Culture Tranny News Megathread - Hot tranny newds
- Thread starter trannyfucker
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
A mentally ill dude pepper-sprayed a group of teens, but the article repeatedly refers to him as "the woman" or "female" because we mustn't hurt the feelz of aggressive troons. At least the police made the right decision for once.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2019
>Seattle
Well there you go.
Well there you go.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
I think its becuase they beat the shit out of the troon after they pepper sprayed them.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2019
The video is hilarious. The troon is absolutely shit-faced staggering his ass around the bus, finally flumping into a seat near the kids. Pretty sure he was trying to look seductive when he did it, because why else focus on a bunch of young teen boys? Guess he didn’t get the response he wanted so he attacked them.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2016
The judge will probably give the troon some lego and an award for best trans ever to the attacker.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
dont call anybody
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2019
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2016
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2019
Man, this future fucking sucks for chimping out. They've got all these cameras everywhere. It was a lot easier to be an unhinged lunatic before all this police state wonder tech.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2019
A perfectly normal response from someone who is clearly not mentally ill.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2016
You posted this in the wrong sub-forum, it belongs in the CWC forum.
TheYellowKing
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2019
"The teens followed her off the bus and assaulted her, causing minor injuries, Abbott said.
He said investigators are not recommending the juveniles be charged with malicious harassment because, while witnesses did hear pejorative comments about the woman’s gender identity, the motive for the assault was more likely retaliation for the pepper-spray assault and not her orientation. "
Generation Zylkon warms my heart.
He said investigators are not recommending the juveniles be charged with malicious harassment because, while witnesses did hear pejorative comments about the woman’s gender identity, the motive for the assault was more likely retaliation for the pepper-spray assault and not her orientation. "
Generation Zylkon warms my heart.
Xiphias
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2019
Tory victory was a verdict on culture wars
We are told that millions ticked the Tory box at the election to get Brexit done and get Corbyn gone. This is surely true, but I suspect there was another, largely subconscious reason for Boris Johnson’s sweep, which is the culture wars convulsing our country. There is a sense that only the Conservative Party will stand against the strange and sinister direction many wish to lead us in — and if Labour wants to have a hope of winning again in the next decade those vying to lead the party must pay attention.
For a long time the “culture wars” seemed nothing but a succession of silly stories: Marks & Spencer withdrawing a sandwich containing Gentleman’s Relish because it was “sexist”, sombreros banned from university campuses on the grounds of “cultural appropriation”, Christmas carols cleansed of the mention of Our Lord, lest he should cause offence to those who don’t believe in him.
In recent years things have taken a more sinister turn. Consider, as 2019 draws to a close, how bizarre it would have seemed at the beginning of this decade to be told that people who are still biologically male would soon be able to enter female hospital wards or prisons. Imagine how our less “enlightened” selves of 2010 would have responded to the recent statement from the University and College Union that a person may self-identify as whatever race they choose.
Again and again, truth and sense and the stating of biological fact are recast as bigotry. Last week we had another giant leap down the road to crazy town with the employment tribunal of Maya Forstater. The tax expert had tweeted that transgender people are not able to change their biological sex, and was fired as a result. She lost her case against her former employers, with the judge giving the breathtaking verdict that stating the facts about XX and XY chromosomes is an “approach not worthy of respect in a democratic society”.
The judge’s words call to mind the prophecies of the author JG Ballard, who declared that “the advanced societies of the future will not be governed by reason. They will be driven by irrationality, by competing systems of psychopathology.” Once I would have thought this rather pessimistic. Now I’m not so sure.
The drumbeat of stories such as the Forstater verdict has turned the culture wars from a rather peripheral concern into something deeply troubling — and it has divided our country into two camps. (We are primed for such polarisation now, after Brexit). On one side we have the woke warriors, on the other the silent majority; self-styled progressives versus those who view themselves as the defenders of common sense. Social media has inflamed the divide. We see enemies everywhere; the silent majority blame snowflakes for every undesirable development in society, the woke see racist gammons behind every injustice.
As Douglas Murray, whose book The Madness of Crowds examines the culture wars, said recently: “Increasingly in our society it is very hard to think about anything out loud. The risk of doing so . . . has become oppressive for a lot of people.” In a sign of how seriously all this is being taken in Middle England, next year Murray will be leading a national tour named “Resisting Wokeness”. In the audience will be many furrow-browed citizens who are concerned that their country is undergoing a sea change into somewhere strange: a place where biological fact can be called fiction, where common sense cannot be appealed to, where innocent statements can cause grievous offence.
So intense has this battle become that at election time we will naturally look for political leaders who are on our side. In the 2017 election the silent majority didn’t have a true champion. Theresa May may have looked like the embodiment of sensible, middle-of-the-road Englishness but she was unwilling to stand up to woke tyranny: attacking stop and search for being racist, introducing the simplistic Race Disparity Audit and passing misconceived laws on gender identity.
It was only at the recent election that the woke warriors and the silent majority had their clear champions — leaders who were cartoonishly exaggerated mascots for each tribe. In the woke corner we had Jeremy Corbyn pledging to allow adults to self-identify their gender, and Jo Swinson, who declared that biological sex was not “as binary as is often presented”. The silent majority had Johnson, whose jokey, merrie England, un-PC persona is antithetical to the po-faced policing of humour that so many now despise. The truth (which many in the woke tribe will find deeply troubling) is that the endless repetition of his old remarks on Muslim women or gay men probably made him go up in the estimation of many voters, who are tired of the offence-taking minority that controls the conversation in our country.
The key word here is “minority”. The split between the woke warriors and the silent majority does not fit neatly over that between Remainers and Leavers. This is not a 50-50 issue. If Labour wants to win again, the new leadership must realise that though the “woke” voices may shout the loudest on social media they are far outnumbered. Tony Blair once said that if a “traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party [you get] the traditional result” — a reflection of the innate small “c” conservatism of many in Britain, which endures. The era of the culture wars needs a new rule for Labour to absorb: if a party championing woke concerns competes with a party championing the concerns of the silent majority, the latter will smash it.
This is not a call for Labour to abandon the fight for everyone to be treated fairly. Life for many in this country is made harder on account of their sex or race or sexuality. Where there is genuine bigotry and bullying, it must be confronted. When dealing with these issues the guiding principle of government and institutions should be kindness. We should aspire to treat all people with politeness — I will call those who feel they were born in the wrong body by any pronoun they wish. But objective truth, and biological fact, should not be shoved aside because of a small number of people shouting loudly on social media, threatening to label those who disagree with them as bigots.
In a moderate country like ours we challenge extremists, we don’t capitulate to them. As Jonathan Swift declared centuries ago: “It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom.” The real voice of the kingdom asserted itself at this election — not only on Brexit fatigue and anti-Corbyn sentiment, but on the culture wars. The next Labour leader must listen.
For a long time the “culture wars” seemed nothing but a succession of silly stories: Marks & Spencer withdrawing a sandwich containing Gentleman’s Relish because it was “sexist”, sombreros banned from university campuses on the grounds of “cultural appropriation”, Christmas carols cleansed of the mention of Our Lord, lest he should cause offence to those who don’t believe in him.
In recent years things have taken a more sinister turn. Consider, as 2019 draws to a close, how bizarre it would have seemed at the beginning of this decade to be told that people who are still biologically male would soon be able to enter female hospital wards or prisons. Imagine how our less “enlightened” selves of 2010 would have responded to the recent statement from the University and College Union that a person may self-identify as whatever race they choose.
Again and again, truth and sense and the stating of biological fact are recast as bigotry. Last week we had another giant leap down the road to crazy town with the employment tribunal of Maya Forstater. The tax expert had tweeted that transgender people are not able to change their biological sex, and was fired as a result. She lost her case against her former employers, with the judge giving the breathtaking verdict that stating the facts about XX and XY chromosomes is an “approach not worthy of respect in a democratic society”.
The judge’s words call to mind the prophecies of the author JG Ballard, who declared that “the advanced societies of the future will not be governed by reason. They will be driven by irrationality, by competing systems of psychopathology.” Once I would have thought this rather pessimistic. Now I’m not so sure.
The drumbeat of stories such as the Forstater verdict has turned the culture wars from a rather peripheral concern into something deeply troubling — and it has divided our country into two camps. (We are primed for such polarisation now, after Brexit). On one side we have the woke warriors, on the other the silent majority; self-styled progressives versus those who view themselves as the defenders of common sense. Social media has inflamed the divide. We see enemies everywhere; the silent majority blame snowflakes for every undesirable development in society, the woke see racist gammons behind every injustice.
As Douglas Murray, whose book The Madness of Crowds examines the culture wars, said recently: “Increasingly in our society it is very hard to think about anything out loud. The risk of doing so . . . has become oppressive for a lot of people.” In a sign of how seriously all this is being taken in Middle England, next year Murray will be leading a national tour named “Resisting Wokeness”. In the audience will be many furrow-browed citizens who are concerned that their country is undergoing a sea change into somewhere strange: a place where biological fact can be called fiction, where common sense cannot be appealed to, where innocent statements can cause grievous offence.
So intense has this battle become that at election time we will naturally look for political leaders who are on our side. In the 2017 election the silent majority didn’t have a true champion. Theresa May may have looked like the embodiment of sensible, middle-of-the-road Englishness but she was unwilling to stand up to woke tyranny: attacking stop and search for being racist, introducing the simplistic Race Disparity Audit and passing misconceived laws on gender identity.
It was only at the recent election that the woke warriors and the silent majority had their clear champions — leaders who were cartoonishly exaggerated mascots for each tribe. In the woke corner we had Jeremy Corbyn pledging to allow adults to self-identify their gender, and Jo Swinson, who declared that biological sex was not “as binary as is often presented”. The silent majority had Johnson, whose jokey, merrie England, un-PC persona is antithetical to the po-faced policing of humour that so many now despise. The truth (which many in the woke tribe will find deeply troubling) is that the endless repetition of his old remarks on Muslim women or gay men probably made him go up in the estimation of many voters, who are tired of the offence-taking minority that controls the conversation in our country.
The key word here is “minority”. The split between the woke warriors and the silent majority does not fit neatly over that between Remainers and Leavers. This is not a 50-50 issue. If Labour wants to win again, the new leadership must realise that though the “woke” voices may shout the loudest on social media they are far outnumbered. Tony Blair once said that if a “traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party [you get] the traditional result” — a reflection of the innate small “c” conservatism of many in Britain, which endures. The era of the culture wars needs a new rule for Labour to absorb: if a party championing woke concerns competes with a party championing the concerns of the silent majority, the latter will smash it.
This is not a call for Labour to abandon the fight for everyone to be treated fairly. Life for many in this country is made harder on account of their sex or race or sexuality. Where there is genuine bigotry and bullying, it must be confronted. When dealing with these issues the guiding principle of government and institutions should be kindness. We should aspire to treat all people with politeness — I will call those who feel they were born in the wrong body by any pronoun they wish. But objective truth, and biological fact, should not be shoved aside because of a small number of people shouting loudly on social media, threatening to label those who disagree with them as bigots.
In a moderate country like ours we challenge extremists, we don’t capitulate to them. As Jonathan Swift declared centuries ago: “It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom.” The real voice of the kingdom asserted itself at this election — not only on Brexit fatigue and anti-Corbyn sentiment, but on the culture wars. The next Labour leader must listen.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2018
Mother fuckers, that stuff is god-tier.
I'm pretty sure Jo Swinson lost her seat because of TWAW bullshit. Get woke lose votes,
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
That and no one believes the Lib Dems' lies after the tuition fee fiasco.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2018
This article contains some tranny bullshit, but mostly I want everyone to laugh at this faggot's name:
inews.co.uk
Also Judi Dench talking shit about her gender flipped role in the abomination that is Cats:
Holy fuck, this is bonkers:
roarmag.org
This decade has shown the LGBT community is a force to be reckoned with
Onward together!
inews.co.uk
Onward together!
By Paul Twocock
Monday, 23rd December 2019, 11:06 am
The 2010s brought with it immense change socially, politically and culturally for LGBT people (Photo: Dan Kitwood/Getty)
We are now approaching the end of not just another year, but also an entire decade. This should give us all time to pause and reflect on what’s happened over the past 10 years.
While there’s been progress this decade for the LGBT community there’s also been pain – particularly around the world – and these threats to moving forward on equality show us why it’s more important than ever that our community stands together.
Growing up as a gay boy in Kent under Section 28, my school couldn’t even acknowledge the existence of LGBT people, let alone talk about the challenges we faced. I felt totally isolated and afraid of being found out.
I could never have imagined how far LGBT people and equality would come in my lifetime. I never thought I would see a lesbian become the first openly LGBT leader of a British political party (Ruth Davidson), or pick up a copy of TIME magazine to find a black trans woman on the cover (Laverne Cox), or reach the day when marriage equality becomes a reality for all same-sex couples across Britain. All of which are things that happened in the last 10 years.
I never thought I would see a lesbian become the first openly LGBT leader of a British political party (Photo: PA)
The 2010s brought with it immense change socially, politically and culturally for LGBT people both in the UK and across the globe. The UK hosted its first ever Trans Pride in Brighton back in 2013. That same year, Alan Turing was given a posthumous royal pardon for his conviction of "gross indecency". Just one year later, same-sex couples in England, Scotland and Wales were granted the right to say "I do" with the person they love. A right that is coming to our LGBT siblings in Northern Ireland from January 2020.
It wasn’t just the UK that passed same-sex marriage legislation. Over 18 nations, including the United States, Ireland, Germany, Australia and Ecuador, made marriage equality a reality throughout this past decade. Not only that, but human rights defenders across the globe also saw landmark victories for equality when countries like Mozambique and India got rid of colonial-era laws and decriminalised same-sex relationships.
We’ve achieved a lot as a community that we should be very proud of. But that’s not to say it’s been smooth sailing by any means. If anything, some of the backlash we’ve seen in the past 10 years is a clear reminder that the rights and freedoms we’ve fought so long and hard for can very quickly be wiped away.
'The LGBT community is a force to be reckoned with.'
In 2010, then-President Obama took the courageous step to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – allowing LGBT people to serve openly in the United States Armed Forces. But in a devastating turn of events, seven years later President Trump announced that trans people would no longer be allowed to serve in the military.
Since taking office, we have seen the Trump-Pence administration adopt a broad anti-LGBT agenda that threatens the rights of millions of lesbian, gay, bi and trans Americans and we should all be vigilant in defending against this. It’s also important we remember and honour the 49 people who were shot and killed at Orlando’s LGBT nightclub Pulse on 12 June 2016, along with 53 other people left in critical condition.
The United States was not the only country who saw their progress on LGBT equality threatened. In 2018, Bermuda earned the distinction of being the first country in the world to introduce and then repeal same-sex marriage. But local Bermudan LGBT activists have fought back to regain same-sex marriage rights despite the governments efforts to block this. Meanwhile, in countries like Russia, Nigeria and Brazil, we saw and continue to see devastating crackdowns against local LGBT communities.
A giant rainbow Pride flag is carried along the sea front during Brighton Pride 2018 (Photo: Fewings/Getty)
Even here in Britain, a vocal minority have gained a platform with anti-diversity rhetoric that seeks to target LGBT people and divide communities. Whether that’s through debates about LGBT-inclusive education or trans equality. This means it’s more important than ever that our community and allies stick together. Not least of all because hate crimes against LGBT people is on the rise with the most marginalised members of our community, including trans and BAME LGBT people, being the most vulnerable.
However, if we’ve learned anything, not just from the past decade, but from the very beginning of our movement that started 50 years ago at the Stonewall Inn, it’s that unity and solidarity are the keys to our liberation. True equality will never exist unless it includes everyone, so we must stand together.
Not only that, but we have plenty of reason for hope of a better future. To give you just one example, in September 2020, new regulations for teaching relationships and sex education (RSE) come into force in English schools. It will be a historic moment – a whole generation will attend schools that not only accept LGBT people and same-sex relationships, but also celebrate and offer support on issues that young LGBT people face. Just think of the change that inclusive education will bring to the lives of so many young people.
The LGBT community is a force to be reckoned with and if we can watch each other’s backs a little more, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish in the coming decade. Onward together!
Paul Twocock is the interim chief executive of Stonewall.
Also Judi Dench talking shit about her gender flipped role in the abomination that is Cats:
Holy fuck, this is bonkers:
The racist roots of transgender exclusion
Trans exclusivity draws upon a long history of scientific racism and white women’s tears — and it’s being absorbed by the liberal mainstream.
roarmag.org
Trans exclusivity draws upon a long history of scientific racism and white women’s tears — and it’s being absorbed by the liberal mainstream.
AUTHOR William Lau
On October 29, 2019, hundreds of protesters gathered outside Toronto Public Library to protest an event called “Gender Identity: What does it Mean for Society, the Law, and Women.” Protesters held up signs proclaiming “No TERFs on our Turf” and “Our library should be a #safespace and not a #hatespace.”
Inside, Meghan Murphy, founder of polarizing news site Feminist Current, gave a half hour speech to much acclaim. Murphy is a well known name in Canada, where she is a self-labeled feminist and anti-transgender activist. In 2017, she testified in the Canadian senate to oppose Bill C-16, which aimed to protect gender identity and expression under the Human Rights Code, calling it “regressive,” and asking the senate “if we say that a man is a woman based on something as vague as a feeling… what does that impact have on women’s rights?” Her testimony implied that trans women are simply “men with feelings,” denying trans women physical womanhood. Her transphobic views are well known and well respected, both by the Canadian government and in feminist spaces.
During her speech for Toronto Public Library, Murphy spoke in a calm, measured voice. The only emotion she showed was exasperation. “I have never advocated for violence. I’ve never engaged in hate speech. I’ve never said that trans women are not real women. What I have said is that trans-identified males are male,” she said.
Throughout her speech, she framed the protesters outside as crazy and irrational, and herself in contrasting terms: “I’m not passive, I’m not irrational, I’m not over-emotional.” She aligned herself with logic, suggesting that the protesters outside are bigots.
Trans-exclusive feminist ideology is not limited to Canada. It’s also taking root in the British Parliament. On May 1, 2019, Scottish National Party Member of Parliament Joanna Cherry distributed images from Twitter depicting anti-TERF sentiment and claimed that “TERF” was a slur against all women, without explaining what it actually stands for. Cherry, a white woman, used her platform to decry Dominique McLean, better known as SonicFox, a Black, non-binary gay man who vocally defends trans women. This is one of several examples of white women claiming that any call for action against TERFs equates to violence against women.
Trans-exclusive radical feminist ideology has also been present in feminist movements in Argentina, in the organization Womad in South Korea, and in South Africa, where restrooms created during apartheid exclude trans people of color.
But why is trans-exclusive radical feminism so successful? Why is it being accepted within the liberal mainstream, when they are making the same transphobic arguments as right-wing conservatives? The history behind their rhetoric has roots in two trends western countries: scientific racism and white women’s tears.
The TERF movement is entwined with racism; the biggest purveyors of trans exclusion are white women, and the people who suffer most from transphobic violence are Black women.
WHERE FEMINISTS AND CONSERVATIVES COLLIDE
Trans-exclusive radical feminism, often shortened to “TERF,” was coined in 2008 by Viv Smythe. She wrote an article about the term and expressed her continued support for the trans community. However, trans exclusion has existed in LGBT spaces long before it was named.
In “Transgender History in the United States,” trans activist Genny Beemyn covers the history of rhetoric used to exclude trans people. In the 1970s, some members of the gay and lesbian community rejected trans women, calling them “male infiltrators” who had “the mentality of a rapist.” The term transmisogyny, meaning misogyny against trans women, was coined by Julia Serano in her 2007 book Whipping Girl.
The basic concern of trans-exclusive radical feminists is the lack of regulations for the meaning of “transgender.” TERFs view the oppression of women as based almost solely on women being born “female,” with women being oppressed and assaulted as a birthright. Trans people inherently complicate this narrative. A major concern that TERFs posit is that the existence of trans identity opens the door to predatory men masquerading as trans women in order to gain access to “women’s only” spaces. These spaces include women’s shelters, prisons, and bathrooms, where trans women will supposedly abuse and assault cisgender women and girls. Because of this risk, trans women — who TERFs often label “trans identified males” — should not be permitted in “female spaces” at all.
This ideology is very similar to that of right-wing conservatives. It is based in the homophobic and transphobic idea that gay and trans people are a threat to women and children, and that they are inherently abusive. But while conservative values are decried by liberals, TERF values are getting traction in modern feminist movements. For both TERFs and conservatives, trans women asserting their womanhood is unquantifiable, and therefore false.
TRANSMISOGYNY AS SCIENTIFIC RACISM
In her talk, Murphy uses the language of western science to make herself appear more credible. She says that “trans-identified males are male and this is not an insult… this is a just and material reality, a biological reality… Everyone knows this. This is not a belief or an opinion. This is a fact.” However, Murphy never acknowledges that the very concept of “male” and “female” are western constructs, ignoring that other cultures have historically had different conceptions of gender.
More importantly, the concept of “biology” itself has been used — and continues to be used — to enforce not only transphobia but also racism. Human biology as we know it was founded by white colonists, and it pathologized race, framing it as genetic difference, in order to more easily subjugate non-white people.
“Science” in all contexts must be viewed critically, with an understanding of the perspectives through which it is viewed. There are countless examples of science being used to justify discrimination. Scientific racism has been used most often against Black people globally since the colonization of the American and African continents.
White people wielded the terminology of science as an “objective and rational” tool to justify slavery. They argued that enslaved Black people were inherently less human, that they had a “disease” that made them want to run away from enslavement. In 1994, The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray claimed that Black Americans are naturally inferior because of lower IQ scores.
Transphobic pseudoscience can be seen in Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male, a book that came out in 1979 but was reissued in 1994. In the book, Raymond claims that trans people psychologically and surgically reinforce gender stereotypes. She even goes as far as to argue — with no evidence — that trans-affirming surgeries were developed in nazi concentration camps.
Genny Beemyn explains that “for Raymond, transsexual women are not women but ‘castrated’ and ‘deviant’ men who were a creation of the medical and psychological specialties that arose… Ignoring centuries of gender nonconformity in cultures around the world, she erroneously considers transsexuality to be a recent phenomenon stemming from the development of genital surgeries.”
While TERFs today might not always use comparisons as extreme as Raymond, they do use the terminology of modern medicine to denounce gender nonconformity, disregarding long histories of people outside the western gender binary. Human biology, constructed by those in power and used to advance oppression, views the colonized and the enslaved as subjects to study, deviations from a white, cisgender norm.
TRANSMISOGYNY AS WHITE WOMEN’S TEARS
Murphy, as a white woman, is able to wield the “logic” of her argument by using biology. However, she also weaponizes the victimhood of white women in order to villainize trans people. In her talk, she emphasizes that putting trans women in women’s prisons puts “real” women at risk, and she calls these trans women “violent men, sexual predators being housed with women in prison.”
But trans women are not, and never have been, inherently abusive. Anyone is capable of assaulting others in shelters and prisons, and trans people are statistically much more likely to be victims of such abuse. According to the Human Rights Campaign, 47% of trans people in the United States are sexually assaulted over their lifetime. The fear of Black trans women is based in further marginalizing an already oppressed and Othered community.
The most famous illustration of white women’s tears and the violence they inspire was the killing of Emmet Till, a 14-year-old African American boy who in 1955 was lynched by white men for allegedly flirting with a white woman, Carolyn Bryant.
At the trial, Bryant said that Till had grabbed her waist and said, “I’ve been with white women before.” But years later, she admitted that he had never grabbed her waist or said obscene things to her. Regardless, Bryant’s claims had the power to kill a Black boy. White women have always been able to use their perceived victimhood to instigate violence against anyone already hated and feared.
There are many modern examples of white women’s victimhood being weaponized against people of color, particularly Black people. In “Crying Shame: The power of White Women’s Tears,” Ruby Hamad explains that “white women have largely chosen to navigate and bolster the existing system to gain some advantages, which necessarily come at the expense of people of color. This has meant adopting the persona of the damsel in distress.”
While Hamad’s essay is about white women who weaponize their identity against Black men, white women’s tears are effectively used against trans women. The victims of most transphobic hate crimes have been Black trans women. In the United States, out of the 22 murders of trans people in 2019, 18 were Black trans women. In Brazil, the country with the most murders of transgender people, 82 percent of the trans people killed in 2018 were Black or Brown.
It is also not a coincidence that Murphy, along with the librarian who gave her a platform even after the public outpouring of protest and concern, and many other women who share Murphy’s transphobic ideology are all white. This is not because women of color are not capable of transmisogyny. Rather, the western culture that teaches transphobia is upheld by white institutions and spread through colonialism, and white women’s voices have always been prioritized over women of color. It is doubtful that a Black woman would have been able to give a transphobic presentation with such a public platform — because they are rarely allowed platforms at all.
White women have never needed to explicitly call for violence in order for it to be enacted against Black people. White men, both in mobs of the KKK and the police, jump to defend white women and kill those who white women say have hurt them. Allowing white women an uncritical platform to preach prejudice as if it is truth puts Black trans women in danger.
PAY ATTENTION
Murphy balances two arguments: the logic of western science and the perceived victimhood of white women. Those who oppose her are simultaneously called misogynistic because they are fighting against a woman, and too emotional to be valid. The movement of trans exclusive radical feminism has been so prolific only because it frames a deeply powerful group — white women — and poses them as the victims of Black and brown trans women. Unsurprisingly, there is plenty of evidence of TERFs allying with white supremacy.
Contradictory to Murphy’s claims, transmisogynistic violence is very real, and its rate is increasing. In 2018, 26 trans people were killed in the US, most of them Black women. Forbes Magazine reported that there were 331 recorded murders of trans people internationally — though the real number is likely much higher — over a one-year period between 2018 and 2019.
White women use their social position to spread hateful rhetoric that leads to violence. What’s more, TERFs are trying to exclude trans women from the very spaces where they could find refuge from abuse and assault. Forcing trans women out of women’s shelters and into men’s shelters or the streets will only put them in more danger of violence.
Rather than hoping for TERFs to change, it is most important to understand their rhetoric and keep it from spreading and causing harm. A conversation will not stop their transmisogyny or the violence they incite against Black trans people. How can self-identified liberal institutions challenge transmisogyny? The Toronto Public Library claims to value inclusion and integrity, yet gave trans-exclusive radical feminism a platform. The library’s mission and values of equity, inclusion, and accountability do not seem to be in conflict with their views on TERF ideology.
Just recently, it was announced that Meghan Murphy has another central library event in Seattle, one of the most progressive cities in the United States. The event, “Fighting the New Misogyny: A Feminist Critique of Gender Identity,” looks to incorporate violent transmisogyny into liberal movements in Seattle. Whether or not they will succeed is up to the Seattle Libraries, who are currently debating whether they should cancel the event.
Pay attention. When TERFs come knocking on the doors of liberal institutions, they will not be asking outright for violence. They will come with well-thought-out speeches and PowerPoint presentations and statistics. While the protesters outside will be angry at their subjugation, the TERFs inside will appear to be calm and reasonable, preaching that the most vulnerable among us are less than human.
William Lau
William Lau is a writer and student of American Ethnic Studies at the University of Washington, where he is also programming coordinator at the Q Center. He is a founding editor of Viaduct Journal, a queer, anti-academic online publication.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
I used to like Judi Dench. Now she can go fuck herself. So can William Lau.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
Somebody tell me what it is with the eternal Anglo and silly last names, every time I see a news article that mentions "Ed Balls" I crack up
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2019
“William” Lau. Sure, Amy.
Anyway most troons are straight white men so it’s only appropriate for white women to be the ones fighting them.
Black women mostly have to deal with closeted black men and the shrieking gay black men in dresses blaming them for the closeted black men not wanting to be seen with them in public and demanding they procure black dick for them.
Very few black male troons are focused on gaining access to lesbians and little girls, because very few black male troons aren’t complete homosexuals and almost none are weebs. They’re focused on gaining access to “straight” black dick. I mean many are gay pedos true, but they don’t seem to have that weird hyper focus on trooning out little boys that white troons have. They will of course rape boys on the regular.
So you know, black women have to deal with black men, and white women have to deal with white men. This seems fair. Perhaps hapa girls like “William” up there troon out to escape being some white man’s waifu, idk. But the AGPs, who are almost exclusively white, are a white problem.
Anyway most troons are straight white men so it’s only appropriate for white women to be the ones fighting them.
Black women mostly have to deal with closeted black men and the shrieking gay black men in dresses blaming them for the closeted black men not wanting to be seen with them in public and demanding they procure black dick for them.
Very few black male troons are focused on gaining access to lesbians and little girls, because very few black male troons aren’t complete homosexuals and almost none are weebs. They’re focused on gaining access to “straight” black dick. I mean many are gay pedos true, but they don’t seem to have that weird hyper focus on trooning out little boys that white troons have. They will of course rape boys on the regular.
So you know, black women have to deal with black men, and white women have to deal with white men. This seems fair. Perhaps hapa girls like “William” up there troon out to escape being some white man’s waifu, idk. But the AGPs, who are almost exclusively white, are a white problem.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2019
That’s hilarious. It’s so many layers of peak woke/luvvie I don’t know where to start. Thank fuck the 2010s are ending, what a decade...