Discussing gender critical & gender identity & @lubelluledotcom

A Facebook group has banned Julian Vigo for objecting to the participation of Dana Lane Taylor, an extremely abusive man, in the group, which is public.

Hi Everyone, I have joined this group with Bess’s permission and am going to participate for a while to see if there is an actual dialogue to be had. I have been involved in the radfem movement in the past and my name is on the UN document crafted by Elizabeth and Cathy Brennan. I have since grown estranged from them for various reasons. I have a very different viewpoint that most in this group and while I am not optimistic, I am here and will respect the rules of this group. I am not sure how long this will last but I wish greetings and well wishes to you all.

Like ·

  • 12 people like this.
  • Ruth GreenbergWelcome Dana. Different viewpoints are welcomed here. Some days there are a lot of comments though and so the mods don’t always get a chance to read them until later, so if you have an issue with any comments, please pm a mod. Hopefully though that won’t be the case.
  • Anna KeyWelcome Dana. I wonder how different your views actually are to some of us here.I am perhaps in an opposite place to you as I formerly was heavily involved in trans activism in the UK but became disillusioned with the direction activism is taking.Now I want to change the circle of hatred.
  • Louisa EleftheriouI think we all have different views to each other
  • Heart SeesI think it would be very interesting were we all to actually post our views! My hunch is that mine are different than many would imagine, different to those of many here, but similar as well to those of many here who are being as quiet about it as I am.
  • Barbara LinkI wish more people with widely differing views were not being so quiet, aren’t we here to actually “air the laundry” minus the vitriol?(At least that’s my take on “respectful discussion” in our group description.) There are few opportunities to do that so if we do achieve this even for a short time it seems worthwhile to me. With so many in the group there are many voices yet to be heard.
  • Heart SeesOkay, here are my views, what the heck. I’ll go first. My concerns vis a vis transgender issues right now are mostly around the issue of women-only spaces. I am politically and philosophically opposed to surgically modifying human bodies and to unnecessary surgical/medical interventions, just in general, beginning with circumcision of male infants, including surgical interventions in childbirth, unnecessary c-sections, patriarchal control/management of pregnancy, labor and birthing, cosmetic surgeries, etc.. These were issues that were of great concern to us as hippies and second wavers going way back, this propensity the medical establishment had for cutting people up randomly. For me, transgender issues have fit into this larger framework as another unnecessary intervention that supports, establishes and reifies male supremacist control over human bodies and human sexuality. Having said all that, I think we’ve lost this particular battle. There’s no turning back now, transgender is here to stay. If anybody really thinks we’re going to convince the medical establishment to stop transitioning folks, get anyone to remove the categories from the DSM-5, talk people out of surgeries based on our theories and ideas about gender, I just think they areout of touch or want to argue for the sake of arguing without hope of actually changing anything. I don’t think, for the most part, that the vast majority of Americans, no matter their politics, care about any of these medical interventions, so no matter how much educating we try to do, I don’t think it’s got a prayer of changing things. Here’s where I may or may not be different to many here– I think if someone is a woman, lives as a woman, quietly goes about her business living her life as a woman like the rest of us do, then she ought to be a woman and that’s the end of it. As others have said, transwomen have always been at Michfest, many have gone under the radar and nobody knew they were transwomen. Honestly, making sure these women can’t go to Michfest or woman-only events is not a hill I care to die on. One reason for this is, there really are some transwomen who “feel” like women to me. I can’t explain this, they just do. This is not a function of whether or not they’ve had surgeries either. It would feel totally wrong to me to call these women men because that’s not the way I perceive them. Others, including transwomen who pass well, “feel” like men to me. It’s hard for me to think of them as women. My preference has always been that when it comes to women only spaces, women, ourselves, female born persons, should make the decisions as to who is a member of our community; who constitutes the membership of our female-only communities should be a matter of consensus, as female persons, that we’ve reached together in other words. Some insights and direction can be found by looking into the way indigenous people decide who belongs to their communities. I think the internet has been a terrible place for debate around transgender issues. A large number of the people on all sides in my experience going back to 2000, 2001 online now, seem to have mental health issues, for one thing. There are a preposterously large number of internet personalities who identify as women or transwomen who virtually never live as women in real life. They are nearly 100 percent avatar. Their contributions to and hijacking of online discussion and their behaviors in real life and online have been disastrous for all women, for radical feminism and for transgender activism and politics, in my opinion. I think that so long as consensus eludes a women’s community, those opposed to inclusion of transwomen in the community should have their views respected and honored, and everyone should keep talking until consensus is reached, no matter how long that may take. I am fine with transmen in women-only spaces because they were born female, lived their lives as girls and women and so they share my reality despite having transitioned. I also like to keep the door open to them in case they change their minds. But again, I would bow to the consensus of all of the women in any woman-only space and would again hope we would all keep talking. What has always, always been missing in my observation and experience is respect for female born persons, for our sensibilities. I think if we began to be respected, the whole dialog around transgender and gender just in general might be very different.
  • Anna KeyHeart Sees, there is so much I could respond to. I agree with you about the online position. It was well known that some trans women were never ‘living as female’ but just changing into clothes at the clinics so they could get hormones. I came across one person who decided they were female as a result of Second Life. I also believe that the number of mental co-morbidities is far too high. That is not about denying a right to treatment, but suggesting that greater resources need to be used to addressing the problem.The pressure is being applied not to keep transgender conditions in DSM, but to remove them totally, so that they are not pathologised. The idea being that treatment should be based on the statement that a person is trans.I am also opposed to most surgery as you describe, but it is difficult to fully explain why I had to undergo surgery. In terms of trans surgery, if people are fully informed, then I understand the need, but I am concerned that not everyone is fully informed.
  • Julian VigoDana, I wish I could believe your good will here but after your having posted a defamatory article about me on several sites around the Internet and your having also harassed me repeatedly on Twitter, I have a hard time believing anything you write here. Your actions were dishonest, not at all based on facts, and most of all, they were unkind. You seem to have a history in participating in the abuse of women online as per discussions I have had with other women. As a result I am deeply suspicious as to why you are here or why you were even invited.
    9 hrs · Edited · Like · 7
  • Anna KeyJulian, I appreciate thati what happens elsewhere may colour judgements and I must admit that I have not seen what you refer to so have no comment on that as your view may well be justified.But to try and progress discussions here can we avoid personal attacks, particularly about things that have not happened here.
    8 hrs · Like · 2
  • Julian VigoThis is not a personal attack, Anna. To the contrary, I am responding to what has been a series of personal attacks on myself and my family. This is valid, especially when moderators are inviting such persons to this group. I find it antagonistic at best that such people are invited by moderators and it is dishonest to add such people to this group whilst asking those of us attacked by them to shut up. I will not.Here is one of the places Dana has posted her vitriol (and there are many more):http://danalanetaylor.com/…/jancie-raymond-and-cathy…/


    Dana Taylor also trolled me on Twitter last year after my CounterPunch publications which contributed to the mounting threats of death and rape made to the lives of my editor, his daughter, my daughter and myself. This is not a small matter and I will not back down here. You and the other moderators ought to know better than to add such people to this group. I am left only to believe that this is a shameless attempt to add vitriol and discomfort to those of us on here who are earnestly here in peaceful dialogue.

    7 hrs · Like · 10
  • Anna KeyNo problem Julian it is just that it is about things outside the group so no need to bring them into this group unless you want to have a thread about Internet threats. But this that is purely a ‘welcome’ thread
    7 hrs · Like · 1
  • Julian VigoAnna, one of the mods has invited a transwoman here who is responsible for the harassment of women (and publishers). Sorry, but a separate thread is just not necessary. I have seen all sorts of nonsense written by this person and so when I some rather fake salutary announcements here, on a site dedicated to peaceful discussion, by someone who has aggressed me (and apparently who is continuing to do so) with defamatory comments, this is every bit related to the original thread–that of Dana Taylor’s presence in this group. It is disingenuous to presume that we must remain silent when someone who attacks women comes on here espousing ‘dialogue’ but in reality engaging in everything but. This is the perfect thread to engage in what Dana purports in her OP (ie. about ‘dialogue’).As a side note: were I to mention that I had read Dana’s ‘wonderful’ articles elsewhere published and welcomed here here, you simply would not be coming here to tell me I am off topic. You are merely trying to erase any negative commentary about this person. You are free to write your reactions to her being here, and I believe you have. Please allow all of us the same freedom.
    7 hrs · Like · 10
  • Jasmine Curcioi don’t think anyone involved in harassment should be present, under basic notion of safe spaces… isn’t there a policy on this?
    7 hrs · Like · 9
  • Jasmine Curcioif not, shouldn’t there be one? what took place sounds quite grave. while i understand the need for dialogue, i don’t think that anyone bringing up harassment should be accused of airing dirty laundry?
    7 hrs · Like · 5
  • Louisa EleftheriouThis isn’t a safe space Jasmine, it’s been said more than once!
    7 hrs · Like · 1
  • Anna KeyThis is an open group so everything is visible to anyone on fb. I am not sure what the allegation to this not being a safe grotto means.The policy is to exclude anyone for that behaviour if it happens HERE.Is censorship what people really want?
    7 hrs · Like · 5
  • Louisa EleftheriouThe fact the group is open prevents it from ever being a safe space. Anyone can come in and say what they like, everything said is public. It isn’t the place to allow yourself to be vulnerable.
    6 hrs · Like · 4
  • Julian VigoI would say that the definition of censorship is a fascinating concept given that Dana recently claims that I am trying to censor her article in recent republications which state that I have taken lawyers to have her article removed. It is all so fascinating to someone like me, a person who is incredibly busy with a professional life and family as to how a lawyer has come to volunteer his/her services under my name, without my having solicited, consented to, or paid for these services. Yet, Dana claims to have been contacted by said lawyer. I would love to see proof of this! Also the list of factual inaccuracies from my being a feminist to my being responsible for someone’s suicide attempt is a form of violence that cannot be understated.So aside from fictional attempts to locate censorship elsewhere, I would say that the third clause of the rules of this group HERE which pertains to discussing violence from outside this group indeed allows for such discussion (“We may discuss violence that has happened outside this group…”). The violence that has been done to me by virtue of Dana’s defamatory articles published ad nauseum throughout the Internet and her inculcating others to troll me on Twitter would therefore pertain to this third clause; as such I invoke my right to discuss this person’s violence to my person outside this group. Do people want censorship? Uh, I would say that what many of us would appreciate is that members who are accepted into this group do not have a long history of trolling and harassing women and their families. The repercussions are devastating and I am shocked that in such a forum where there is ostensibly care used in allowing members into this group whose presence will not prove to be noxious, that this person was not only allowed in, but invited.
    6 hrs · Like · 6
  • Anna KeyJulian, I do not know what pain you have encountered from Dana, but I do empathise. I do know that she had been pretty destructive in many places.But then the same could be said of me and in the trans world I have been threatened for challenging the party line.So when I came here I had every expectation of dialogue that had a CONSTRUCTIVE purpose. If I want to wind up trans women i can do it a damn sight better and easier than you! Instead I just want to see respectful dialogue here. If anyone here gets out of order (particular with your warnings) then they will be removed. If they haven’t done anything wrong here yet then I struggle to see why they can be excluded.If we want to just have slanging matches over who is nastiest then you know full well the title goes to trans womenPerhaps you are right and Danas presence will be toxic but at the moment any problems in this group are not directly attributable to her.

    there really is nothing more to say other than that if such an attack happens here then the perpetrator will be removed.

    4 hrs · Like · 1
  • Louise Leottai find the original post patronising _
    “and am going to participate for a while to see if there is an actual dialogue to be had”
    see if there is an actual dialogue to be had?
    like ? there has been a dialogue for how long , a year yet? if trans women would stop being triggered by the personal is the political that the rad fem participates in this group subscribe to there would be much more dialogue. basically if you feel gender, and you dont have a description of what woman is without resorting to stereotypes or reducing the definition of female to meaninglessness, then i can tell you, i highly doubt that there will be any “actual dialogue to be had”
    4 hrs · Like · 7
  • Anna KeyI’d love to know what it is to’feel gender’ Louise, but I’ve no idea
  • Louise Leotta^ me to Anna,me too, i certainly know what it is like to perform gender.
    4 hrs · Like · 3
  • Eliza Jane ManoffI have all kinds of things I could say about my feelings about Dana, but I’ve been keeping them to myself in the spirit of compromise.
    4 hrs · Like · 3
  • Ruth GreenbergAs a mod, I agree with Anna’s comments. The reality is many of us have been involved in virtual yelling and other behaviour that is not conducive to building bridges. This group is a place to try and do things differently. And that includes offering a space for people to behave differently to how they may have in the future. If they don’t, then they will be thrown out.
    4 hrs · Edited · Like · 3
  • Eliza Jane ManoffYeah. If Dana Taylor is here to talk and move forward, let’s do that.
    4 hrs · Like · 1
  • Dana TaylorI am just waking up and having a bad head day due to thinking my brother was going to die last night. I am going to make one post for now to address one of Julian Vigo‘s comments.
  • Dana TaylorI have to admit that the article you posted as my vitriol was a link to a post where a coordinated attack against me via my employer ended up causing me PTSD. The same article that had evidence of being diagnosed as having PTSD. The article I wrote on Transadvocate was highlighting some of the abuse and comments I received for simply claiming to have PTSD. I was forced, a PTSD victim, to post evidence. I am still attacked on this often.
  • Anna KeyI was taught pretty well how to perform gender and I hate it but economically am forced to comply. I asked what Transwomen meant when they said they feel l like a woman on trans forums and sure enough, the description seemed to be what i consider gender performance.I’d so love to get more trans women moving past the ‘ trans women are women’ rhetoric so we can actually deal with the real issue. The problem is that the need for validation is too strong and it is a false validation.
    4 hrs · Like · 3
  • Eliza Jane ManoffAnna Key, have I told you lately how much I like you?
    4 hrs · Like · 2
  • Dana TaylorI would like to respectfully ask that if you want to discuss “what is gender” to create a new thread. This was simply my introduction to the group and I welcome comments of those who are either glad or not glad to see me here.
    4 hrs · Like · 1
  • Eliza Jane ManoffBut “what is gender” is the whole point of this group. Unless there’s specifically something you wanted to say to everyone?
    4 hrs · Like · 7
  • River GreenNeed for validation will always be there when gender is, because gender is a system based on external validation, its always the opinion of others. Women and men of all stripes end up needing validation based on gender, thats because the social definitions of woman and man are not based on biological sex. If they were then there would be no need to prove or disproves ones manhood or womanhood it would mean nothing more then a physical trait and not a predictor of personality or behaviour.Males are validated via masculinity and the need to be validated is to prove masculinity and not maleness, as maleness is a fact that does not need validating.The validation is the inner asking if one if preforming the script correctly, and enough to be considered a valid member of their sex and have a place in society.
    3 hrs · Like · 6
  • River GreenIn a sense asking someone to validate gender outside biological sex or even inside it is asking for misogyny. Because to do it one has to hold ideas about what constitutes a man or woman and those ideas have to be not grounded in biology.
    3 hrs · Like · 2
  • Ruth GreenbergAsking others to validate anything about you, is setting yourself up for rejection. If I ask othesr to validate me as a radical feminist, some will agree and some will not. The process of seeking validation, makes rejection inevitable.
    3 hrs · Like · 5
  • Swaneagle HarijanAs one who has had y share of death threats & having witnessed plenty of anonymous rape & death threats directed ALL against women & many towards radical feminists, I wonder how far true dialog can happen if one may be an unrepentant threatener.
    3 hrs · Like · 4
  • River GreenRadical feminism is an opinion though, one thats its possible to be secure in without others input. Gender as identity is asking for validation of something that has been culturally created and inscribed in the opposite sex to suddenly become real and a part of who you are. Its a trick of ones own mind.Also i can understand how easy it is to doubt one is a woman or man, because in reality none of us are. Everyone is working to a mind clogging script, and most don’t become aware of it if they have taken to the one allocated to them. Thats because when one sees every member of their sex preforming it too, it appears natural, until they see someone not doing and they question why. But today we live in a more multicultural society and we can see how different the gender scripts in each culture are. When someone is very far out of their gender script they become aware in a sense the script is the problem but experience it as being the wrong gender, and in many cases once they have built a strong cross sex identity and sense of self it may be impossible to break if its got to the point where no wish to remain the sex they were born remains.Women who are considered “cis” are struggling with the script too, but because its linked to biological sex and their personhood they try harder to preform it, but because its broken up into lots of things (beauty, caring role etc) they don’t know they are maintaining any kind of gender based identity or question it.
  • Dana TaylorJulian Vigo if what you say is true about you not hiring the lawyer then it sounds to me there is a lawyer who is about to lose their license. They have no right to demand things to be taken down in your name. I will let the Transadvocate know about this so they can investigate this.
  • Dana Taylorriver green can you please take this discussion to a new thread?
  • Eliza Jane ManoffWhat bothers ME is the PTSD thing. Like, OK, Dana, you have PTSD. Guess what? So do a lot of other people here. PTSD sucks. It’s awful. It doesn’t mean you magically get to frame the discussion however you want. This is a public forum.
    3 hrs · Like · 8
  • Eliza Jane ManoffAnd you probably have no idea who I am, so: Hi. My name is Eliza. I am a woman, but for about a year, I identified as a trans man and took testosterone. Then I stopped, for various reasons. I am not one of those “it didn’t work for me, therefore it never works for anyone” people, but I hope that gives you some sense of my history.
    3 hrs · Like · 5
  • Eliza Jane ManoffI’m not a rad fem, either.
  • Ruth GreenbergPTSD is a serious condition, one that a number of people here have. No it doesn’t give anyone a right to frame discussions in a certain way, but it may explain past behaviour.Many of us have yelled at each other in the past. To move forward, we have to give people space to show that they can behave differently.
    3 hrs · Like · 2
  • Ruth GreenbergThat is fine Eliza, this is not a radical feminist group.
    3 hrs · Like · 1
  • Louise Leottai think if you invited dialogue, you gotta engage in the dialogue you get, not demand the voices you don’t like just go away.
    3 hrs · Like · 3
  • Dana TaylorI am not framing the discussion. This post is being derailed by something totally unrelated to my original post.
  • Ruth GreenbergLouise I don’t see Dana doing that
  • Eliza Jane ManoffOK, so this thread is ONLY for Dana to say hi? OK. Hi Dana!
  • Eliza Jane Manoff(Not meant sarcastically.)
  • Dana TaylorONLY in caps. gotcha.
  • Dana TaylorIs it not a reasonable request to ask that this thread not be derailed by a totally unrelated dialogue? I my have to unfollow my own post because I get notified for each comment. Most are totally off topic.
  • Eliza Jane ManoffI’m sorry, Dana, I don’t understand. Are you asking that the Julian Vigo issue not be discussed in this thread, or that only introductions be discussed in this thread?
  • Liz WaterhouseThese threads often meander – that’s how dialogue works. And in a public forum we all just tend to go with that, as long as the thread is meandering in the direction of the group’s purpose. That’s been my experience here anyway.
    3 hrs · Edited · Like · 9
  • Eliza Jane ManoffI can’t tag Dana anymore. Did she leave already??
  • Dana TaylorI am still here
    3 hrs · Like · 1
  • Dana Taylorno, absolutely not. I am glad she made her comments.
  • Eliza Jane ManoffOK, Hi, Dana. Can you explain what you’d like this thread to be about? I’m honestly confused.
  • Dana TaylorI am going to drop out of this conversation for a bit.
  • Eliza Jane ManoffDana, if you can make it clear what the limits of this thread are supposed to be, I can attempt to comply. But if not, then I can’t. How can I?
    3 hrs · Like · 1
  • Eliza Jane ManoffI’m not even a rad fem. I’m a former trans man. I’m an ally, for pete’s sake.
  • Elizabeth HungerfordI second what Liz Waterhouse has said above: these posts meander. Gender is a huuuuuge topic (or millions of topics). If one doesn’t want notifications on posts she has commented on or started, please turn OFF notifications. We cannot control how FB works. Thank you all.
    3 hrs · Like · 8
  • Eliza Jane ManoffE. Hungerford, um, you control the internet, and don’t you forget it.
    3 hrs · Like · 5
  • River GreenIf that were true the internet would be a much better place.
    3 hrs · Like · 3
  • Elizabeth HungerfordI do my BEST to control the internet, but my powers are not yet at full capacity! Still working on that…
    3 hrs · Like · 5
  • Ruth GreenbergSix people have a key to the internet. Maybe Elizabeth is secretly one of them?
    3 hrs · Like · 3
  • Rosier CadeA note:A known instigator comes in to say hello. (Ze was invited to the group – saying hello is perfectly reasonable.) Ze sits back and waits.The topic turns to this person’s direct actions vis a vis other members of this group, including a link to a blog post which centers on those actions. There is intense discussion, but eventually it winds down to a wavery conclusion.The known instigator returns to the thread and drops a single rock into the pond, a comment which has exactly the same tenor as the tactics being discussed as evidenced in zir blog post which was linked upthread. The flywheel of discussion, having spun down, is now ramped up again.As the discussion meanders onto topics which pertain to the group’s purpose but are arenas which the instigator cannot control and which are not centered on the instigator, the instigator begins taking over moderation of the thread, insisting that all eyes be on zir and all talk be on a topic which ze can guide via the patterns of speech and behavior ze has already demonstrated in other venues.

    This instigator, having not explicitly broken any of the rules of the group, is perfectly welcome to continue placing zir tactics on blatant public display. Hopefully the rest of the group will be allowed to call zir out on this behavior as it arises.

    Welcome to the group, Dana!

    2 hrs · Like · 4
  • Liz WaterhouseI’d suggest that starting off your time in a new and slightly fraught group, where you are personally controversial, by being slightly condescending to existing members is not an effective way to conduct dialogue…
    2 hrs · Like · 4
  • Eliza Jane ManoffGuise, if we say anything else at all, Dana will never come back. We have to be very very quiet. Like… like little sparrows. Maybe, sparrow, you should wait… the hawk’s alight till morning.
    2 hrs · Like · 4
  • Ruth GreenbergRosier, mods do keep an eye on new members, and look at how they are engaging. Consistently showing a lack of will to build bridges, will get you thrown out.
    2 hrs · Like · 2
  • Rosier CadeRuth, I promise I wasn’t digging at you guys in that last part. I really have moved on.
    2 hrs · Like · 2
  • Kim BondI am looking forward to learning what my viewpoint is! I have been thinking and learning and discussing and doing more thinking for *years*.
    2 hrs · Like · 3
  • Julian VigoDana, the problem is that nothing you have published about me is true. I have explained why I ‘favorited’ a tweet to you months back and you have turned this into a hate crime. That was just dishonest. I am sorry about your having PTSD–and I have stated this before–but when I ‘favorite’ a comment, I am responding to the force of a comment and not the entire history of you (which I certainly did not have time to read). I do not spend that much time on Twitter–at all. I just noticed that you had been trolling Gallus and that she took issue with your harassing her WHILST claiming suicidal tendencies. I thought her comment was appropriate to the aggression you were causing her. I also saw no mention of PTSD until after this comment was made. I said it before, but ‘favoriting’ Tweets for me is the way I highlight tweets–it does not mean I agree or disagree necessarily. I also take suicide quite seriously and am prone to disbelieve someone’s comments about suicide whilst trolling, harassing another human. Call me cold but I do not take seriously claims to suicide while harassing others. I ‘favorited’ the tweet noting this exchange since I had been investigating trolling on Twitter, a chapter I have recently submitted to a university publication. I note all sorts of things on TwitterAs for the lawyer nonsense, I don’t know of any lawyer who is going to represent me without speaking with me, obtaining my permission to represent me and who works without getting some form of payment from me. I have been busy finishing a book manuscript and making a film these past many months and have no interest or time in pursuing you or anyone else. People who know me and who have followed my professional works know that nothing in your piece reflects the truth of me or my work. I am a queer theorist, I have worked on transgender rights, I have worked on the rights of people with AIDS and on myriad issues that affect the non-heterosexual communities of the world. I have also worked on human trafficking and issues of biopower and medicine. One of my books you link to addresses transgender issues in fact and if you took the time to read it, Dana, you might find that I have more in common with you than you think.Attempting to demonize me for ‘favoriting’ a Tweet or assigning a lawyer to me that is not mine is as wrong as labeling me a TERF, calling me a ‘radical feminist’ or asserting that favoriting a Tweet is akin to attempting to condone abuse of trans persons or the promotion of suicide. None of these statements are true. You have missed all the facts here regarding my person and my words. I think you could have handled things quite differently and chose not to. And what you wrote resulted in more trolling of me on Twitter, harassment I don’t really need or want. It was simply unkind and dishonest, Dana.
    2 hrs · Edited · Like · 4
  • April ApplegateJulian Vigo, you are violating the rules of the group by personally attacking another individual member. We have stated in the past, and it will remain the policy of this group, that we can only moderate based on behavior in this group. Yours is and has been far more inconsistent with the ground rules of the group than anything Dana Taylor has done or said IN THIS GROUP. If you do not stop *immediately,* you will be removed from the group.
    2 hrs · Like · 2
  • Eliza Jane ManoffI’m so confused. The only thing Dana has approved of, so far, is the fact that Julian responded to her.
    2 hrs · Like · 1
  • Julian VigoApril, I have responded to Dana’s question (see her question above). Thanks!
    2 hrs · Like · 3
  • Eliza Jane ManoffThis is like, the weirdest thread EVER.
    2 hrs · Like · 4
  • Kim BondIs that a challenge Eliza?!
    2 hrs · Like · 1
  • April ApplegateJulian Vigo, the moderators are in agreement that for many weeks now you have contributed nothing to the group except to pop up either to criticize our actions or to sow the seeds of discord via back-channel PMs that misrepresent interactions between you and the moderators. The next time we become aware of you doing this, you will be removed from the group. Consider this your final warning.
    2 hrs · Like · 1
  • Rosier CadeWow. Talk about disproportionate responses. o.o
    2 hrs · Like · 2
  • April ApplegateYou would have to know a lot more about the private exchanges among all four moderators and Julian to make that judgment, Rosier Cade.
    2 hrs · Like · 1
  • Rosier CadeReally? Sorry, I don’t deal with shit off-thread. I can only look at what happens here.
    2 hrs · Like · 2
  • Rosier CadeSo what if a known and convicted rapist, a stalker, a violent abuser – or otherwise someone who in any way had attacked by gendered and violent means a member of the group – came in? Would the person who had been attacked have to respect the attacker and not talk about the attack? Would that be off-thread shit that can’t be discussed?Honestly, I have no idea why known instigators who have engaged in personal attacks against group members are being invited here.
    2 hrs · Like · 4
  • April ApplegateYou have that luxury because you’re not a moderator. If you’d like to be, please let us know. We could certainly use help, as there are clearly people who do not like the fact that this group exists and who have repeatedly attempted to undermine it.Regarding your red herring question, we have repeatedly stated that we cannot moderate the internet or the larger world.
    2 hrs · Like · 1
  • Rosier CadeIt’s not a red herring question (and I don’t think “red herring” is really supposed to work that way. If you want to call it an attempted derail, go for it). It’s a serious question because that is what is happening. Obviously you can’t moderate the outside world. But you *can* perhaps think for half a second before you ask extremely volatile, known instigators to the group, especially those who have had very public and personal negative, abusive, and violent interactions with members of our community.It’s totally cool that you guys keep inviting shit-stirrers in, then bringing down the banhammer when our shit gets stirred. (Since the mods are a monolithic block, I’ll say “you guys”. I certainly won’t separate those who invite shit-stirrers from those who scream about bans. Nope nope nope.)Yeah, I’m sure you’d want me in on the mod convos.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • April ApplegateWe do think about these things. That is why @Tommy Jayne Wasserberg’s post has been sitting in moderation for 2 weeks. Any member of the group has the option of blocking any other group member except a moderator, or complaining to an individual moderator via PM if you feel that a specific action IN THIS GROUP is beyond the pale. Otherwise, you need to accept that moderation is all that has enabled this group to exist for as long as it has. You and everyone else here have the right to decide whether what is gained in communication is worth what is lost in political purity. The answer is not the same for everyone.
    1 hr · Edited · Like · 1
  • Ruth GreenbergIf a rapist joined the group, then obviously pm the mods, we would take that seriously. But we do allow people to join the group who have in the past being involved in yelling at each other or shit stirring. If they continue to do so, then they are thrown out
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Rosier CadeThat’s all well and good. Let’s start inviting in MRAs (well, *different* MRAs) and ask to “communicate” with them as well, hrm?Dana‘s here now, for whatever reason. I hope you won’t feel the need to slam someone who has been *attacked by Dana* for freaking out because you invited zir here. It seems butt-ass insane to ban a victim of attack because bringing a shit-stirrer here was a piss-poor decision.That mod discussion shit is off-thread, too. I’m not saying it should be on-thread. On the other hand, it’s being wielded in a fashion similar to the abusive behavior of the shit-stirrers you keep *asking to join*.
    1 hr · Edited · Like · 7
  • Ruth GreenbergNobody has ever been thrown out because of one or two comments on a thread. And actually we have banned very very few people.
  • Rosier CadeI didn’t assert either of the points you’re refuting.
  • Ruth GreenbergYour comment about not slamming someone who is freaking out – I replied by saying nobody has ever been thrown out because of one or two comments on a thread. I dont think anyone has ever been thrown out because of one thraed actually. So a freak out and then a calm down, no someone wouldnt get thrown out. The few people who get thrown out are thrown out because of patterns of behaviour. Usually patterns over a number of days or even weeks.
  • April ApplegateAll of the moderators are in agreement about the way the group is run. We have also agreed that the ground rules apparently need to be updated to spell out things that we naively thought could be assumed. You know, things like whether calling a transwoman a male is actually a violation, since “male” isn’t a pronoun. This is the level of shit that we are being asked to deal with, and we will.I need to step away from here for a while. But you and other group members need to recognize that Elizabeth Hungerford, Ruth Greenberg, and Anna Key and I are all in agreement about this.
    1 hr · Like · 3
  • Jay AllenDana is not a civil person. Not to mention, I have personally seen them harass and attack several different women all over the internet(even trying to place a bounty on a female blogger for her location.) for having a different opinion. It’s unfortunate to see them here.
    1 hr · Like · 3
  • April ApplegateDana has been civil in this group, and will remain a member as long as that is the case. WE CANNOT MODERATE THE INTERNET.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Elizabeth HungerfordYou are welcome to review my conversation with Dana Lane Taylor on twitter in relation to the #genderweek article. Yes, I said she could join the group. In case everyone is not aware, I have been viciously attacked by various members of the trans community, including at the TransAdvocate. I am still standing. I am still trying to talk about these things. If every attack is reason to turn tail and give up, well, let’s just all give up. I refuse to do that, but you are welcome to.
  • Rosier CadeApril, nice jab there about “naively thought could be assumed” – way to tell the group off for being too dumb to handle what you thought should be obvious.Ruth, I know it’s not just about this thread. But that’s all off-group shit and I really can’t talk about it. (Not being snide; that’s sincere. I also don’t want to imply anything about off-group PMing with that.) I have to go on what I’ve seen in-group.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Elizabeth HungerfordOh yes, Jay Allen, that bounty made me very mad and I spoke to Dana about it DIRECTLY on the twitter. Imagine that.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Rosier CadeElizabeth – so you’re saying “I can take it, so you should suck it up”?That’s complete bullshit and I seriously hope you’re going to retract it.People who have attacked you weren’t threatening your child, for starters.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Elizabeth HungerfordDid Dana threaten your child? What are you talking about?
  • April ApplegateAnd it also made me mad when radfem activists on Twitter contacted Dana’s employer because of their political disagreements with her. I spoke to one of them DIRECTLY about that. As was her right, she defriended and blocked me.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Rosier Cadesorry it’s off-group oops neverminda
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • April ApplegateAnd none of that has any relevance whatsoever in this group, except perhaps as one of the reasons why we *started* the group in the first place.
    1 hr · Edited · Like · 1
  • Ruth GreenbergIf your child was thraetened, please pm one of the mods. Of course we will take seriously behaviour like that by a member.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Rosier CadeI’m not saying *my* kid. 9_9
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Ruth GreenbergBut if we were only going to include people in the group who had behaved well in the past in social media, we would have to throw out half of the current membership.
  • Masha Verina Jagasdottir“disproportionate responses” is right! I am just stunned by April Applegate‘s use of zir bully pulpit here… Firstly, telling a member that she has no cache with the mods in this group is ridiculous and infantile (‘mwaaah, my friends and I don’t like you.. we all agree that you should shut up’) Secondly, telling a member not to participate in ‘personal attacks’ WHILE personally attacking her is making it obvious whose speech get privileged here.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Rosier CadeRuth – it’s obviously not about being well-behaved! Strawman fuck shit jesus it’s about people who have *personally attacked members of this group before being invited*.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Ruth GreenbergLots of people in this group have attacked other members of the group in the past.
  • Julian Vigo‘Back-channel’ PMs? Now that is risible, April, given that you took to PM to threaten to expose me for the very article Dana has written about me. The only one who has reverted to back-channel PMs is yourself–let’s be clear here. First you claimed several weeks back that I posted a screen cap in a post and then you removed that post. Immediately after you later changed that story to say that I posted a screen cap in Dana’s article (when it was Dana’s article which has the infamous screen cap–for how on earth could I post a screen cap in her article?) or of Dana’s article. In fact I patently denied posting any screen cap of her article–I have linked to it and you can verify with Ruth about this. I simply asked you to stop misrepresenting me on that thread and your response was write me this in your private message:“The substance of the screen cap is your having favorited a Tweet in which it is suggested that a transwoman threaten suicide and take her meds before going off to bed. If you persist in saying that I have lied about your behavior, I will be happy to post that in this group, but it certainly doesn’t present you in a very favorable light.”I asked you to stop posting incorrect information about me and your response is to threaten me. See how that works? You misconstrued a series of messages or simply invented a narrative convenient to you and then wrote me that above to shut me up. And you didn’t even bother to read what was really going on with my actual tweets or within Dana’s misrepresentation thereof. Your threatening to shame me is unforgivable and unkind, April. So please do dispose of these tactics. I have shown great restraint in dealing with you and have asked that you leave me alone because it seems you have a personal issue with me. As for my conversation with Dana, I thought my response to her question above was thoughtful and appropriate.
    1 hr · Like · 3
  • Rosier CadeBut there’s a difference between attacks and arguments and ABUSIVE, THREATENING BEHAVIOR.
    1 hr · Like · 4
  • April ApplegateThis is probably not the group for the small band of you who are so easily “stunned” and who all pop out of the woodwork at the same time when Julian organizes one of her “actions.”
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • April ApplegateThanks for playing, Julian Vigo. You’re being removed from the group.
  • Masha Verina JagasdottirAre we just at that point then? Where we’ve all endured so much abuse by genderists that as long as a particular person is not, at that moment, making death threats and defamatory comments and attempting to destroy a persons career.. we’re all just happy and nice and quiet… seriously… wtf?
    1 hr · Like · 3
  • April ApplegateNo, the point we’re at is that we’re not going to let this group be destroyed by a handful of radfems who don’t believe it should exist and have said so. If you think it’s aiding and abetting the enemy, LEAVE!!! People don’t automatically become our enemies because they have offended you.
  • Rosier CadeApril – you are discrediting us by claiming that we are in cahoots and are part of a coordinated effort to start shit.I am acting alone because I am mad as hell about your bullshit. I am incensed that you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation in order to paint others unfavorably and yourself as having a moral imperative.This is abusive behavior. It’s victim-blaming. It’s unconscionable. And frankly, I’m shocked as hell that Anna, Ruth, and Elizabeth are supporting you.HOLY SHIT YOU DID NOT JUST SAY THAT RADFEMS ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE GROUP AND THEN SAY THAT WE ARE THOSE PEOPLE.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • April ApplegateMy statement about organized actions is based on what both Julian and Sarah Cade have *told* us. I am not a mind-reader.
  • Ruth GreenbergOkay can we calm it down here a bit. One person was removed from the group after being warned. That is all that has happened.
  • Masha Verina Jagasdottir“a handful of radfems who don’t believe it should exist and have said so”.. are you off your meds, April? who the hell are you talking about? or is the sheer ‘power’ of ‘moderation’ just getting to you?
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Rosier CadeThat is a lie, April, because I can confirm that Sarah Cade didn’t tell you anything about organized actions.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Rosier CadeThat is not all that has happened, Ruth. It’s happening right in front of your face.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Rosier CadeSarah left the group over a week ago. When was she feeding you intel on enemy troop movements again?
  • Ruth GreenbergI think what else is happening is that people are getting heated about nothing.
  • Elizabeth HungerfordMasha Verina Jagasdottir, off your meds is totally inappropriate. You are warned.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Rosier CadeNothing? That’s cool.BAN SOME MORE PEOPLE YEAH ROCK ON
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Masha Verina JagasdottirOhhhhh… I see.. it’s a conspiracy! That’s why April gets to behave like…. that.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Rosier CadeAlso, April, I’m really eager to see you expand on that radfems-destroy-the-world line.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Ruth GreenbergThere are radical feminists who don’t think this group should exist.If you support the aims and want to take part we welcome you.
  • Rosier CadeUnless you cross the latest abuser to be invited to the group.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Rosier CadeThere are transactivists and libfems and MRAs who don’t think this group should exist, either. Am I one of those, too?
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Ruth GreenbergNobody has been banned for that Rosier.
  • Rosier CadeYeah, nobody knows who has been banned for what reason.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Kim BondSo…. anybody have lovely plans for the weekend? Doing anything nice?
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Ruth GreenbergRosier I think it has been made clear to those who have been banned, why they have been banned. If they are unsure of the reasons, they can pm a mod
  • Eliza Jane ManoffI can’t WAIT to see the screencaps of this thread all over Twitter and everyone’s blog. And everyone’s dog’s blog. And Bob Lawblah’s Law Blog.
    1 hr · Edited · Like · 3
  • Masha Verina Jagasdottiroh my, more group existential angst.
    <clutches pearls> “some people think this group shouldn’t exist… sigh..”
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Rosier CadeI’m unsure of the reasons why April is allowed to baldly lie in public about people in the group.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Rosier CadeOr people who are no longer in the group to defend themselves.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Elizabeth HungerfordYou cant try to have gender discussion without some people telling you that you’re just DOING IT RONG. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And I think we have some people like that here. Or were here anyway.
  • Rosier CadeDerail – off-topic.
  • Elizabeth HungerfordI can’t type that fast right now. Sorry.
  • River GreenWhere is Dana Taylor now? While everything is blowing up. Drop a bomb and run off.
    1 hr · Like · 7
  • Masha Verina JagasdottirElizabeth Hungerford, I think you just really have a tough stomach when it comes to this.. and maybe that’s your superpower or maybe that’s some kind of Stockholm syndrome. But one thing is for sure, you can’t expect all of us to have such incredibly permeable boundaries.
    1 hr · Edited · Like · 2
  • Heart SeesO_o I was really anticipating reading everybody’s interesting thoughts about transgender. Haven’t read all these comments but am definitely confused as to why radfems would not want this discussion to happen. I sure don’t know of any who feel that way.
    1 hr · Like · 5
  • Ruth GreenbergHeart there are radical feminists who think we are wasting our time talking to Trans people.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Rosier CadeCool, radical feminists are always the problem. Let’s make sure not to piss off our extremist transactivist MRA allies by implying that anyone but radical feminists might be a problem!
    1 hr · Like · 3
  • Masha Verina Jagasdottirthese “radfems” (and what the hell is that anyway? I may be a radical feminist.. but ‘radfem’ – nope) are a construct to fear and hate and misrepresent… ‘they’ are fictional.
    1 hr · Like · 3
  • River GreenA lot of its down to the aims of this group, to create discussion between the two polarized halves of the gender debate. Because gender critical feminism is being held back at present, by emotional reasoning.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Elizabeth HungerfordMaybe that is true Masha Verina Jagasdottir. Knowing that I would be attacked was a choice I made when I put my name on the UN letter. And I continue to speak often and loudly about gender criticism. But my point is that being criticized for your speecSee More
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Rosier CadeI have lunch plans with Sarah. I’d love to see if April apologizes or explains anything. I’d love to see if I can even comment on the group when I get back because I’m totally a radfem agent provocateur.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Heart SeesWell, I guess if one’s interactions with trans people have been wholly, 100 percent nonproductive, one might see it that way. I think this page is very brave and courageous.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Ruth GreenbergOf course nobody is saying this is only about radical feminists. This group gets criticised by many people for its very existence, including transactivists.
    1 hr · Edited · Like · 1
  • Ruth GreenbergThe reality is some people, for various reasons, think we are wasting our time trying to build bridges. When we set the group up, we din’t know if we were also wasting our time. I now don’t think we are, and I do think this can be done.
  • River GreenNot all gender critical feminists are radical feminists.
    1 hr · Like · 2
  • Ruth GreenbergNo of course they are not. And there are a number of gender critical feminists who are not radical feminists, who are members of this group.
  • Masha Verina JagasdottirI realize we should all be very glad, in light of ‘building bridges’, that trans activists are graciously accepting invitations to engage in dialogue here. But if you kick anyone in the face who has a snarl at one of those honoured guests, then you risk instituting a ‘pet trans’ kind of tokenism that is offensive and unfair in both directions.
    1 hr · Like · 1
  • Grace SkrobiszI’m very uncomfortable with Dana being invited into this group bc of the extreme bullying and harassment I’ve seen this person do online, and other circumstances. I have never seen Dana try and participate in dialogue before, only harassment, so I am extremely skeptical. and I find the invitation of Dana questionable. My input FTR. I won’t be engaging with this person, at all.
    58 mins · Like · 4
  • Elizabeth HungerfordRosier Cade, your grievance about April’s claim regarding Sarah is noted. We are far from perfect here, managing all of this is necessarily messy and unpleasant at times. I’m sorry that this is happening. I stand with April in regard to her actions mSee More
  • River GreenI agree with that Masha Verina Jagasdottir because the drive to get the dialog going and to build bridges with trans people can come across as stamping over then opinions of females when male born appear on the scene. This can look like the same StockhSee More
    55 mins · Like · 1
  • Elizabeth HungerfordYou are all welcome to block each other.You cannot block moderators and stay in the group.
  • Barbara Link“Thanks for playing?” April, if you don’t hear yourself sounding totally over the top inappropriate I am gob smacked. I also have to wonder if me “like”ing any comments here is going to get me added to some list of miscreants you keep. I don’t pop out See More
    53 mins · Like · 2
  • Heart SeesWell, anyway– not dismissing anybody’s issues with anybody, I know only too well that these issues can be serious and a huge and real problem, just wanted to say something to Anna Key— Anna said way gigantically over 100 comments upthread: “The pressure is being applied not to keep transgender conditions in DSM, but to remove them totally, so that they are not pathologised. The idea being that treatment should be based on the statement that a person is trans.” I think I agree with this. I mean, on one level, I don’t agree with surgical transitioning at all, so there’s that. But since I am not the boss of the world and people who think like me, as I’ve said before, lost this particular battle big time, I think I would prefer that transgender conditions not be in the DSM no matter what. When I wrote my tl:dnr comment way way upthread, I was thinking about things from the perspective of male supremacist control, that it is in the interests of male supremacy to decide who is a man and who is a woman and to make that “stick” via surgeries and interventions of various kinds, which is imo the reasoning, more like strategizing, underlying pathologizing gender. But it kind of sounds like you agree with that Anna Key, though for different reasons.
    51 mins · Edited · Like · 1
  • Ruth GreenbergMasha, that is not what is happening here
    53 mins · Like · 1
  • Masha Verina JagasdottirThat is comforting to know, Ruth.
  • River GreenI think all females do have to ensure they don’t treat males more favourable though, its something conditioned into women.
    50 mins · Like · 2
  • River GreenI still don’t think that’s happening here though because ive seen opinions rather then genders or sexes be defended.
  • River GreenIve also not seen actual males, as in not trans, be defended.
  • Anna KeyI agree with you Heart Sees – I was pointing out that trans activists are way ahead on this. I think it might be worth starting that discussion elsewhere as I think there is much to be said, It also worries me because I get a feeling that trans activism has already won and the consequences are dire.
    48 mins · Like · 2
  • Ruth GreenbergRiver, Trans people have been thrown out of the group or left quickly when told that they would be removed for continued violations of the rules e.g. using cis.
  • Barbara LinkWhy does April persist in using “radfem” as an implied insult? “Oh she’s one of THEM.” is in there all the time. That small band of radfems, like that instantly adds a level of discreditation that all will agree with? Apparently very few people have been ejected from this group, but how many just leave in frustration and anger?
  • 11 mins · Like · 2
  • Dana TaylorLast night my twin brother sent me a text message that read “I need to pull my skin off so I can start fresh. Do you know how to do that?”. I called him and he was having a nervous breakdown. Mental health problems are throughout my Mom’s side of the family”. I tried talking to him and he was incoherent and said he had to go. I begged him not to hang up. I called him back and he sounded little more coherent and said he had fell and hit his head. I asked if he had the breakdown before or after. He said he couldn’t remember. He couldn’t remember a lot of things. I begged him to call 911 and he is so stubborn he refused. This was 4PM yesterday afternoon.I began crying and couldn’t stop. I talked to my boss after regaining my composure then called him back to ask for his wife’s phone number. I called her and told her what was going on and she told me calling 911 would not help because it has happened before and he wouldn’t let the medics near him. So me calling would have only caused him more harm. PTSD kicked in and panic attacks ensued. This morning it escalated to disassociation which is the most severe part of PTSD. I am trying to come out of this mode.I did not just come in here and “drop a bomb” and leave. I am suffering through a severe PTSD episode.
  • Dana TaylorLast night I truly thought my brother was going to die and he is part of me and the most important person in my life.
  • Elizabeth HungerfordI don’t like people leaving this group because of frustration and anger. I sincerely do not like this! We are doing our best to provide a forum for discussion of gender that is free of personal attacks. We cannot control the conduct of members outside of this group (or in it, for that matter. We can only remove them).
  • Elizabeth HungerfordDana Taylor, I am sorry that you are having a PTSD attack. Please stay on topic with gender. I hope you and your brother are taking care of your selves.
  • 19 mins · Like · 1
  • Kim BondSo – bluntly – why post here for the first time during a severe PTSD episode? And why post details of something so personal and of-topic? It is obviously not good for you, and it threatens to be very upsetting and triggering for members here. It is especially inappropriate when you are new to a group that is unrelated to the issue.Not cool D.
  • Elizabeth HungerfordI don’t think Dana Taylor should answer that, Kim Bond!

6 thoughts on “Discussing gender critical & gender identity & @lubelluledotcom

  1. Damn! I don’t know what else to say. This completely confounds me. David Taylor!?!?! The most vicious twitter attacker I’ve seen!?!?!

    Except, déjà vu: I left my 7+ year old Facebook account (and every social contact I had cultivated during those years) last spring when the rape culture porn saturation bias became un-ignorable. And I wasn’t even involved with internet feminism at that time. I rejoined, using my WordPress/Twitter handle early fall, thinking I would use it only to automate links to my blog posts.

    While there, I was invited to join a group called “Intro to Radical Feminism” or something…. Where She did the same thing. She brought into a CLOSED female-birth-only group, a safe space, a male born transgenderists from Texas. Introduced him as a done deal. No prior discussion. No group vote. And set him up to answer our questions!

    Well, the group imploded. I, and what appeared to be at least a third of the group, left immediately. Within 2-3 hours of the post introducing this person (which is when I saw it, and saw the related complaints, and subsequent leaving notices) I don’t know what happened afterwards. I do know that group dissolved or renamed, because they were invisible when I looked for them later in the week.


  2. I personally do not think dlt even needs to be here in this group because of the presence of dlt brings nothing but anger and hate on dlt’s part to anyone who does not agree with dlt. it is shamful what dlt posts and the way many women are triggered by what this person dlt has to say and how this person acts. dlt you do not now nor will you ever speak for me ever.


  3. Wow this is supposed to be gender critical? Inviting somebody involved in the censorship of women’s voices and succeeding thanks to the power differential of men and women on the internet and media?! and then censoring someone in the gender critical group for bringing forward an issue eloquently and without insults?! This April is using the classic strategy where somebody in order to appear moderate censors everyone more progressive than them. Wow. And radical feminist is used as an insult rather than a political position. Wow. Dana dude is just a classic narcissist just there to get attention to his ‘PTSD’ and shit, and does not care to talk constructively at all. When are these women going to learn they are not going to change the world by making misogynistic men understand? It’s as if the Nazi resistance would have taken the line of “We just need to make Hitler understand, find common ground”. These dudes are genderists, they have said so, they have acted as such. Why not focus on raising awareness among women, who are the ones who can actually change the world?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s