38

29 comments

[–] real_feminist 19 points Edited

I see we've moved on from hating the suffragettes and calling them racist white feminists to now claiming that they were TRAs.

She is someone whose gender identity was not strictly female, and yet Jack was at the heart of the suffragettes.

I fucking hate this movement. She outright says that Holme was not "strictly female" just because she was a masculine woman. How much more backwards and regressive can you get? And she thinks of herself as a feminist, throwing women like me and like Holme out of the category of womanhood because we don't fit her stupid gender stereotypes. She has no right. Masculine women are women! Maybe that needs to be the new fucking catchphrase because TRAs sure seem to have forgotten that being a woman doesn't depend on your haircut or clothes.

Ah, those silly suffragettes, did no one tell them they could've simply gotten the vote if they had identified as men?

Seriously though, why do some women hate lesbians, especially butch lesbians, so much? Are they jealous that we have no interest in seeking validation from men?

A "queer" historian who hates lesbians.

I don't know why I'm surprised. It says how little about history she truly knows that she thinks women across the world have been prevented from being seen as human beings because of this magical gender identity.

[–] crodish [OP] 18 points Edited

Here it is. The stupidest fucking take on the GC movement and radical feminism ever.

https://archive.ph/yBH3I

The last time I tweeted about how the anti trans movement had co-opted the colours of the suffragettes, and how angry that made me as a suffragette historian, it led to one of the most vicious and hateful GC pile on’s I’ve ever experienced on here.

Well, I was fucking right.

So how would the suffragettes have felt about the GCs? I’m sure they believe they would have been welcomed with open arms. I disagree. And here’s why: While the suffragettes were bombing MP’s houses for the vote, in Berlin, Karl M Baer was fighting to have his birth certificate altered from female, to male. His autobiography, Memoirs of A Man’s Maiden Years, was published in 1907 and was a raging success. Gender identity, especially what it means to be a woman, was one of the hottest topics of the day, and the language we use to talk about queer women was emerging out of the intense and revolutionary culture of Harlem, and being exported/co-opted to/by Europe. This is where we get the terms ‘bull-d¥ke’ and ‘f@gg0t’ from, in their queer definitions.

Censored for Ovarit, was not censored in the original tweets.

So while the suffragettes were blowing up train carriages, churches and MP’s houses, the very idea and question of what it meant to be a woman or inhabit womanhood was one everyone was very aware of.

So how does that show up amongst the Suffragettes themselves? Well the research into queer suffragettes is still growing, because we haven’t allowed LGBTQ+ history to be acknowledged for decades. But we know a number of the most high profile women in the organisation were queer.

This is Vera ‘Jack’ or ‘Jacko’ Holme. She was the Pankhurst family’s driver, and well known for adopting masculine dress and mannerisms.

Born in Lancashire in 1881, she became an actor, and as a suffragette was a member of the Young Hot Bloods, the bombing wing of the WSPU, alongside Kitty Marion (you can read about Kitty and the suffragette bombers in my book, death in ten minutes).

Book plug number one.

Her papers are held in the Women’s Library in London, she served in Russia during WW1 and we know she had multiple sexual affairs with women. She is someone whose gender identity was not strictly female, and yet Jack was at the heart of the suffragettes.

So for this, and many other reasons, watching GCs and anti trans women steal the colours of the suffragettes and claim this is their legacy, looks both fucking grotesque and pig ignorant.

The suffragettes fought for all those who understood the pain and suffering that goes alongside the identity of ‘woman’, and wanted to tear down the concept of patriarchy itself. They welcomed any and everyone who shared those aims, no questions asked.

If you want to know more about LGBTQ+ history, especially trans history, lesbian history and gay history or where we got the term ‘dyke’ from, the paperback for S%&: Lessons From History is out now and only £8.99.

Book plug number 2. She also censored the word "sex" here. "SEX" HAD TO BE CENSORED, BUT SAYING "F@GG0T" WAS FINE. WTF

Fuck this bigoted, anti feminist, anti trans, anti sex BULLSHIT.

No, fuck THIS "queering" of history and the suffragettes! Jesus christ. Those poor women must be rolling in their graves at the state of things today...

How can you "tear down the patriarchy" when you can't even define what the patriarchy is?! And I fucking wonder why a woman couldn't be recognized as a man in a time where women weren't allowed to vote solely because they were women!!

[–] arete 15 points Edited

"well known for adopting masculine dress and mannerisms" UGH this is so ridiculous! You can adopt a certain style of dress, yes, but how does a woman "adopt" male mannerisms? Women who don't behave in a "ladylike" way aren't just impersonating men! How hard is it for these self-proclaimed progressives to understand that women aren't naturally demure and many of us would like to be regarded as human beings?

This is so fucking funny, she couldn't even rustle up a cock in a frock to prove that feminism was always inclusive of genderdicks and that genderdicks were at the frontlines of our fights and that genderdicks were totally valid and the suffragettes all fellated them on the daily! And why is that? Because when women didn't have human rights, there were no genderdicks. There were only butches, and now this Supreme Misogynist goes ahead and writes them out of female history to ... pander to cock.

Hear hear. The point about Karl Baer (unrelated) annoyed me so much that I went and looked it up. He was intersex, a male with ambiguous genitalia that had been raised as a woman. So, yet again, coopting intersex people to justify their nebulous gender identity.

Hmm. Maybe it's just me, but using a gender-nonconforming woman - TIF or not - in her argument about how tRaNs Is VaLiD in this particular context is not the gotcha she thinks it is. Evidently, "gender identity" aside, Vera Holme knew she was female and that she was oppressed due to being female. Otherwise, why should she have been a member of the suffragettes in the first place?

And this is coming from a historian with a PhD? Wow.

using a gender-nonconforming woman - TIF or not - in her argument about how tRaNs Is VaLiD in this particular context is not the gotcha she thinks it is.

Holme wasn't even trans-identified! She did not disguise herself as a man or claim to be a man, unlike some other women who are posthumously transitioned by TRAs. She was a woman who never pretended not to be. She was just a masculine lesbian. That's what makes her ineligible for womanhood in Riddell's eyes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Holme

Fucking egregious to act like this woman was not a woman, when she clearly knew she was and dedicated her life to women's causes. She also died in 1969, long after transsexuals became known to the public. If she had wanted to disavow womanhood during her lifetime, she would have done so. Riddell has no right to speak for the dead and declare these deceased lesbians to be non-women based on her own regressive stereotypes.

[–] immersang 1 points Edited

Holme wasn't even trans-identified!

Oh yeah, I get that. I probably should have put that differently. What I meant was: Even if she had been, it would not be a great argument.

Welcome to Our world. This is the type of revisionist history the LGB has been going through for over a decade. It was hidden in books. But it started out by being vocalized on public.

Believe me, what she saying will show up in a history book one day if it's not challenged. UK Academics and Feminist need to shut this down immediately.

It feels like it's too late. They're putting this shit in books for kids of all ages.

The Civil War of Amos Abernathy by Michael Leali

Were I Not a Girl: The Inspiring and True Story of Dr. James Barry by Lisa Robinson

The Fighting Infantryman: The Story of Albert D. J. Cashier, Transgender Civil War Soldier by Rob Sanders

Three children's books posthumously declaring James Barry and Jennie Hodgers to be trans men.

Yes this has all happened.

But the issue at hand is the anachronism of saying that the Suffagettes had the same values that modern day Libfem had: They weren't just working specifically for women's rights to vote, but for the rights of all people.

This is common line line of thinking from these self-hating fake feminists and entitled males trying to colonizing feminism and pass orders.

The sufferagettes/feminists always mainly fought for WOMEN'S rights. It doesn't mean they didn't help in other causes when they could. They will often cite a cherry-picked paragraph from the first feminist declaration to justify their ideology and presence of males within the movement.

Everything "woman" and "female" is becoming "universal" because men are trying to reassert dominance and turn back the clock on things we fought for. That's why you'll see male Liberals/Progressives outright talk about abolishing women's spaces, teams, and scholarships. It burns them that there's something they can't have or have control over. All the SJW/Woke Talk doesn't change the fact that they're misogynists that want to dominate women and give men back what they think we stole.

[–] Aparallaxia 15 points Edited

'The suffragettes fought for the vote for all women! Including the ones who are men!'

This is so bigoted and so drenched in gender stereotypes. A lesbian dresses like a man, behaves like a man, so she must be a man, not a woman who likes women but doesn't like the typical female behaviour of the day. And a male tried to turn himself into a woman (a transsexual, BTW) and immediately the whole women's movement of the late 19th/early 20th c. must be made to revolve arounds him because he's a man.

Women could not identify out of oppression then and we can't do it now. It's these men, and the women who support them, who want to perpetuate the very gender stereotypes those women fought to dismantle and foist them on us too. I just can't deal with this level of self-delusion.

The fuck? No? How did the suffragettes know who they representing (and they certainly seem to) if they weren't biologists thought a woman was... whoever identified as one?

Imagine if you could go back in time and ask a group of suffragettes if they know that some women have penises. They wouldn't have clue what you were talking about and you'd probably get locked in an asylum.

Load more (4 comments)