write history - who really care, who have the money, who invest time and effort to make sure people are remembered for what they do. And that's often why someone becomes part of the storyline. Sometimes it happens spontaneously but so often after someone dies, their work is remembered by their fans or students, but then those people move on to new things, or just die themselves, and if they haven't spread knowledge and excitement about the person's accomplishments then it will just wither away - even someone fairly popular can be forgotten soon enough.

In some circles there are prizes and memorials for people, grants, conferences, buildings and special days to celebrate, that make it more likely that they are kept in memory. Quoting, dedicating, referring to those who came before, revering what was produced and pointing it out regularly, is important to making someone part of history... men may be more involved in the public sphere, talking more consistently about their mentors and influencers, more likely to spend the end of their life dedicating new trusts and fellowships rather than playing with the grandchildren, starting charities and funds to "secure a legacy". It can work, and it can affect who else is remembered since the people they talk about are automatically part of that group.

"History" isn't one absolute line, it's just the endless memories people repeat and record about what happened, so what gets told the most and the most loudly is most likely to be heard.

[–] hmimperialtortie 20 points (+20|-0)

That is an amazing review.

What gets me is how the bizarre, extreme ideas posed for comparison - men wanting their hands cut off, or claiming to be decades younger than they are - has become standard fare in the trans movement.

I don’t think it’s a mental illness. It’s a perversion - obscene male supremacy, as he says - riding on the back of narcissism and assorted paraphilias.

[–] [Deleted] 7 points (+7|-0)

I don’t think it’s a mental illness. It’s a perversion - obscene male supremacy, as he says - riding on the back of narcissism and assorted paraphilias.

Ding ding ding, you hit the nail on the head.

[–] eris 6 points (+6|-0)

I understand what you mean, but paraphilias are categorised as mental illnesses. And, honestly, I don't think a mentally healthy person could be trans (regardless of how it's defined).

Good point. I side-eye the mental illness bit because it’s so often used as a get-out.

[–] dalyandot 6 points (+6|-0)

Fascinating article and comments. Makes me realise what an uphill battle we have The patriarchy will fight back. It's going to be a long struggle.

[–] yesisaiditxx 6 points (+6|-0)

IN the old days, when I was a medical student, if a man wanted to have his penis amputated, my psychology professors said that he suffered from schizophrenia, locked him up in an asylum and threw away the key.

What an intro <3

[–] nemesis 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

They support the (male) transsexual's claim that he wants to be a woman — when, in fact, what he wants is to be a caricature of the male definition of “femininity.”

The writer hit the nail on the head.