32

14 comments

So, was he a suffragist? If not, my always talked point remais the same: where were the suffragist TIMs?

He was definitely not a suffragist. He never mentions the suffrage or women's rights movement in the first book. In the second book he briefly mentions voting only to say that he is dismayed that he is expected to vote while being seen as a man.

But how could I push my way into the crowd of rough men always hanging (at that period) around the polling places?

The narcissism in that quote in underscored by the images of women who were beaten by police, arrested, force fed and otherwise assaulted in that same time period trying to gain the right that he is complaining about. He seemed to have a humiliation fetish which required women to have a secondary status. And he is very clear in his writing that he is not the "invert" in the sense of a gay man. He writes that he wants to be legally recognized as female and wrote "Could it be that I was a girl imprisoned in the body of a boy?" emphasis his.

His wanting to be female in the time period of the early women's rights and suffrage movement does not mean he should be read as supporting it any more than the men demanding to be seen as female now should be assumed to support women's rights today. Someone looking back a hundred years from now would make a mistake to assume men claiming a female legal status were supportive of reproductive freedom and women's liberation. The contrast of their selfish demands and dismissal of sex based rights only highlights that, as it does for the men from a hundred years ago.

Yea. I thought so. These men COULDN’T afford having women as equals. There are no suffragist TIMs