Skip to main content

The Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (PIELC) is the premier annual gathering for environmentalists worldwide, and is distinguished as the oldest and largest of its kind. The Conference historically unites more than 3,000 activists, attorneys, students, scientists, and concerned citizens from over 50 countries around the globe to share their experience and expertise. ~ PIELC website

Many members of the transgender community and people with good conscious are aware of Lierre Keith's views of transsexualism are already protesting, outraged over her selection as a keynote speaker at the PIELC.

In essence, Keith denies transgender peoples right to exist. Kieth believes that once born a man, a transgender woman forever maintains male privilege and therefore cannot be female.

Cross posted from planetransgender.

The four-day Conference includes over 125 panels, workshops, and multi-media presentations addressing a broad spectrum of environmental law and advocacy. Topics include: forest protection and ecological restoration; grazing and mining reform; labor and human rights; air and water pollution; Native American treaty rights; globalization and "free" trade; environmental justice; corporate responsibility; marine wilderness; international environmental law; water rights and dam removal; oil and gas litigation; genetic engineering; and urban growth.

When watching this video stating the official DGR policy please Keep in mind when Rachel says 'gender' she also means 'transgender'. The DGR view is that transgender women are, in fact, men and should be excluded from 'woman's only spaces, IE public accommodations, and feminist gatherings.

You can't mask transphobia within an organization be it religious or in DRG's case environmentalism without suffering the consequences. As she clearly stated DGR has lost members, even whole chapters since Lierre Keith's view on gender has become more central to the conversation, which is is this post's intent.

PIELC was aware Lierre Keith's transphobic agenda when inviting her and there seems to be disagreement within the PIELC as whether Keith's invite should stand, as there should be.

Speaking with Gordon Levitte at the PIELC Wednesday I asked him for a statement regarding Keith. He pointed out that although she was invited and listed, she had not yet been assigned a panel as of yet.

Levitte asked for 'a couple of weeks to respond explaining he couldn't speak for the group. I emailed Levitte questions as he requested but I have not yet received a reply. Should the PIELC respond I will keep my word and publish it. Levitte didn't mentioned that the PIELC had already issued an official statement.

SOURCE Decolonizing Yoga  "The cornerstone of Keith's feminism is the that transgender woman are in fact men who pretend to be female while enjoying the benefits of our patriarchal society."

"What exactly does Keith believe? Among other things, that the “phenomenon of trans” was created from porn culture and “that men insisting they are women is insulting and absurd.” Rachel not only celebrates Keith’s position but she labels it as DGR’s official stance and states that she can’t understand why people were bothered by it."

Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (PIELC) facebook statement written with TERF signature pose warns that violence directed against keynote speakers (insert Keith) will be dealt with:

"This is the official public statement regarding Lierre Keith and her involvement in the 2014 Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (PIELC). Any previous statements that were attributed to PIELC or the PIELC Co-Directors were not approved and should be disregarded."

"Lierre Keith was invited to share her perspective on environmental issues and activism. PIELC and the Co-Directors do not align with nor endorse every viewpoint of any particular keynote speaker, and simply seek to further constructive discussion of today’s environmental issues. The Public Interest Environmental Law Conference is a forum to respectfully discuss public interest perspectives on the environment, the law, and environmental law and activism. PIELC is an opportunity for people of differing opinions and viewpoints to join together and find common ground. Any actions that threaten this peaceful discourse will be unwelcome at PIELC and will be met with the appropriate legal response. The PIELC Co-Directors value the safety of our keynote speakers, panelists, and attendees."

Excepts from the Deep Green Resistance (DGR) press release. Reading this press release keep in mind in Keith's mind transgender woman are really men.
"Lierre Keith has been selected to give a keynote speech at this years Public Interest Environmental Law Conference. Lierre is a natural choice as a keynote speaker- as an impassioned writer Lierre has forcefully advocated direct action to address our dire environmental crisis for years."

"Her writing and lectures focus on civilization’s violence against the planet, male violence against women, and the need for serious resistance to both."

"As an outspoken advocate for radical feminism and a leader of the radical environmental movement, the selection of Keith as a keynoter continues a long tradition of controversial speakers at PIELC."

I was censored on this post by Daily Kos for my belief that DGR is capable of violence and was told until I proved otherwise the paragraph stating that would remain censored.

I will now show that DGR has historically endorsed violence, is transphobic and make a argument that they could under duress direct violence towards the transgender community's physical infrastructure or even our own beings.

Aric McBay cofounder of DGR on hier reasons for quiting

This is a note I sent to Decolonizing Yoga after their piece on DGR and transphobia was posted.

My name is Aric McBay. I'm the primary author of the book Deep Green Resistance and was (rather briefly) one of the original people behind the organization which Be Scofield writes about on your website.

You mention in your piece that I'm a founder, but what you probably don't know is that I left the organization at the beginning of 2012 after a trans inclusive policy was cancelled by Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith. Many good people and good activists left the organization for that reason.

I find these transphobic attitudes to be disgusting and deeply troubling, and it bothers me a lot to have any past association with people promoting transphobia.

For me, trans rights and trans inclusion are fundamental to building effective movements and to building a world worth living in. Speaking as the main author of the book that inspired the organization in the first place: they are most definitely my core values.

And transphobia--like racism and sexism and classism and homophobia--is a poison that those in power use to destroy movements and ruin lives. When faced with such poisons, who needs COINTELPRO?

Solidarity between movements is the only hope we have. I would appreciate it if you would mention this as an addendum on your piece, because I want to make it clear to people that I, and the vast majority of radical environmentalists, fully support trans rights and trans inclusion. I don't want to allow a few outliers to drive wedges between movements that can and should support each other.

And you can quote me on that.

In solidarity,
Aric McBay

DGR posted this on facebook
""We are aware of some vicious attempts to discredit and undermine Ms Keith’s important analysis of women’s oppression and her fight for women’s freedom; including women’s right to gather and self-organize in women only space. We encourage you to not to be bullied or intimidated by those who oppose Lierre Keith and her fight – our fight – for liberation.""
The cornerstone of Keith's and DGR's feminism is the that transgender woman are in fact men who pretend to be female while enjoying the benefits of our patriarchal society and therefore must be denied "woman only spaces",  IE public accommodations.

Source DGR Wikipedia:
"Proponents of Deep Green Resistance encourage strategies for social action that run the gamut from violent to non-violent. DGR's support for violent action (described as a potentially necessary means by which to invoke drastic environmental change) is rejected by many pacifists. Some have called this a potential deterrent to environmentalists who believe in nonviolent activism.[7] In terms of the use of violence, Jensen, Keith, and McBay's strategies all largely center around hard-hitting infrastructural vandalism, such as forcible dam removal, rather than any kind of personal violence."

Listening to DGR's violent agenda against 'soft targets of opportunity" it becomes frigntening evident of the originazations proclivity to commit violence.

It is my experience as a activist that has engaged in civil disobedence that people who allow themselves to resort to the lowest form of communication, violence, are capable of acts of violence in any form.

I am not comforted that DGR the Wikipedia entery. DGR, identified as a core transphobic organization by one of its founders could use this same rational to destroy physical structures associated with gender diversity.

If DGR's views on transsexualism were to be adopted by the greater society, trans inclusive laws would never be enacted and current ones would be repealed resulting in violence against gender diverse people skyrocketing exponentially as would unemployment, homelessness and suicides.

That fear is real. This is why I contend that within the obfuscation of environmentalism the core purpose of DGR is to promulgate rhetoric which would inevitably result in increased violent acts against trans people.

Transgender people are the most victimized minority in the world today and any increase of violence towards 1% of the worlds population would have dire consequences, possibly leading to gendercide. Extermination of trans identity as we see happening in Russia today.

Transgender people are the "soft targets of opportunity" that the DGR is looking for to colece its movement, but that strategy has backfired time and again.

Inviting a violent transphobic group such as the DGR to keynote at the PIELC in the heart of Oregon the home feminist inclusion is unacceptable.

You have a opportunity  to petition the University of Oregon to Cancel Lierre Keith's engagment .

Additional reading list for Lierre Keith and DGR regarding transphobia

Ben Brucato "On Derrick Jensen’s and Lierre Keith’s Transphobia".

Earth First! Journal Collective "Deep Green Transphobia"

The Vegan Ideal "Lierre Keith: A Case Study in Anti-Trans Hatred"

Trans vs. Feminism : Video footage of Queer/Trans activists at the ‘Law and Disorder’ conference following last weekend’s Portland attack

One Angry Queer "Deep Green Resistance: Transphobic Liars, Grasping at Straws"

Missing The Point On DGR's Transphobia and Essentialist Feminism

Excepts from the 5th Annual Law & Disorder Conference "DGR Statement":

We want to thank all members of the community that have informed and enlightened us to DGR’s role in promoting transphobia. We deeply apologize to all that were triggered by DGR’s presence. We would like to use this conflict as an opportunity to create dialogue about transphobia as well as other issues around marginalized groups. It is our understanding that this incident is resulting in DGR members having to own up to their views, and that some members of DGR Portland have left the group in protest to these views – we applaud this and stand in solidarity with them.

On Sunday we were pleased to see a successful confrontation take place between concerned conference attendees and members of DGR. A group of about 15 individuals confronted DGR on their perpetuation of transphobia and the need for them to hold themselves accountable as well as the need to hold Lierre Keith and Derrek Jensen accountable. There is a video that documents this confrontation, with it ending in recommendations for DGR members to further their education on transgender issues, and develop a broader gender analysis.
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    "A feeling of jealous proprietorship towards suffering is as despicable as the cause of the suffering and twice as dangerous to those oppressed."

    by kellibusey on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 03:30:25 PM PST

  •  Thanks for posting this. The environmental (9+ / 0-)

    movement really doesn't need howling bigots as its spokespeople.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:08:44 PM PST

  •  another shameful element (6+ / 0-)

    of the left that occasionally allies itself with the RW which perhaps makes it a meta-false consciousness

    In case you didn’t already know, some of the most hurtful and hateful speech against transgender people comes from radical feminists. Not radical in the sense of radically inclusive, rather they are radically exclusive. Led by lesbian separtists these groups say really awful things about trans people. Many believe the only reason a man would transition to a woman is to rape women, while any woman that would transition to a man only does so to escape sexism and assimilate into patriarchy. Entire websites are dedicated to the discrediting, dehumanization and shaming of trans people and the queer movement. This undoubtedly contributes to the culture of violence, suicide and harassment that trans people face on a daily basis. Fortunately, these extremist views are shunned within the feminist movement at large. However, as a vocal minority they certainly make their presence felt. - See more at:

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:46:29 PM PST

  •  Kudos for diarying this (6+ / 0-)

    I've already signed the petition, which I had heard about on a trans politics email list.

  •  WTF? (6+ / 0-)
    transgender woman are in fact men who pretend to be female while enjoying the benefits of our patriarchal society.
    I never cease to be astounded by the things some people believe.

    One good thing about music, when it hits you feel no pain -Bob Marley

    by Darwinian Detritus on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 05:54:20 PM PST

  •  Where is the balanced reporting? (7+ / 0-)

    Why hasn't anyone bothered to interview Lierre or other members of DGR to hear the other side of the story?  Also, for what it's worth, being critical of the hierarchy of gender does not equal being a "transgender exterminist."  This piece strikes me as defamatory.

  •  holy libel city, Batman! (7+ / 2-)

    You claim in this article that Lierre has advocated violence against trans people. This is not just ridiculous, but criminally libelous. Did you spend even one second reading DGR materials, you know, just in case you might get sued? Clearly not. For instance, from DGR's FAQ:

    "Why are some people accusing DGR of transphobia?

    DGR has been accused of transphobia because we have a difference of opinion about the definition of gender.

    DGR does not condone dehumanization or violence against anyone, including people who describe themselves as trans. Universal human rights are universal. DGR has a strong code of conduct against violence and abuse. Anyone who violates that code is no longer a member of DGR.

    We are not 'transphobic.' We do, however, have a disagreement about what gender is. Genderists think that gender is natural, a product of biology. Radical feminists think gender is social, a product of male supremacy. Genderists think gender is an identity, an internal set of feelings people might have. Radical feminists think gender is a caste system, a set of material conditions into which one is born. Genderists think gender is a binary. Radical feminists think gender is a hierarchy, with men on top. Some genderists claim that gender is 'fluid.' Radical feminists point out that there is nothing fluid about having your husband sell your kidney. So, yes, we have some big disagreements."

    Not only has Lierre not threatened violence against anyone, many of those protesting her have openly threatened to assault HER on PIELC's event page, as well as laughing at a previous public assault made against her for her views critical of vegetarianism. Other members of DGR have also been assaulted by trans people simply for being associated with Lierre. And because of articles like this one that justify people taking violent action against feminists with the publication of lies and hearsay.

  •  Get your shit together, DailyKos! (8+ / 2-)

    Is this a joke, DailyKos? Because last I checked, accusing a person of being an "exterminist", or advocating VIOLENCE against people, without even attempting to evidence such outrageous claims, was legally-actionable.

    Had KelliBusey not been too lazy or perhaps biased to Google a few things, she would have found:

    1. The same self-identified anarchists responsible for the PIELC page blowing up are putting the call out to troll a similarly-outrageous article published in the Eugene Weekly:

    "Me and my homies trolled the facwbook page hardcore untill PIELC folks disabled commenting :(
    Come fuck DGRs shit up though."

    2. Not only does Keith condemn violence against trans people, she and DGR condemn the male supremacist gendered norms and violence committed by males against gender non-conforming individuals:

    "DGR does not condone dehumanization or violence against anyone, including people who describe themselves as trans. Universal human rights are universal. DGR has a strong code of conduct against violence and abuse. Anyone who violates that code is no longer a member of DGR.

    Disagreeing with someone, however, is not a form of violence. And we have a big disagreement."

    Strange that Kelli couldn't find that on the website along with the sole quote she did include.

    3. Keith stands out in this respect, since her opponents have no problem with assaulting her ( or other women in her organization.

    4. A classic radical analysis of an ideology (like gender) is not a bigoted "phobia", any more than daring to call race an OPPRESSIVE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION.

    5. (It's okay, Kelli, no one expects
     you to understand any of the following paragraph). Trans politic and trans theory DID emerge from the Queer subculture (after a few decades of postmodern Liberalism in which personal attachment to "identity" became sacred and analyzing those identities in a political context became taboo, that is). The Queer subculture was a reaction against Radical Feminist Gay Liberationists- that was back when people understood the male violence against and suffering of both gays and gender non-conformists as part of male supremacy and the gender roles required to maintain it. Academics John Stoltenberg and Sheila Jeffreys (among many others) have spoken extensively about this reactionary politic, and the latter, along with Keith, has been LIKEWISE harassed and silenced for it.

    6. If the DailyKos was at all interested in who's being harassed by who, they'd find that radical feminists can find themselves harassed, stalked, and threatened with violence for even BLOGGING about gender as a social construction- just ask the Dyke and  Trans Alliance, who have no problem doxxing feminist writers' personal information and posting on public pages for god knows what purpose, as can be seen here:

    7. But carry on supporting people who assault, harass, and silence women DailyKos- maybe your complete lack of either political analysis of the situation, and facts supporting your outrageous and legally-actionable claims about Keith are because you secretly know you haven't a leg to stand on.

    •  We're not down with people telling trans people (5+ / 0-)

      they don't or can't exist, sorry.  Take it elsewhere.

      I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

      by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 04:55:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You don't even know what's going on right now. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The only people telling trans individuals they can't or don't exist would be male supremacist gender norms. Good job on doing their work for them by attacking radical feminists who speak out against gender constructs.

      •  Evidence (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Xavier Livingston

        Please provide substantial, verifiable evidence (not opinions) for the claim that DGR/Lierre Keith "[tell] trans* people they don't or can't exist". Or retract your statement. Thank you.

        •  She.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          She tells them that they aren't unique from EVERYONE ELSE who suffers from bifurcated gender caricatures which place social demands on them in order to justify a sadistic political hierarchy.

          But why engage in a 101 sociological analysis of where gender comes from and what its purpose is, when that would lead you to examining what it does to women and girls BECAUSE they are women and girls?

          Nah, let's assault and silence and make passive-aggressive threats against any woman who speaks out. Nuttin' male supremacist about that at all.

          •  fap fap fap all you want (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annieli, atana

            Your clock is ticking.

          •  You're talking about erasure. (0+ / 0-)

            "She tells them that they aren't unique from EVERYONE ELSE who suffers from bifurcated gender caricatures which place social demands on them in order to justify a sadistic political hierarchy."

            In other words, she tells that their lived experience is some sort of delusion; that they aren't the gender they actually are; that gender orientation is non-existent despite evidence to the contrary; that gender dysphoria is a social disease or a demonstrably unrelated psychological disorder; and that transgender people  "aren't unique" but are just confused victims of gender itself?

            Is that what you're trying to say?  Because I hear those ideas from the TERF crew all the time.

            And those lies cost people their quality of life and sometimes life itself - all because y'all just can't wrap your brains around the complexities of how the universe actually functions.

            Why not engage in 101 analysis? Because it's INSUFFICIENT.

            What's your next profound statement?  "Men have a penis and women have a vagina?"

            Because we're all waiting for the Kindergarten Cop moment here.

    •  Quoting "gender identity watch"... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana, annieli, Horace Boothroyd III

      ...does not lend you any credibility when trying to make a argument that transphobia does not exist in DGR. Rather it destroys your argument. Find someone else than Bugsbrennan to validate with plz...

      "A feeling of jealous proprietorship towards suffering is as despicable as the cause of the suffering and twice as dangerous to those oppressed."

      by kellibusey on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 09:45:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ...what? (0+ / 0-)

        Grow up.

        GIW is just the site containing the SCREENSHOT of Cathy Brenannan's doxxing by the "Dyke & Trans Alliance".

        You certainly won't find it in your atrocious article.

        Since you didn't address any of the other six points, I'll assume you agree with them.

    •  When radical feminism was alive, it fought (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, Horace Boothroyd III

      for inclusion -- inclusion of women in professions, in political systems, even in all-male clubs. But when radical feminism became obsessed with exclusion of trans people, it died.

    •  Gender Identity Watch is not a credible source. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      By the way, the article that was linked accuses me personally of conspiring to compile and publish personal information about Cathy Brennan, which I did not do.

      On the contrary, the people she accused put the sock that was publishing the doxx on a shared block list and reported the account to twitter, as well as made reports to pastebin.  The account was promptly suspended and the pastebin was removed.

      Moments after the doxx had happened, I was accused on twitter of helping orchestrate it with a link to GIW by someone that I suspect was Brennan, but I don't know because she makes lots of socks.  That account later disappeared.  [btw - even though I have been placed on her site three times so far, including links to my Facebook, pictures taken off my twitter, and my full legal name listed beside my pen name) - I've only interacted with her twice that I remember, and only briefly, by accident through socks that she makes on twitter.  She also sent me a frivolous DMCA once.  I have not sought any direct contact with her what-so-ever however many times she says to "bring it on".]

      I don't know who did the doxx.  I don't agree with what they did.  At first, I thought that it was Brennan doxxing herself to entrap us and write about us (because of how everything happened so quickly) but I was told by people who have interacted with her quite a bit before that it was unlikely to be her.

      What I found really profound about the whole situation, is that Cathy Brennan (or at the very least whomever is posting to GIW) posts the personal information of trans activists ALL THE TIME - including legal names, former names, and pictures.  She hasn't just posted personal information, she had acted on it.  She has contacted employers, parents, and even someone's doctor - accusing them of "harassing women", being "demented", and making claims that are extreme exaggerations of the truth.  She created videos mocking the gender expression of a teenage activists I know, like a common bully.  She goes to OkCupid and reports trans women's profiles who identify as "lesbian" as fraud and posts screen shots on her website.

      [And YES, I have seen documentation of every single claim I made there.]

      I don't know who "Dyke and Trans Alliance" was; but again, I highly condemn what they did.

      You know - publishing someone's personal information of people as a means of hostility - you know what Cathy Brennan has done to countless people - many of which are extremely vulnerable.

      Seriously, where is the cognitive dissonance?  How is it reasonable to mention THE most infamous transphobic "sorry about your penis" internet BULLY of all time.  I would quote MORE of her taunts and actions here, but I don't want to TRIGGER the people that might be reading who have been stalked by her.

      In what universe is referencing Cathy Brennan a good argument for the absurd notion that Trans-Exclusionary Rad-Fems are all sincere academics who just write gender critical commentary; and trans-activists are violently on the offensive and really have nothing to be upset about?

      Your argument itself makes no sense since you are making a categorical statement.  Do you think that all trans-activists and transgender people are the same?  Are you seeking collective punishment?

      Because trust me, I KNOW for a fact that not all TERFs are like Cathy Brennan; nor do they all approve of her bully tactics.

      I don't get it.

      The question is whether or not the INDIVIDUAL person mentioned in the OP is being fairly characterized, right?  So, how is Cathy's doxx (by an unknown person) relevant at all?

      •  I've rec'd this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        but with the caveat that I most definitely am seeking a "collective punishment" for all TERFs: political marginalization to the point of extinction. These DGR bigots are no different from White Supremacists or the Westboro Baptist Church. They should be confronted everywhere they speak, and held up to the shame and ridicule they have earned. Decent people should point at them and laugh whenever they appear in public.

        As for Cathy Brennan, she seems like a natural fit to DGR and a perfect expression of what they have chosen to be.

        •  Depends on what you call "punish". (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I agree.

          They need to be confronted and their ideas ridiculed.

          The more that is known, the more we realize that their incredibly simplistic concepts of "sex" and "gender" are fundamentally flawed.

          They are intellectual dinosaurs that refuse to acknowledge lived realities as well as scientific consensus.  They keep banging on the BIO 101 and SOC 101 definitions of "sex" and "gender" - with this delusional notion that their ideas haven't been falsified over and over again.

          Their approach to gender equality is figuratively analogous to attempting to reach racial equality with coffee or bleach.  Their caricatures of trans woman as hyper-feminine rapists, is pathetic and bigoted in the extreme.

          However, I'm not seeking "collective punishment" for individuals - in the strict sense.  Not everyone who has these horrible views have done all the things that Cathy Brennan (or others who harass trans women) have done; and they don't all believe exactly the same thing.

          E. Hungerford, for example, holds and espouses extremist views that do real harm; but I have not known her to be vicious or harass anyone, or attempt to personally hurt and terrorize them by contacting employers or family members.

          But DO NOT GET ME WRONG - acting on their ideology does real harm - including death due to inaccessibility to life-saving medical care.

          We know this.

          We need to let everyone else know this.

          A nice friendly pretentious bigot is still a bigot.  In fact, if anything, they are more dangerous; because their bigotry isn't as easily recognized by those unfamiliar with what is actually happening and just how repulsive their "gender critical" ideology is, especially in practice.

  •  Does Daily Kos have a community standard?? (10+ / 2-)

    This article is the biggest crock of shit.  The language of calling Lierre Keith an "exterminationist" is slanderous and meant to illicit nothing but an extreme emotional response.  This is not her view and as a radical feminist myself, it is not the view of any radical feminist.  We oppose GENDER itself.  Following your fucked up logic that would mean we are for the extermination of nearly EVERYONE since all humans are pushed into extreme gender roles in an effort to maintain the patriarchal system.

    If your feminism is about gaslighting women into accepting their oppressors into their personal spaces under the guise that they "identify" as women, congratulations!  You are a men's rights activist.

    •  To answer your question (6+ / 0-)
      Does Daily Kos have a community standard??
      Yes, it does. It has a very reasonable and alert community standard.
    •  HR for insinuating that trans people don't have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, Horace Boothroyd III

      valid gender identities. That is transphobia -- in this case, specifically transmisogyny, since trans women are the target.

      •  Sorry... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Critically-examining the social and political origins of human identities is not a bigoted "phobia", it's, like, three or four fields of academic study. The majority of white Americans stupid enough to believe they're oppressed need to be told this, as do trans-supremacists who attack women for naming gender as oppressive to females.

        •  Your transphobia is not accepted in the academy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Horace Boothroyd III, annieli

          Those "three or four fields: have given you haters the boot.

          •  Do I (0+ / 0-)

            need to quote some Wiki articles to point you in the right direction of what the ideology of Patriarchy is, according to sociologists and political historians?

            Studying where our identity comes from is taboo because of postmodernism.

            Way to to the slavework of neo-liberalism.

            •  Non sequitur (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              If you can point us to prominent sociologists who endorse your transphobia, that might be relevant.

            •  This is DK if you want to quote wiki go back to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              atana, annieli


              •  I mentioned (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Wiki because someone who views gendered oppression and gendered violence as occurring in a vacuum as opposed to emerging from and in turn perpetuating an ultimate material hierarchy of power doesn't have a basic grasp on radical feminist analyses or indeed radical analyses, period.

                Which group of people is served by bifurcating the species into two groups, wherein one's very IDENTITY is determined by in-group membership and classification? Which group is oppressed by this? What would reform look like vs REVOLUTION against this hierarchy?

                These are basic questions.

                •  You really do leave dead strawmen everywhere (0+ / 0-)

                  you go, don't you?

                  Here is a truly radical idea for how to dismantle the oppression of women: it's called economic feminism. Make women economically independent of men. Get women represented in all social institutions at the same levels as men. If women find those institutions oppressive, they will then be able to change them.

                  Those are goals that can be furthered by policies and laws; in other words, through mainstream political action.

                  I also believe in direct action outside the political mainstream. But there the goal is different: it is to draw attention to things our corporate media won't normally cover, and to create pressure on the political system. By far the most effective example of that we have seen recently is Edward Snowden, but current environmental actions surrounding KXL and the Occupy movement a few years ago are helpful.

                  However, I'm not clear about what the tactics of Deep Green Resistance are supposed to achieve. I used to be a member of Earth First!, back in the Judy Bari days. They have managed to be an environmental organization which supports direct action sans transphobia. Earth First! has this to say about Deep Green Resistance:

                  in light of DGR’s continued assault on trans people, with language and analysis that denies the struggles of trans-people and even goes so far as to deny the value, worth and power of their existence in radical movements, labeling trans people as somehow “not real,” or as Post-Modern manifestations of individualism, the Earth First! Journal collective will no longer print or in any way promote DGR material. While we don’t need to agree with an individual or organization to find their words or actions relevant for discussion we will not continue to include those whose core expression of values continues to promote exclusion and oppression.
  •  Transgender extremists silence women (7+ / 2-)

    Transgender extremist? I was confused because the extremists are the ones calling for murder, terrorism, rape of a woman who is speaking on a topic unrelated to transgenderism. Knowing that gender oppresses women is not an extremist position. Threatening to rape, kill, physically harm Lierre Keith as many so called 'trans activists' have is an extremist position.

  •  Lierre Keith has my respect - "kellibusey" doesn't (7+ / 0-)

    In a screed speckled with English mistakes, someone uses the Daily Kos to try and demonize a courageous, thorough and committed analyst of gender and environmental issues. "kellibusey" attempts to put words in Keith's mouth in the most blatant fashion to justify an attempt to deny her speech and besmirch her reputation. I am embarrassed that this series of slurs and straw men even got past an editor. Anonymous charges such are these are the scourge of the Internet.

  •  Seriously? (7+ / 0-)

    Get some more facts and stop trying to burn this woman at the stake.  I expected a lot more from KOS.

    •  expressing an opinion she should not be a speaker (5+ / 0-)

      at an event over things she has said - not burning her at the stake.  Sorry.

      I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

      by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 05:20:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  sure (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NoRest, Xavier Livingston

        Oh come off it.  Most of this is very one sided and a lot of it is solely opinion based and you know it.  Stop acting like it is otherwise.  You might have just written Lierre eats babies for lunch because some that does not like her wrote it.  This is insane and can potentially get her hurt by those crazy enough to act out on it.  But then again maybe that was the intention?  Like I said, stop burning this woman at the stake.

        •  WTF. No. Really. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, Horace Boothroyd III, atana

          Yes, it is opinion based, and that's ok, because this is a free fucking society and you can have opinions that other people disagree with - it's that crazy freedom of speech and association thing.

          If you want to start accusing people of eating babies you best bring some forensic evidence or shut the fuck up.  The only person acting insane in this now ending conversation is you.

          I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

          by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 12:10:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  UNfortunately... (0+ / 0-)

            for miss Kelli, "freedom of speech" refers to the individual right to speak without fear of state censorship, and not the individual right to publish outrageous claims about an individual completely-devoid of evidence (and despite easily-researched evidence to the contrary, let alone inciting others to violence by calling assaults on women "successful confrontation").

            All of this is of course ironic because a WOMAN SPEAKING is what's gotten the trans-supremacists so up in arms.

            "Bring some...evidence or shut the fuck up, indeed". That's exactly what this article needs.

            •  you assume Kelli isn't a woman. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annieli, Horace Boothroyd III, atana

              Why is that?

              You assume that you get to determine for other individuals whether or not their bodies are oppressive to them.  Why is that?

              You assume that any disagreement with your not well presented at all position - it might help if you clarified what it is you are actually defending as non oppressive when it looks pretty damn oppressive - is inherently violence?  Why is that?

              You sound like a LaRouchian - arguing in circles about things no one can quite parse out because you're intentionally being verbose and vague.  Why is that?

              I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

              by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 06:42:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

                I "assumed" Kelli isn't a woman despite calling her "miss"? Did you even read my comment?

                Here's the "position": gender is a social construction used to oppress women and girls. Revolution against gender and the male supremacist violence used to enforce it would necessarily end violence and oppression of women and girls and the suffering of trans-identified individuals. Nothing about this is "verbose" or "vague": it's a BASIC CLASS ANALYSIS.

                That's it.

                That's the view for which women are being silenced and assaulted with impunity.

                •  It seemed... snarky not genuine. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  atana, Horace Boothroyd III, annieli

                  Your demanding that "trans identified" individuals shut the hell up and not disagree with your theory doesn't seem to fit in with what you described.   How is oppressing their voices ending their suffering?

                  And what about cis women who disagree with your theory?  Do they just have to shut the hell up too?

                  I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                  by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 07:58:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ...wait, what? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    This entire protest is attempting to silence a woman (who has been physically assaulted, along with others in her organization) for her views on gender!

                    Do you get the irony?

                    Where has Keith or anyone else assaulted or attempted to silence a trans-identified individual? I can link a dozen cases of the opposite, including death threats against her from the PIELC page before moderators had to shut off commenting.

                    Who is trying to silence who?

                    Who is assaulting who?

                    •  She's allowed to have whatever views she wants (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      atana, Horace Boothroyd III, annieli

                      on gender.  That doesn't entitle her to be immune to criticism for those views - which still seem pretty oppressive while crying oppression.

                      Talk about irony.

                      You didn't answer my questions - stop trying to redirect.  Let me try to be clearer.

                      How is dissolving the concept of gender helpful to trans people?  

                      How is denying trans people the right to their own voices not oppression in and of itself?

                      How does dissolving the concept of gender address the biological nature of having genitals and social equality in a post gender society?

                      How does the dissolution of the concept of gender address the physical oppression some individuals feel from their own genitals?  As genitals are not gender, gender being a social construct?

                      And what about cis women who don't agree with the dissolution of gender as a construct - where do they fit in all this?  DO they have a voice?

                      I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                      by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 08:29:55 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  ... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        And by "criticism", you mean death threats, having her name slandered in comic book style fashion ("exterminist"????), and being blacklisted from speaking at events unrelated to gender?

                        If you could explain why ABOLISHING GENDER would "oppress anyone", that would be interesting to read.

                        In order, I'll answer yours:

                        1. All people who chafe against gender norms and gender indoctrination (many if not most people) would be helped by abolishing gender.

                        2. Trans people are not the ones being silenced- they're hostile and extremely-reactionary to gender, including gender non-conformity, being analyzed politically AT ALL. The oppression and "female" constructs imposed on women and girls BASED ON THEIR GENITALIA, to the benefit of men and boys BASED ON THEIR GENITALIA is rapidly becoming even taboo to discuss, and in feminist spaces!

                        3. The biological nature of having genitals isn't a problem, so doesn't need to be addressed. The fact that people's identities are so extremely-invested in great mythological constructs associated with genitals (because it serves the needs of power) is the problem. You can't maintain any inequality without an informing ideology, so "male" and "female" ways of being and thinking wouldn't exist in a post-gender society. Definitionally. Because they're essentialist. How, for instance, would it serve the needs of people of color for the left to cling to racial constructs and stereotypes (like what the right is fostering) which impose and naturalize political and social divisions among human beings?

                        4. "Oppression" has a very specific meaning sociologically and politically. Body dysmorphia or extreme dissonance is not "oppression", though the suffering of individuals who are taught that male and female are somehow tied to transcendant ways of being and thinking is inherently political, for women as a class and gay men and males who don't conform. Such is why a boy in a tutu suffers far  more than a girl in camo. Because gender is a hierarchy, not a binary.

                        5. Everyone has a voice. Which is why it's disturbing when people who try to speak, and about unrelated topics, are specifically-targeted for defaming articles and Facebook campaigns. Radical feminist scholar and historian Sheila Jeffreys has spoken out about being silenced, and John Stoltenberg has alluded to it, as well.

                        •  Stop with the distractions. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          atana, Horace Boothroyd III, annieli

                          1 - HOW will they be helped by the dissolution of the concept of gender?   Specifics, not just an insistence they will be.

                          2 - Trans people are inherently being oppressed when they are not allowed the freedom to self determine their own identity and bodies for their own comfort - or told that their desire to do so is based on a desire within them to oppress others.  How did you come to the determination that you know other people's motivations and can articulate them for them?  

                          And that goes for being oppressed by ones own genitals no matter their original configuration.  Are you saying that female to male transgender people are not oppressed by their genitals?

                          3 - How does that work exactly?  
                          Do we simply do away with names we have now for genitals?  
                          Do we scrap all the languages that are gendered - which is most of them?  
                          What is the process for that in order to eradicate the concept of gender from the planet and our species?  
                          Do you force the concept to go away, or do you create a new concept that is so mindblowingly simple that people flock to it?  
                          Why are there so few advocates for the dissolution of the concept of gender, and so little detail in how that would manifest itself in the human experience on a day to day level?

                          With twin children, when Lak asks why Mak's genitals go in a different direction, how do we explain that under the new construct so they understand?

                          4. Can you prove that being horrified by ones own genitals is not oppression?  Being confined physically in a body that is not correct for one's identity - outside the construct of gender would still exist.  
                          How would that issue be addressed and resolved under the new system?  
                          Not everyone who is transgender considers gender to be binary - where do they fit in your construct?

                          5. How does being challenged on a position silence someone?  If anything, it give an opportunity for clarification and sharing of concepts, not suppression of them.  It's interesting that you've spent so much time insisting she's being silenced while diverting from direct questions meant to clarify her position.  
                          And why are you speaking for her?  
                          Isn't she a capable being and able to express her own beliefs without assistance?

                          Where is it written that one can't express concerns or dislike for a speakers position on anything?  Particularly if her belief system on something as culturally widespread as the concept of gender or lack of it may be expected to inform her other beliefs?  From what you've told me of this concept, NO topic is unrelated to it, so everything she would speak to would be informed by her beliefs.

                          I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                          by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 09:39:48 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  text wallll (0+ / 0-)

                            1 - Gendered violence. Gendered norms- aesthetics, speech cadences, physical movements. The desperate need for women to declare safe spaces from people with male bodies. Anything gender or sex related into which people are indoctrinated into caricturesque or dichotomous ways of being in association, gone.

                            2 - No. "Oppression" in a class analysis doesn't simply mean "suffering". "Suffering" applies to everyone who doesn't conform to a gender role, and all of those who do because they'll face backlash, very often violent, otherwise. Everyone indocrinated into it these norms. So "suffering" describes everyone. "Oppression" refers to the disempowered and subjugated caste specifically. Within male supremacism, this is women and girls, and transcendant concepts of "gender" informs that ideology. Body dysmorphia, not being granted access to women's spaces, being alienated to your core by what you perceive your sex as inherently being according to society- that's the NORM. I'm not sure who said that trans-identified individual feel as they do "based on a desire to oppress others", but it would seem some certainly do, since they are trying to silence women who speak about how gender harms women and girls. I never pretended to know other people's "motivations", nor did Keith, to my knowledge- all that can be described is how people ACT, and how those actions relate to what's known about the larger political context, in this case: people being indoctrinated by patriarchy as either masculine or feminine, BASED ON THEIR GENITALS, and postmodern liberal depoliticization of this fact by reframing gender as an "identity". Which is interesting because, as you can see, people become extremely-hostile when others don't agree to call them by their preferred gender pronoun. You'd think if gender wasn't social or political, this wouldn't be the case.

                            3 - Genitals aren't the problem. It isn't radical feminists who have a hostility to genitals, merely the oppression that occurs based on who-has-what. The "process" for eradicating gender is the same as the "process" for eradicating any other sadistic ideology used to subjugate- material dismantlement of the institutions which propagate it, namely, challenging those who disseminate it (and other construct, like racist programming on FOX which depicts people of color in a stereotyped and degrading way, for instance).

                            4. The concept is "mindblowingly simple", when you think about it. People's realities and identities are defined by whether they're male or female (as opposed to something unique to their character) because our society is hypergendered. I know immediately what things someone means when they say "live as a man" vs "live as a woman", in a way that "live as a white person" vs "live as a black person" has no transcendant meaning but for racial oppression defining individual reality. Why are there so few advocates for the dissolution of ANYTHING which oppresses: gender, race, imperialism, Capitalism, colonialism, etc? Because reality is determined by those ideologies, and people must submit to them lest they become targets, as is happening with Keith. There's so "little detail" about the day to day of a culture without male supremacy/gender because those things define THE LAST SIX THOUSAND YEARS or more of human history. Arguably, all of the sadistic paradigms I named before are emergent of what's called the "violation imperative" of the masculine gender role, for instance. It's very difficult to conceptualize a world without it for that reason.
                            As for Lak and Mak, tell them their bodies, like those of other animals, are made such that a particular combination of them can allow humans to make babies, or reproduce, and who they are as people, and who they LOVE as people, is irrelevant to this fact. No "construct" needed.

                            4. Well, yes, because "oppression" means something specific:

                             1. A  basic sociological definition

                            as does hating your body:
                            2. a psychological disorder

                            arguably, most people have BDD at some point, especially as children. the majority of girls undergo this when they learn that their genitals affects whether they are taken seriously, and boys when they learn that their genitals affect whether they are allowed to be sensitive and empathetic to others without being tortured for it (both of those plus a thousand more).

                            Feeling that who you are, your identity, your reality, as synonymous with your gender is the last 6,000 years.

                            5. Being "challenged" doesn't silence anyone. Being approached by an angry mob who deface your organizations materials, being invited to an event where people throw pies at you, being professionally-blacklisted because venues and event organizers don't wish to deal with the overrunning of their pages with political demands and death threats- that's silencing. If trans-identified individuals and their advocates wanted "clarification" of something, they'd ask questions like you've been asking, frankly, and not accuse radical feminists of wanting to "exterminate" fellow human beings who suffer because of gender.  

                            6. I'm not speaking for her. I've never even met or exchanged words with this person, I'm just someone who's noticed some extremely-disturbing trends taking place targeting women and radical feminists, and the prime offenders were people born and presumably socialized as male. That's what's troubling.

                            7. "Expressing concerns" / demanding a speaker be removed and calling her a "transphobe" because she has a classic radical analysis of gender. Do you see how that's hyperbolic? It's true that Keith from what I've read sees the violation imperative of masculinity as synonymous with decimation of the Earth by male-run power structures of any kind you want to name. (That's why framing women as "cis" is so problematic: women do not own or control ANY institutions or create and enforce ANY ideologies.) The question is whether trans-activists view gender analysis as relevant to ecological crisis. Evidently they don't because it's only a tiny minority who even MENTION the latter, and the PIELC conference is one about precisely that topic.

                            Thank you for reading. I was going to ask you some similar questions about Liberal framing of gender, but now I'm fancying a tea instead. :P

                          •  No intersectionality in this world view (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Horace Boothroyd III

                            There is only one "class division", which is the gender binary: natal males / natal females. Biology is destiny: if you are a natal male, you are an oppressor. If you are a natal female, you are oppressed. And that never changes.

                            It doesn't matter if women of color say their racial oppression is often worse than their gender oppression. They are just wrong. Because their biologically determined essence is female, which is the only oppressed class. So their voices don't count any more than trans voices.

                            This is why women of color walked away from "radical feminism" and embraced Alice Walker's Womanism instead. And sure enough, this Keith person seems to have run afoul of the Lakota Nation by spouting some nonsense about them.

                            We really don't need these bigots on our side re: KXL or other environmental battles. They are an embarrassment to any progressive cause. But the good news is that these attitudes are becoming a laughingstock. And cultivating these fools for a Pink Sodomobile type of treatment -- as Michael Moore gave to their kindred spirit Fred Phelps -- would be their best reward.

                          •  that helps some... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Horace Boothroyd III, atana, annieli

                            1 - What about same sex violence? Is that going to be addressed as part of the new utopia of a gender free society?  
                            What about people choosing to associate for whatever reasons with people who are same bodied as they are for whatever reason?  
                            Is that forbidden?  
                            Does a gender free society rule out the concept of association of choice?  It would seem to imply that any kind of segregation by genital characteristics would be inherently negative, because it could lead to gender recognition - so female only or male only spaces should both then be suspect?

                            2 - I don't think you understand what I'm asking here.  Under your explanation men can't oppress other men, yet you imply that men who are not sufficiently masculine according to a non-universal standard can be oppressed. Women can and certainly do oppress each other as well, they are not immune to or incapable of acts of oppression within their own group specifically because women create their own hierchies.  Oppression is the unequal use of power over another being based on perceived characteristics.

                            But there is a difference in being non non-universally standard masculine and being a woman forced via biology to wear a penis, or to be male and forced via biology to live with menses and breasts.

                            Being referred to by the wrong pronoun in that situation IS a form of oppression and denial of inherent personhood, that the individual is nothing more than the biology of sex organs - which is not true.

                            BDD can be something as simple as thinking your nose looks weird in proportion to your other features, it's not inherently gendered.

                            You skipped the part addressing female to male transgender people completely, BTW.

                            3 - If radical feminists don't have a hostility to genitals, why do they pants check other women they feel do not meet their standards of femininity?  This has happened at places like Michigan Women's Music Festival. Women with facial hair are also pants checked and questioned as well.  How is that not creating an invasive and violating atmosphere where women are not welcome to be women unless they meet someone else's criteria for womanhood?
                            And who is defining that?
                            I am having trouble seeing as any different from men demanding conformity in appearance - it's still demanding conformity and creating a power imbalance reinforced by shame, violation of privacy and exclusion.

                            You skipped the part about language - most human language is inherently gendered - English to a lesser degree than say, French, but that's still something that has to be addressed.  
                            Are you suggesting that people have to give up their languages?  No more Italian, Russian, German - not to mention most aboriginal languages? Are we all going to speak Mandarin because the pronouns are pronounced the same but written slightly differently?
                            How is that not an example of cultural imperialism at its worst? Change the way you speak and think in order to accommodate my paradigm?  That's a pretty big demand.

                            4. I'm not sure I agree with this.  There is actually record of life without being "hypergendered" - you just have to look for it.  The body as vehicle for the individual is a reality of living in society, that is association with other human beings.  Therefore there will be references to a beings sex as part of their identity - mostly because for the vast majority of people - it is a comfortable part of it.  
                            You keep talking about women and girls - you identify with being female.  Which is totally cool. But it's not a universal attribute, 49% of the global population are not women or girls. And even within that slight majority of females - the concept of self identity and the connection to femaleness is not cross cultural.  There is no universal measure culturally for being female or male in your personhood other than your own say so - your self determination to identify with that mostly binary concept of agreeing with your genitals.  I see this as a conflict with the idea of a gender free society.  (As opposed to a sexless or unisex society, which we have determined it will not be, as Mak and Lak demonstrate having different genitals.)

                            Mak and Lak make sense, but again, that would imply that they would be given no concept of differentiation between themselves based on their sex organs, so neither one would be identified as a girl or later a woman.

                            So in this existence without gender, there will be no women or girls, or men and boys. There will only be human beings. Am I understanding this correctly?

                            5. Your distracting again here.  We are talking about this theory so I can understand it - not the actions of other people and their supposed motivations for them.  Focus on the issue at hand.  Either people can discuss a concept or they can't.  Which is it?  Why is dissent, confusion or disagreement violence?

                            6. So does this mean we are only having this conversation because I've disclosed I have a vagina that is original equipment?  I find that equally disturbing.

                            7.Is this theory not woman created?  Are not the people who are devoted to spreading this concept not women - and in effect the would be enforcers of the concept of a society without gender?

                            Ask anything you like, I will do my best to give an honest and thoughtful answer to the best of my ability.  Tea is good. :)

                            I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                            by Mortifyd on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 01:05:04 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  It's very simple (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Horace Boothroyd III, annieli

                Trans people are deluded, and Radical Feminists are going to cure their delusions by ending all oppression.

                Now, oppression comes from gender, because that's what the radical analysis of gender says. So to end oppression, and thereby cure the delusions of trans people, you have to abolish gender.

                And the way to abolish gender is -- obviously -- by trashing trans people in as hurtful a manner as you can contrive.

                That will cause gender to collapse, and with it oppression -- and we will all enter Heaven ("In Jesus there is neither male nor female.") and there will be no more trans people. Oh, and also KXL will not be approved.

                Understand now?

                •  Not really, no. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  atana, Horace Boothroyd III, annieli

                  If gender is distinct from sex - why am I still getting such a "penises are bad, M'kay?" vibe here when the collapse of gender should free us all from the burdens of oppression and expectation by society... since we are still a species that uses sex to procreate and has two primary biological options out of 4 - female-ish, male-ish, both-ish and neither-ish.

                  And if penises are bad, why is cutting off a penis and physically rejecting the societal norms that say a penis holder is inherently more human (ie the patriarchy) bad? Talk about some skin in the game... that's freaking commitment!

                  And since you can't stop being from being born with genitals... and since human beings have existed there have been a small percentage that have found their physical bodies oppressive to them... so much so that various cultures outside the western "patriarchial" society we assume is the norm have names and social roles for them, if not just outright switching because being oppressed by your body sucks...

                  Yeah, still confused.  It sounds to me like taking on the mantle of priv, calling it rebellion and freedom and using it to emotionally rape and abuse other people for the sake of ideology.  So... patriarchy.  Minus penises.

                  Definitely still confused.  I'll take gender equality and individual determination of sex and identity over that.

                  I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                  by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 08:18:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Dear, dear... (3+ / 0-)

                    You must not have read enough sophomore-level sociology and radical feminist gender analysis.

                  •  the (0+ / 0-)

                    Idea is that reforming gender as a "binary", and preaching that individuals should be allowed to "identify" WITHIN IT conveniently ignores that it isn't a "binary": it's a hierarchy, and backlash against people born male who don't conform to their role as an oppressor isn't "oppression", it's the same as faced by "cis" males who have effeminate mannerisms and also gay men, and both of those demanding access to women's spaces would be met in the same way. Radical Feminist Gay Liberationists (against whom Queer culture and the resulting Trans-culture were REACTIONARY) understood gender as having an ultimate origin in male supremacist roles for men. Which male-only political space might a FtM trans-identified person demand entry to, for instance? The Bilderberg meetings?

                    It also ignores that this is an option for only the extremely-privileged: women living under Islamic Fascism cannot "identify" their way out of a burka, nor can others "identify" out of being targeted as females for FGM.

                    Gender defining one's reality and identity isn't "rebellion". Feminists and women being silence isn't "rebellion", nor is male-bodied people assaulting female-bodied people (who have to be referred to as such because the political context of male supremacy is obscured by framing gender as an "identity"). The fact that we (the vast majority of us) are born one sex or the other is kind of elementary to understanding how sex is used to oppress females. Seeking to abolish gender as an oppressive social construction would benefit everyone, since feeling alienated by the ways we're taught men and women think and feel and experience the world and also our bodies in this context is an experience common to many if not most.

                    •  STILL not answering the direct questions. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      atana, Horace Boothroyd III

                      Gender is not sex.  So scroll up, and actually expand on the benefits of this belief system to the questions actually asked, rather than going off on tangents.

                      I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                      by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 08:52:10 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  you're right (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        It's only Patriarchy that says gender IS sex.

                        It's only neoliberalism (Patriarchy, and also trans politics) that say gender NEEDS TO EXIST.

                        It's only radical feminists who say gender NEEDS TO GO.

                        As for "going off on tangents", I answered the best way I knew/know how to.

                        A world without gender is difficult to conceptualize, I know, even for radical feminists, sometimes. It flies in the face of 6,000 years of male supremacist domination in which the species has been split in two. :(

                        •  I don't actually have any problem with the concept (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Horace Boothroyd III, atana

                          of the dissolution of gender as a theory - I want to understand how it will be implemented and impact the day to day lives of all humans.

                          You're concept of history is very short, people have been writing and singing a lot longer than 6000 years - which are the primary methods of transmitting cultural concepts between generations.

                          There is also a wide diversity of cultures on this planet created by our species, to simply describe all of them as patriarchal is simply sloppy.

                          I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                          by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 09:45:51 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                            Writing and singing doesn't involve a penis or a vagina or a male brain or a female brain (though one's right to sing or write or do a thousand other things has been impacted by those things for the last few millenia.

                            As for the "wide diversity of cultures", you could count the surviving non-patriarchal ones on one hand.


                          •  I hate to tell you this... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Horace Boothroyd III, atana

                            but not everything can be reduced to penises and vaginas.

                            You seem to be assuming that recognition by the west is required for "survival" - there are plenty of matriarchal structures and some that don't even fit into a binary paradigm that existed and continue to exist, but on small scale and aren't studied.  But that doesn't mean they didn't exist, or that they are valueless now that they have been supplanted by other systems.    It's still sloppy.

                            I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

                            by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 11:53:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  say whaaa (0+ / 0-)

                  "And the way to abolish gender is -- obviously -- by trashing trans people in as hurtful a manner as you can contrive."

                  *citation needed

                  I'm not the one trying to silence or assault anyone or demanding a woman be removed from an environmental conference because of her views on gender.

  •  attacking radical feminists for critiquing gender (5+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    SusanH, owen1218, NoRest, middee, Xavier Livingston
    Hidden by:

    What every radical feminist does is critique, and describe, the harm GENDER causes the class of women. From birth until death. No radical feminist that I have ever met would ever support physical and other harm coming to non- gender conforming individuals - why would we? Most of us are that ourselves.

    The way this has been twisted into hatred for individuals should be the concern of everyone interested in preserving the right of radical feminists to name what patriarchy does not want to hear. Oh hang on, men have an invested interest in silencing us! Well done, anyone choosing to tell lies about radical feminists and calling for our censorship, punishment and silence, plays right into that agenda. This bigoted hatred based on distortions and lies, merely enables more women to see what is going on and join the struggle.

    Women will not be silenced.

    •  We're not anti-trans here. (4+ / 0-)

      So this is not the place to say trans people don't exist, should not exist and tell trans people how they navigate gender, society and priv.  

      I'm so fat! Oh, they're going to love me, I'm so marbled! - Jack LeMans, Bounty Killer

      by Mortifyd on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 04:53:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are no radical feminists (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, Horace Boothroyd III

      Radical feminism discredited itself through its transphobic bigotry and essentialism. Hence, it ceased to have a legitimate place in the academy and has been replaced by Butler's queer theory.

      •  Non-coherent. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        To the contrary, worship of attachment to "identity" labels, devoid of political analyses of power structures, to the point of attempting to silence anyone who disagrees, is "essentialist". Defending a system forcing individuals to live their lives in relation to one of two tick boxes is what's essentialist. Seeking to abolish these categories altogether (radical feminism) is anything BUT essentialist. Gender norm indoctrinations are still considered sociologically to be the intergenerational linchpin of male supremacy. Sorry. Indoctrinating people into dichotomous ways of being, thinking, and experiencing the world is an act of violence, as is defending it.

        The idea that our selves are and SHOULD BE defined by our gender is male supremacy 101.

  •  Extremely poor reporting; biased; inflammatory (6+ / 0-)

    This is some very low-quality reporting, Daily Kos. Did you even stop to consider that you might like to report facts rather than opinions from the openly anti-radical feminism and anti-lesbian blog post on Decolonizing Yoga? This is clearly just an addition to a trans activist and anarchist campaign to have Keith removed as a speaker at the event.

    As others have mentioned, if you want to look at what violence is actually being committed, threatened and justified, then it is the trans activists and pro-trans anarchists who are doing this. The organisers of the 2010 Bay Area Anarchist Book Fair invited Keith to speak, and then three anarchist men in masks ran on stage from behind her while she was speaking and assaulted her by hitting her at close-range with cayenne pepper-laced pies that burned her eyes. The audience watched and did not help her, some cheered, and a person who caught a video of the incident later put it on YouTube, on repeat, with the Benny Hill theme music playing to encourage viewers to laugh at Keith's expense while the men are assaulting her.

    They also continue to criticise Keith's decision to contact the police about the assault, saying that she should have sought "alternative justice" within the anarchist community for the assault, despite the fact that the anarchists assaulted her, others in the community cheered at the assault against her, and then after some time of watching her wipe the pepper out of her eyes herself, apparently finally one or two anarchists decided to help her to clean up. So they were clearly hostile towards her, they committed violence against her and showed that they supported the violence against her, but then expected her to turn to them for justice and to protect her safety - from themselves, really.

    Five trans activists targeted the Deep Green Resistance table at the 2013 Portland Law and Disorder Conference, where two women were selling feminist books. One of the male trans activists started yelling at the women, and then the five of them drew on the books with permanent marker and drew on one of the women's arms with it when she put her arm in the way to protect the books. The next day, DGR members had another table, and a larger group of trans activists came up and yelled at the DGR members and started demanding that they leave. The Conference organiser's response was to tell DGR that the perpetrators of the harassment would not be invited back the following year, but then to instead release a public Facebook statement saying that DGR was "transphobic" and that DGR members would not be invited back the next year, rather than the perpetrators of the harassment.

    In the lead-up to this present event, the PIELC, trans activists and anarchists have stormed the Facebook event page, making veiled threats to Lierre Keith about assaulting her with food (and of course, using food to do it makes it easy for them to claim that the assault would be laughable rather than something that should be taken seriously, which is an attitude about the threats that they have been pushing), and have been making vague threats against the event organisers, that there will be "consequences" for the event if they don't cave in to the trans activists' and anarchists' demands that they cancel Keith as a speaker.

    In an event unrelated to DGR, last year Julie Bindel opted to pull out of a speaking role at a Manchester Debating Union event in September 2013 because of rape and death threats that she received from trans activists, including three that she found serious enough to report to police.

    These are just a few incidents of trans activists and trans anarchists committing, threatening and justifying violence against women to prevent women from speaking that come to mind right now, although I know that there would be others.

    I understand that perpetuating violence is more complicated than just the acts of violence themselves, but the fact is that if one group is committing violence against another group (trans activists are committing violence against feminists), and the other group is not committing violence against the first group (feminists are not committing violence against trans people), then what we should conclude is that the group who's actually committing violence against the other group is the one who's perpetuating violence. It seems so obvious, and yet anti-feminists refuse to see it.

    Keith is not violent. The trans activists who have been violent against her in the past, and who are threatening her with violence now, are violent. The best thing for Daily Kos to do would be to get your facts straight, and not join in with a campaign to defame Keith and to unjustly prevent her from getting work in her field.

  •  Article/protest is an attempt to silence women (4+ / 0-)

    Why does a difference of opinion between trans activists and radical feminist lead to the attempt to silence radical feminists?  Lierre has threatened no one, and a difference of opinion is not that same as violence.  Calling Lierre a "transgender exterminist" is hateful and a false accusation.  Lierre is the one who has been threatened and assaulted.

    Why can't this difference of opinion turn into a healthy debate about the difference between radical feminist theory and queer theory?

    This entire article reeks of silencing and abuse.  I think this protest against Lierre speaking at PIELC is basically an attempt to silence a strong and intelligent woman.  Men always do this in order to keep their status as privileged.

    This article and protest reinforce the idea that transwomen still have male privilege and insist on keeping their privilege.  Why else silence women?  Why otherwise silence someone over a difference of opinion?

    •  Whatever arguments radical feminism once had (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, Horace Boothroyd III

      have all been discredited by its transphobic bigotry. No one in academia wants to be associated with radical haters.

      Queer theory has won out because of its inclusiveness. Radical feminism has died out because of its exclusiveness and bigotry. It's as simple as that.

      •  and by.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "transphobic bigotry" we mean a classic radical feminist analysis of gender as an oppressive construct, steeped in the most basic tenants of sociology like social constructionalism?

        "Queer theory" has won out because it's REACTIONARY (against Radical Feminist Gay Liberationism) and LIBERAL.

        Radical feminists are once more being silenced because leftists are more attached to their personal pet "identity" than coherent political analyses.

        It's as simple as that.

        •  "Radical feminists" are ignored (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, Horace Boothroyd III

          because they have devolved into transphobic haters. That sold in the 1970s, when Mary Daly and Janice Raymond were pushing it. But now you would have to go to Oral Roberts University to find people who would agree with your views.

          You are dinosaurs. Your brains died long ago, but your hindquarters are still kicking reflexively.

          •  Shocking! This just in! Hold the phone! On at six! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            So, once more, a classic radical analysis of gender and what it does to females is taboo because people born male declare it bigoted and "phobic".

            •  "Classic" only in the sense of "defunct". (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annieli, Horace Boothroyd III

              This is a Democratic party web site. The Democratic party endorses LGBT rights -- you know, as in same-sex marriage, ending DADT, an ENDA inclusive of transgender people, etc.

              I don't know where you think your "classic" anti-LGBT ideology will sell, but universities and Democratic political web sites are not your best bet.

              You might want to try over here ----->

              •  Intriguing. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                When you think about it, that's really what this is, isn't it?

                You are so unfamiliar with an analysis of systems of power and their ideologies than whenever someone deeply-disagrees with Liberalism (Leftist reactionaries against revolutionary politics), you liken them to conservatives.

                That's why all your responses are short, terse, and connote your take on radical analyses of gender can best be summed up with "does not compute".

                FYI, I'm completely unconcerned with phrasing power dynamics in terms of "What will sell", because for me neither the living planet nor humans nor females are "for sale". That's kind of the idea of radical analyses of power: they're immune to popular whim, even of reactionary, post-modern leftists, or at least their advocates strive to be.

                Maybe one day bother yourself enough to think about which hierarchy gendered violence and gender oppression ultimately originates from, and who is OPPRESSED by it ("oppression" has a specific sociological meaning, which you might also want to research) because I can promise that transgenderism wasn't a concept familiar to Neolithic agricultural civilization.

  •  Reprehensible behavior against Lierre Keith (4+ / 0-)

    Instead of attacking and attempting to silence Lierre Keith, perhaps her trans "activist" detractors might consider engaging with a real enemy.  But that's too hard and scary, isn't it?  Better to turn a political disagreement into a hysterical "we're right and you're hateful" pissing match that does absolutely nothing to challenge the power over all our lives, including trans people?  Or do you simply prefer to maintain your eminent, unassailable correctness and shriek in the face of anyone who doesn't see social constructs quite the same way?  Disgraceful, cowardly reporting.

  •  The ironies (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    NoRest, Xavier Livingston
    Hidden by:

    ... don't escape me:  the backlash left boasts leadership in liberation, while insisting the needs of men (who claim to be women) trump those of women.  Somehow the hierarchy of oppression, that men oppress women, is conveniently forgotten, so that men may continue doing so.

    No one "trans"es gender.  No one "trans"es sex, but the neo-cool biz for M2Ts is to keep the parts and appropriate women's oppression.  Radical feminists want to do away with gender, which would be true liberation (women and men with no mandate for femininity or masculinity overwriting reality).  

    Lierre is one of the kindest, most nurturing humans on the planet, and a fine activist.  This men's rightist idiocy is just plain wrong.  And as far off as Aric claiming himself the primary author.

  •  Wait, what??? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, atana, Horace Boothroyd III
    "The cornerstone of Keith's feminism is the that transgender woman are in fact men who pretend to be female while enjoying the benefits of our patriarchal society."
    How do I enjoy the benefits of patriarchy while I have "F" on my driver's license, "F" on my voter registration card, and "F" on my health insurance information? How do I enjoy the benefits of patriarchy from people who accept me as a woman?

    I have renounced the benefits of patriarchy. My chances of getting raped are about 9 times higher than they were when I was living as a male. I transitioned knowing that was what I was getting into.

    Seriously, how do I enjoy the benefits of our patriarchal society?

    Find out about my next big thing by reading my blog. Link is here:

    by Kimball Cross on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 01:30:11 PM PST

    •  probably... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      because privilege isn't something one can "renounce", or else it wouldn't exactly work. Whites can't "renounce" their privilege, nor can people born wealthy, nor can people born male. Let alone those socialized as these things. Women are not born with access to privilege, and are not socialized into it.

    •  If (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If you don't "pass" well as a female, you've probably been the victim of male violence or harassment.

      If people DO take you for a female, you've probably been the victim of male violence or harassment.

      Either way, it goes to show that gender isn't a "binary"- it's a hierarchy, and traitors to its oppressor class are treated horrifically, as are the oppressed group themselves, sadistically.

      Radical feminism seeks to abolish gender because they don't believe our identity is connected to gender but for how Patriarchy makes it so.

    •  Our privileges: heightened murder rates (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, Horace Boothroyd III

      heightened rates of homelessness, unemployment, suicide -- and, of course, heightened attention from so-called "radical feminists", who can explain everything about us.  

      With privileges like that, it's easy to see why we transition.

      •  Yup! (0+ / 0-)

        Wow, gendered violence and discrimination against gendered non-conformists sucks?! Who is it who wants to abolish gender again?

        •  The point is, I renounced male privileges and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          voluntarily chose a role which entails not having them.

          Must gender be "binary?" Of course not. But that's a different question.

          Is gender a social construct? Of course it is. If I wanted to be gender-fluid or "agendered" I would choose that.

          All social roles are social constructs, by definition, whether "gendered" or not.

          Find out about my next big thing by reading my blog. Link is here:

          by Kimball Cross on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 06:28:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  If DGR's views on transsexualism... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xavier Livingston

    The author writes "If DGR's views on transsexualism were to be adopted by the greater society, trans inclusive laws would never be enacted and current ones would be repealed resulting in violence against gender diverse people skyrocketing exponentially as would unemployment, homelessness and suicides."

    The author completely misunderstands the views of Lierre Keith, DGR, and other radical feminists.  In fact, if DGR's views were adopted by the greater society, no one would impose gender expectations on others, and people would be free to express their own personalities.  No patriarchy -> no gender -> no punishment for violating gender norms.

    Similarly, the author's fear that DGR might physically attack trans* people is based on incredible leaps of logic that ignore all the realities of DGR's stated principles and past behavior.  DGR explicitly denounces abuse and violence towards any oppressed people, and has never attacked anyone.  Trans activists, meanwhile, have physically assaulted DGR members.

    Please, educate yourself before wasting any more time thinking that DGR is your enemy.  In fact, DGR is working towards many of the same goals you hold, for freedom and safety for all to live how they want without violence being visited on those who don't conform to gender.

  •  Question for the diarist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Horace Boothroyd III, annieli

    Just how many DGR idiots are there? Could this be a sockpuppet attack?

    •  Simpler explanation (0+ / 0-)

      There's a simpler explanation for why you see more people posting rational, well reasoned critiques of this article than you see people going along with it.  This is a terrible article, poorly researched, and ignorant of basic concepts of radical feminism.  There's a huge pool of people who reject this sort of "analysis", and a relatively small echo-chamber of transactivists who blindly attack anyone labeled with the end-of-all-discussion "transphobic."

      Lierre Keith's views on gender are held by many, not just those in DGR, but by all radical feminists and their male allies.  Transactivists can't expect to attack Lierre Keith without drawing rebuttals from the entire community.

  •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

    KelliBusey- we've already established that you have no idea what a "citation" means,

    but if you thought you could evidence your reactionary temper tantrum claim that Keith calls for "exterminating" trans-identified people by quoting her ex-DGR colleague's already well-circulated disapproval of their take on "gender" as "transphobic", you should go back to school.

    Or call the DailyKos lawyers, cause it's getting mighty close to suing time.

    •  oh (0+ / 0-)

      I didn't see til now that you tried to tie in DGR's articulation of attacks on INFRASTRUCTURE (they are, um, opposed to human civilization) with violence against trans people (which is committed almost without exception by MALES, in order to serve MALE SUPREMACIST GENDER NORMS [why is this difficult?])

      I know this a mainstream site, and youse guys are Liberal and such, but c'mon...if you're equating between trans-identified people and industrial property, aren't YOU the transphobic one?

  •  typical hyperboles here (0+ / 0-)

    I have read this article and see no transphobia. What I do see are some pretty badly-crafted lies about these individuals. DGR does not 'target' trans persons at all. Keith has very specific arguments about gender and she should be allowed to speak.  Essentially what I am hearing here (even in the video) is that this group is addressing DGR members and essentially calling them 'transphobic' until these people bend to this ad hominem attack.  

    Gender is not owned by trans people--we all have opinions on gender because we all experience it. I am tired of seeing trans activists attack women and this smells strangely familiar of a long-gone era of men telling women what to do...or else.

  •  reality (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, atana

    A low ball estimate is that 41% of Trans folks have attempted suicide. Internet bullying is a contributing factor.  So I want all the transphobes on here to know they are violently killing innocent humans.

    This research is readily available and easy to find although these transphobes seem to keep wanting cites and proof even though this whole article was full of them. It seems that they only are self referential with their citing and only accept cites that support their bigoted claims against extremely oppressed individuals grouped together by the medical establishment.

    Every group of marginalized peoples has had to fight an oppressor and prove that they are oppressed. This cult won't ever have a logical discussion about anything. That is the nature of cults. SO don't waste your time trying to reason with any TERFs.

  •  So Keith is a 'transgender exterminist', wow! (0+ / 0-)

    Just the title is revealing as to the attention-seeking aims of this pathetic argument: so Keith is a 'transgender exterminist', wow!  

    Women-only meetings do not mean those women hate men, in the same way as women who wish to only meet (at times) with female-born-women do not hate transgender women.  The hate is in YOUR eyes.

    It's amazing that people who so quickly jump on this bandwagon against Keith & DGR can't tell the difference between discriminating against transgender people, and discriminating against women.   The fact that a few very vocal transgender people keep insisting there is a massive clash of interests here is very telling, and incredibly short-sighted.

    For women to decide how they want their women-only spaces to work is not discriminatory, it is just an assertion of basic rights, in the same way that a meeting for people of color would not be discriminatory were they to decide to exclude any people who were born enjoying white privilege, but then at some point decided they wanted to 'adopt a black identity', for whatever reason.    

    That this absurd issue doesn't even (seriously) arise with race - or indeed disability, class, etc. - just demonstrates how deeply misogynist our culture is, & in particular how entrenched fetishism is around the female gender, to the extent that even people who call themselves 'radical' or 'activist' (or, indeed 'women') can't see the point of this:

    sexism HINGES on women's prime & unquestioned role in our culture being to accommodate & care-take for all others, especially men - & always at the expense of women.  

    So whenever women assert any kind of boundary (like any of our human rights) about anything that clashes with this culturally given role, they are violently attacked.  As in this case.  

    Because that is why this issue raises such a great deal of emotion, whether it's conscious or not,  it simply feels outrageous to most of us when women stand up for their rights - hence this vicious attack by the feminist-phobic brigade, over this simple & basic boundary: women in DGR have stated they wish to sometimes group as female-born-women.  How totally outrageous!?

    There is NO discrimination against transgender people going on in DGR: not one transgender person has been violated, insulted, humiliated or had violence encouraged against them in ANY way remotely similar to what has, however, been done to Keith & DGR by the vicious transgender-obsessed mob running this outrageous divisive attack.    

    The fact that women would never dream of shouting 'discrimination' if transgender women wished to meet together without female-born-women in their midsts just supports the view that male consciousness cannot be erased by pills or surgery.

    Ultimately it does rather seem that what this is really about is upholding male privilege.   And male privilege includes (or, as radical feminists spotted eons ago, precludes, in fact is defined by) the self-given male 'right' to break any female boundary men feel like breaking, & with the full support of the culture - including this 'activists' culture, apparently, as amply demonstrated by this very badly informed article & many of the replies to it.

    Please get this straight: there is no 'phobia' of any kind in the women in DGR deciding they do not wish their women-only meetings to include transgender people - & this is ALL that this amounts to, originally.    

    In fact all kinds of people are very welcomed in DGR if they share the aims of the organization, and all are encouraged to set up their own (eg. transgender-only) sub-meetings, if they wish.  

    That any of the transgender women in DGR would prefer to put their energy into attacking other women, rather than set up their own caucus is very revealing, also.

    This is just a distraction and classic horizontal hostility attack & massive red herring - only effective (when it works) at exhausting the dangerously (truly) radical few with any kind of vicious attacks (& so much better if you can get colleagues to attack each other!) and hope they dismantle or become as ineffectual as possible.  

    Fortunately it's not working: I joined DGR - as many others of my colleagues have - when I saw & greatly admired the coherence of all their positions & in particular the integrity they held as radical feminists.     And their weathering this kind of attack without shrinking from what's the most correct (not the most popular or comfortable) position only confirms how courageous & intelligent Keith & the rest of the DGR leadership are.    

    This whole pathetic & vicious media campaign against radical feminism  reminds me of Malcolm X's famous saying:

    “The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

    The only thing that has changed from Malcolm X's time is that now the media is also in the hands of those who have far too much free time on their hands (it seems) to spread rumors & prejudice in order to push their very personal agendas - as opposed to doing something useful about the massive destruction of the planet we are facing right now.   Stop distracting from Keith's & DGR's message, please.    

    •  DRG is politically incompetent (0+ / 0-)

      At a time when the entire civilized world is noisly supporting LGBT rights, DGR has chosen to die on the hill of transphobia.  And this is how they plan to advance their environmental causes?

      If a group is so completely out-of-touch with what is going on in the world, why should anyone who cares about KXL, climate change, harmful agricultural practices, biodiversity, forest preservation, or any other "green" issue trust them to be politically effective?

      I'd say DGR has flunked the most rudimentary test of political viability.

      •  This is not about LGBT rights (0+ / 0-)

        You totally missed the point ...  which is precisely the function of red herrings like this "transphobe" argument.

        It's certainly 'popular' to notice appearances more than content (we're carefully trained in being a 'packaging is all' culture) &  it seems even lots of activists (sadly) can't tell 'rights' from 'preferences' or 'wants'.

        This is about women's rights to meet together away from all male interference (that they can manage to keep at bay), and it's about a handful of transgender women's wishes to gate-crash  those meetings.

        Look closely. they are QUITE different things, and only one is actually oppressive.

        The only thing dying here is lots of confused people's intelligence...

  •  Transphobia makes DGR an ineffective env. org. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kellibusey, annieli

    Deep Green Resistance is supposed to be an environmental organization, but apparently it is more interested in wasting its money and energy hunting transsexuals. Why would any environmentalist contribute time or money to such a dysfunctional group?

    Earth First! fills a similar "radical", direct-action oriented niche, is larger, is more established, has more resources -- and is pointedly not transphobic.

    However, in light of DGR’s continued assault on trans people, with language and analysis that denies the struggles of trans-people and even goes so far as to deny the value, worth and power of their existence in radical movements, labeling trans people as somehow “not real,” or as Post-Modern manifestations of individualism, the Earth First! Journal collective will no longer print or in any way promote DGR material. While we don’t need to agree with an individual or organization to find their words or actions relevant for discussion we will not continue to include those whose core expression of values continues to promote exclusion and oppression.

    We may continue, from time to time, to publish articles that cover DGR actions and philosophy in order to continue the dialogue around the very serious concerns that have been raised over DGR’s organizational values and practices.

  •  Thank you, Xavier (0+ / 0-)

    Xavier, I just wanted to thank you for your incredible patience is attempting to dialogue rationally with atana.  It seems very difficult, and I appreciate your efforts very much.  Your words may not get through to atana, but I'm sure they're well received and useful to many others reading these comments.

  •  A final message to Deep Green Resistance: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, kellibusey, koosah

     photo transWomyn_zpscfdf3648.jpg

  •  New section "proving" that DGR is "violent" (0+ / 0-)

    I see that you've added a new section with "proof" that DGR is "violent" against trans people. What I notice is that it includes more of DGR's theory and their members' opinions about gender and transgenderism, a Wikipedia entry about how Lierre Keith, Derrick Jensen and Aric McBay promote violence in the form of vandalism as a strategy for environmentalist activism, and a number of quotes and links from outside sources who are of the opinion that DGR is "transphobic". You've also embedded a video of a DGR member talking to trans activists and their telling him that Lierre Keith is "transphobic" and that he should get "educated" about transgenderism.

    Supposedly Aric McBay left the organisation because he believed that it was "transphobic", which would imply that he's on the side of trans activists, and you've included him as one of the DGR (now former) leaders promoting vandalism-style violence. Also, trans activists include many anarchists, who also believe in vandalism as a strategy for action. So the worst that you've proven about DGR's "violence" is that they support vandalism as a strategy, which many trans activists (not all) do, too.

    This is really hopeless and is clearly just a case of not liking a particular activist's opinions. I really hope that you drop this campaign and stop trying to "prove" that DGR and all gender-critical proponents are "violent" and "hateful" just because of the political opinions that we hold. Because when the fact is that we're not at all "violent" and "hateful", then all that you can do, obviously, is clutch at straws for "evidence", and repeat the lie over and over until enough people believe that it's the truth.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site