This week in Trannyism

Feels good to write “Tranny” in the title. It`s a word I was frightened to use for years , on account of the death and rape threats that come your way as a woman daring to write online. But we need to use this word as much as possible. Do away with “transwoman”–which comes across as a legit word, simply because it incorporates the word woman–and go back to tranny

“Tranny”conjures up pervy old men in darkened bedrooms, trying on their wives’ underwear. Or their daughters’. (Bruce Jenner, for example, freely admitted he used to try on his daughters clothes. What a violation . Ugh.)

Teenage kids are rightly afraid of the creepiness associated with “trannyness”. I remember local backstreet kids in my area sniggering (in fear and anxiety) as they walked past the local tranny’s house. He inspired anxiety and fear because (I’m guessing, looking back) that he exuded the signs of being unstable.  Kids can pick up on that shit. And what is more dangerous than an unstable man?

I found a video today that at least made me smile. In it,  a white guy ridicules the trans “movement”.  It’s hard not to feel relief, as a radfem, when you come across a Nigel whose views align with your own. Relief, because you know men are listened to and taken seriously. If this Nigel is mocking “StephonKnee” and is horrified that this particular tranny is playing with an 8 year old girl and calling it “play therapy” then maybe the world has regained some sanity, we might believe.

But his motives are unclear. It’s hard to tell, but it seems that he’s just doing it for the bantz. Which is insulting, because this shit is serious– for women, at least. Or he’s a right wing conservative? At any rate, I still recommend a listen. It lowered my blood pressure somewhat to see StephonKnee get viciously ridiculed. (Though, nobody does it better than Peachyoghurt)


In other news, I very much enjoyed listening Rebecca Reilly-Cooper in a podcast entitled Interview on Gender Identity with ABC Radio in Australia on their Philosopher’s Zone programme. Although she said she doesn’t necessarily identify as a radfem ( but maybe she said that to curb some of the hate),  I agreed with almost everything she said, and she raised a few issues that might even be slightly divisive in radical feminism.

Although I loved Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender, and it’s really important to acknowledge that there have been no proven differences between male and female brains so far, I do believe the jury is still out as to whether there are actually NO differences at all.

This puts feminists in a bind. If there are  innate differences, then that can of course be used to justify female oppression. So it makes sense that we would naturally want to shy away from the notion that “brain sex” exists. But do we really believe that socialization is what actually creates the monsters that have created and continue to so violently maintain patriarchy? I rather think that what we see in men today is simply what they are. But I think it’s fair to say that females are socialized to cope and survive- that women’s behaviour would appear vastly different outside of patriarchy.

But men’s? Is it not more likely that their drive to kill, their drive to destroy, their necrophilia, their all-consuming womb envy, is biologically innate?

Reilly-Cooper tackles this question well and has given the most satisfactory response I have ever come across on this issue.

Interviewer: That is, unless you accept the metaphysics, that might say there is such a thing as a female brain or a female soul and visa versa in males…a male brain and a male soul

Reilly- Cooper: Right, so that’s one possibility. One possibility for the notion of gender.. or two possibilities, for the notion of gender identity, as we might think there is such a thing as male and female brains, or we might think that people have male and female souls– or masculine and feminine souls.

With respect to that latter claim, the claim about souls, I can’t engage with that on an analytic level. Right? You either believe that or you don’t. It seems to me that’s an unfalsifiable religious belief [exacerbated sigh] and so if you believe yourself to have a masculine soul, or a feminine soul, I respect your right to conceive of yourself in those terms, but I also think I have the right not to conceive of myself in those terms, or of you in those terms, and I certainly don’t think that our legal definitions of men and women should make reference to gendered souls.

With respect to the question of whether there are such things as male and female brains, there’s been a very longstanding effort on the part of people in those disciplines, to try to identify the male brain and the female brain; to try to find the thing in the brain that, for example, makes women caring, more empathetic, more nurturing; and the thing in the male brain that makes men dominant, more assertive, more prone to… better at abstract reasoning, better at… map reading–those kinds of things. As I understand it, that’s far from established science. Right, so that’s still a very contested claim, the claim that there are such things as masculine and feminine brains.

But even if it were true, even if we could find that, as a matter of fact, there are certain aptitudes, dispositions, preferences, skills, that correlate with sex, those would be–just that. They would be correlations… They would be patterns that we could expect to see in the general population. So then the claim would be something like, ‘Female people are, on average, more likely to be more empathetic than male people; and male people are, on average, more likely to be systematizing in their thoughts than female people’. It wouldn’t follow from that, that every time you find an empathetic brain, you therefore found a female brain, or every time you find a systematizing brain, you therefore found a male brain.

We should expect to see those traits and dispositions distributed across the group. So these things would just be patterns. And so, we should expect to see individuals falling at all points on the bell curve, plotting the distribution of those aptitudes, dispositions and skills, for that sex group.

So the fact that I have found, you know, an empathizing person, doesn’t mean I should classify that empathizing person as female. Rather, it’s entirely possible to say: ‘this shows that male people can be empathetic too’. So claims about gendered brains, I think, not only is the science still contested in that area, not only is the science not established in that area, but also the claim that gender identity refers to gendered brains or sexed brains, I think, is to make a category error. For example, it’s to say that every time I find an empathetic person, that person must be female, rather than to acknowledge that a whole range of dispositions and abilities and aptitudes can be found in all sorts of different bodies.



I loved listening to her, and I intend to look at her work more closely.

Before I sign off, here’s Peachyoghurt 🙂


Of interest to radfems: Audley Harrison accused of offensive language for not wanting to share a bath with “Kellie”

18:18 Boxer Audley Harrison has noticed that Frank “Kellie” Maloney is still a man, and mentions that he feels uncomfortable with the thought of sharing a bath with him.

32:00 , Audley attempts to apologize to Kellie for his transgression.

Note the power difference between the two. Frank Maloney is a white boxing promoter; Audley Harrison is a black boxer who depends on men like Frank Maloney for his fights. Frank still holds a lot of power in the boxing world and if he takes a dislike to Audley, this could negatively affect his career.

40:25 This is deemed offensive language by Big Brother and Audley is duly berated by the condescending narrator for his thought crime. He is told he has been discriminatory. Audley Harrisson has no idea what he`s just done and doesn`t realize how not wanting to share a bath with another man could possibly be construed as offensive.

You certainly have to consider whether Harrison might be homophobic, but there is something invasive about transgenderism, something “spooky” as Mary Daly would say, because transpeople are asking people to SUSPEND BELIEF.

By painting on womanface transwomen suddenly expect bodily contact with others that they wouldn’t ordinarily get without coming across as complete creeps: hugs, squeezes on the knee, kisses on the cheek, toes in the bath. They’re the ultimate Dionysian boundary-pushers*. They refuse to acknowledge the bodily integrity of others. They spook.

Predictably, none of the women who are now sharing their living space with Kellie Maloney have dared mention anything.

Presenter Emma Willis constantly ass-kisses the trans lobby with talk of being very concerned about the hormonal changes that Kellie is going through and all the presenters are making a big point of using the pronoun “she”. Everybody is cringe-worthily pro-Kellie. Only one female actress, Nadia Sawalha, dared to go a little further by saying she doesn`t like him on account of the fact he`s a sulker. She also said that Kellie was never a very nice person when he was Frank, so there`s no reason for us to believe he`s a nice person now just because he`s Kellie.

Anyway, in the clip below, Audley is still trying to make it up to Kellie. You can sense the desperation in his voice. Then suddenly Kellie comes out with the very words that he was dreading, the old, “I can`t work with you “, thus, demonstrating the institutional and economic power that transwomen possess. Transwomen never lose their male status, and are always ready and willing to pull out this card from the deck whenever the need is called for.

I actually feel sorry for Audley Harrison. The power differences couldn`t be clearer. This is felt so strongly by him that he accidentally says “let`s talk man to man”, still unable to fathom that he is supposed to PRETEND that he`s talking to a woman. He instantly corrects himself, by saying “man to woman.”

I find Audley Harrison to be a fairly soft-spoken man and although I`m not usually given to caring about men you have to feel for him here in the video below as he tries to navigate the mind fuck that may have just cost him his career. 1 minute in.


The madness which is the Dionysian Final Solution for women is confusion—inability to distinguish the female Self and her process from the male-made masquerade. Dionysus sometimes assumed a girl-like form.  The phenomenon of the drag queen dramatically demonstrates such boundary vio­lation. Like whites playing “black face,” he incorporates the oppressed role without being incorporated in it. In the phe­nomenon of transsexualism, the incorporation/confusion is deeper. As ethicist Janice Raymond has pointed out, the majority of transsexuals are “male to female,” while transsexed females basically function as tokens, and are used by the rulers of the transsexual empire to hide the real nature of the game.`’ In transsexualism, males put on “female” bodies (which are in fact pseudofemale). In a real sense they are separated from their original mothers by the rituals of the counseling process, which usually result in “discovering” that the mother of the transsexual-to-be is at fault for his “gender identity crisis.” ss These “patients” are reborn from males. As Linda Barufaldi suggested, this fact was symbolized in the renaming of the renowned transsexual of tennis, Renee (literally, “re-born”) Richards, whose original first name was Richard.”b The re-birthing male supermothers include psychiatrists, surgeons, hormone therapists, and other cooperating professionals. The surgeons and hormone therapists of the transsexual kingdom, in their effort to give birth, can be said to produce feminine persons. They cannot produce women.


– Gyn/Ecology, pp 67 – 68