jump to navigation

On Gay Transmen July 8, 2012

Posted by FCM in feminisms, gender roles, health, PIV, pop culture, trans.
Tags: ,
comments closed

anti-feminists frequently demand that radical feminists address the problem of transmen when we are addressing transgender — as if transmanism and transwomanism have very much to do with each other, even though they really dont.  unsurprisingly, the transman “problem” — that is to say the concept of transmanism as well as the different problems that transgender is supposed to solve for individual FAABs — falls directly in line with addressing the problems of females as a sexual class, around the world.  ie. we do address them, all the time.  transmen’s problems line up with womens problems and would be solved if feminism succeeded — there would be no remaining problem that transitioning would solve.  that means that for women, transitioning is a proposed solution for patriarchal problems only.

whereas transwomen’s “problems” would not be solved if feminism succeeded — that means transwomens problems are male problems, and do not implicate male power or womens oppression by men, which are the kinds of problems feminists are interested in solving.  post-patriarchy, transwomen would definitely not be let into female-only space, for example.  and insofar as transwomen depend on global female oppression to define and maintain their identities, and depend on subjugated females on which to model their feminine behaviors, and insofar as born-women not coddling transwomen is a “problem” for transwomen, transwomens problems will actually be made worse when and if patriarchy falls, because they would not be able to express their gender properly, the entire concept — or the parts of which are dependent on female oppression — having been abolished.  and because NO ONE would put up with their shit.

honestly, how many women post-patriarchy would agree to nurse mewling, howling manbabies under any circumstance, particularly trying to do so while juggling six cans of mace and genuflecting before the mighty phallus?  its exhausting, and not even the fun-fems, i daresay, would put one second or one ounce of their time or energy into that endeavor, suddenly finding themselves free to spend their time as they wished, and without the fear of male violence.  i myself have already decided that if patriarchy falls, i plan to turn cartwheels down the street until my hands bleed, then sleep on the beach for a week while i decompress, and contemplate how im going to spend my days from that point forward.  but i digress.

anyway, my initial point is that if your problems would be made worse — rather than solved — if patriarchy fell, you are a man.

moving on, to address the very pressing problem of “gay transmen” may i offer the following: PIV criticism.  yes thats right, gay transmen — heterosexual fucking is, indeed, problematic for women — you are right about that.  you absolutely arent imagining it.

just for fun — and everyone likes fun!  — try this on, gay transmen, and see if any of it fits.

you hate how straight men fuck, but you still want to fuck men.  right?  welcome to female heterosexuality.

you hate how straight men use sex to terrorize their female-bodied partners by giving us pregnancy scares and having a deliberately contrarian libido which never, ever matches ours.  perhaps, you resent how your mother and everyone always told you that “all men want is sex” but then once you started having it yourself, you realized that men really dont want to fuck that often — just enough to make you afraid you are pregnant every month, but never enough to give you any real pleasure.  yes?  welcome to female heterosexuality.  thats pretty much the definition of it.

or, perhaps you, gay transmen, dont really want to fuck that often, but your male partner wants it all the time?  welcome to female heterosexuality.  (if not having intercourse that often is something that “gay transmen” even want, which i doubt — is it homophobic (or misandric) of me to observe thats not how gay male culture generally works, especially the part about trolling gay bars?  oh well).  seriously, im thinking these women want frequent intercourse, and they find heterosexual fucking seriously lacking in that regard, but what do i know, having been there and done that myself?  its just a hunch.

at any rate, you want to fuck men, but you dont want all the baggage that comes with straight fucking, for females.  i get it.  but looking at the big picture (aka. context) reveals that thing you want is what all women want — to have our sexuality include sexual pleasure and to exclude reproductive pain.  if you noticed that heterosexual fucking doesnt work like that, well, you arent alone.  it doesnt make you a gay male though, sorry.

also, having intercourse for pleasures sake — considering the harm it does to female-bodied persons — is anti-feminist, and that cannot be remedied.

anyway, criticism of heterosexual fucking and the problems it presents for female-bodied persons is not new.  radical feminists have been addressing this for decades, but the trans horde does not want transmen or anyone to know about that.  in fact, transgender activism specifically demands that PIV-critical radical feminists be silenced, and their work erased from the face of the earth.  it would behoove transmen — and all women — to consider why that is.

Moron Surveillance May 26, 2012

Posted by FCM in books!, liberal dickwads, MRAs, radical concepts, rape, self-identified feminist men, trans.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

reading (or re-reading) orwell as a radical feminist was eye-opening.  everyone has read orwell, or everyone who considers themselves to be good progressives or educated persons has read it, so its an easy shorthand we can all use when speaking about certain concepts.  like surveillance, and the political significance — the political intent and effect — of surveillance when employed by the oppressors against the oppressed class.

as orwell spelled out plainly, and as was his observation about oppressive totalitarian regimes that did this in real life, the point of the oppressor class surveilling its charges is to guard against thoughtcrime — made-up “crimes” against the oppressor class that begin and end at the level of thought.  its not what we are planning to do, and not what we are doing, but what we are thinking thats at issue, and its our negative thoughts about our oppressors, or positive thoughts about ourselves and our own capacities and desire to revolt against oppressive controls that are the crime.  we have seen this repeatedly, where men surveil women, allegedly to bring our thoughts and what is in our hearts and minds into the “light of day” aka. (and to use orwells frame) for scrutinization and reprogramming by the oppressor class, in this case, by men and patriarchal women.

our thoughts.  not our plans, or our actions.  thats important.  as is the intent of reprogramming.

even fun feminists understand that men are the oppressor class, (hence the need for any kind of feminism, even their kind, see how that works? or are all feminists, even the blandest kind, merely a solution looking for a problem, like the MRAs claim?  this is a serious question) so they too should be very wary about men invading womens spaces, because of the potential — and i would go further and say the demonstrated intent and effect — of patriarchal surveillance.

so, to apply this “theory” to our reality, and let me remind everyone that we all pretty much accept the idea of oppressive surveillance used by totalitarian political regimes — they are known to do this — i propose the following: just in case transwomen are just men in dresses — just in case! — i think we should not close the door to organizing and meeting without transwomen in the room.  because of the potential for patriarchal surveillance.

as another example of a scenario that is rife with the potential — i would say demonstrated intent and effect, but lets stick with “potential” for now — for patriarchal surveillance, consider these chilling words from a male social worker, and how he sees his role as a therapist for female rape survivors.  this was in the context of a discussion of the need for female-only space, specifically rape crisis shelters, and in the context of the Rape Relief vs Nixon case, specifically whether transwomen should be allowed to therapize raped women in a women’s shelter: (bolds mine)

Andrew Pari, LCSW
May 16, 2012

Maybe I’m stating the obvious and not to derail a great conversation, but there are many male psychotherapists and supportive counselors who practice in the area of sexual assault/rape. A large part of my practice is in working with children with a history of sexual abuse/molestation, in addition to young women who have been raped as well.

This doesn’t take away from what all of you are saying about rape crisis centers which I agree need to be staffed predominately by women to create the atmosphere of comfort/safety needed for girls/women to initially talk about what happened. I was just picking up, probably falsely, on the idea that it is inherently harmful for men to be involved in the healing process at all. I’ve had many girls/women transferred to me specifically because of my background and where my “maleness” was able to promote healing as it gave an appropriate outlet for the person’s trauma and anger that needed to be expressed and could be in the safety of therapy. In the field of mental health, it’s become more known as another way to help survivors heal.
If this is already common knowledge here, then forgive the assumption.

and heres another cold slice of shit pie from andrew, male therapist to raped women, in the context of a discussion of the need for female-only space, and whether women have the right to exclude transwomen from therapizing raped women in a women’s shelter:

Andrew Pari, LCSW
May 17, 2012

I agree with everything you said. Especially about the recognition of the inherent power imbalance as a therapist, on top of which is the often unnamed, but obvious, societal imbalance between men and women in the therapeutic context. This is why I am a huge believer in naming these things early on in treatment. Overtly and clearly stating the obvious differences and what they might mean, even when (and sometimes because) the client may be reluctant to do so themselves. I don’t pretend to be expert at this and I find myself going back sometimes to bring this into the room if I failed to earlier.

Much of my experience with these kind of referrals has been from female colleagues who have either helped the client to a particular point and want them (or rather the client articulates being ready to) work through anger towards the perpetrator or the projection onto men in general, or they need the experience of an intimate non-abusive connection with a man. The latter can be difficult as there is often a kind of “rebound effect” where the client experiences feelings of infatuation or seeing me as “the only good one.”

Actually, there is a third type; when the abuse was female perpetrated. Then I’m dealing with a whole other set of nuances in unpacking what happened on the individual level while still being mindful of the male-female dynamic in the room.

I really liked what you wrote about that, as a male, I have a vested interest in not seeing or not working with the socialized oppression of women. It’s an area I do my best to challenge myself on and it is an important reminder that I can not lose sight of this or risk unintentionally harming or, at best, not helping my clients to move forward.

One piece you wrote that I will challenge somewhat is the idea of inability to identify with a female client who was experienced female-specific harms. This may be an aspect of my own denial/arrogance, but I carry that idea into every therapeutic relationship. I cannot ever truly know the experience of who is sitting in front of me until they share it, and they will not share it if they see me as someone who “already knows it.” I actually talk about this in training regarding those clients who seem more like us than different from us. I can expand on this, if you want.

And thanks for stumbling across the show! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had the “you’re on the air with WHO?” conversation. I’ve had several guests refuse to come on before getting to know me as they took me for a conservative “Dr. Laura” style show. I will share with some glee that one of my favorite moments was realizing I was really really talking to Jaclyn Friedman on the show. Also Meghan…maybe you’ve heard of her, but I don’t want to name drop…

this is telling, isnt it?  again, here is the context: a discussion, on a feminist blog, of the need for women-only space, specifically, whether male-to-female transgendered individuals should be allowed to therapize raped women in a women’s shelter.

it is within that context specifically that andrew pari, a “cis” male, feels the beginnings of an itch, you know the one.  the itch that is a manifestation of a desire to move to action — and he does move to action — in this case, to defend the “abilities” (entitlement, right) of men in general to therapize raped women.  and to quell any urgency women mightve had around this issue with his sedating mansplanation about (among many, many other things!) his own growth, you see — therapizing raped women gives andrew a chance to challenge himself.  because thats important.  to andrew.

now why might andrew do this?  why might andrew show up to sedate the women and to derail the discussion, and to “represent” males as a sexual class, on this issue in particular, and why did he recognize the opportunity to do that in the context of a discussion about transwomen, not cis-men?

men see whats happening here, you see.  they get the itch, and a desire to move to action, because men know that transwomen are men, and men know that to defend trasnwomens interests is to defend their own interests.  we should probably listen to them when they tell us such obvious truths about their own intentions and politics, and where their allegiances lie.  we will be the ones to properly analyze it of course, and place it within its proper historical and political context, not them, since their interests are in the opposite happening.  but listening to them self-reporting on their own itches, and what moves them to action, is probably a good idea.  im just saying.

interestingly, andrew acknowledges the possibility that he is arrogant and in denial (euphemisms for being male privileged, a member of the oppressor class, a member of the rapist class) and the risk of “unintentionally harming” or not helping raped women due to his male privilege, and membership in the oppressor and rapist class.  and then he says the word but.  there should never be a “but” after acknowledging your male privilege, and the risk you and all men pose to women and raped women, andrew.

heres another piece:

Andrew Pari, LCSW
May 17, 2012

And for the record, I want to be clear I don’t think I’m some sort of “magic” therapist in this regard. I’ve had clients that I realized I could not help and referred back or re-referred to a female therapist for some of the reasons you mentioned.

It also sounds like, in your case, in addition to Michael not being where you needed him to be, you were ready for a level of feminist-specific reflection that was beyond his ability. While I would love to someday have a client who wanted to have that kind of discussion and self-focus, I would probably refer her to a female feminist therapist for the same reason.

therapizing raped women is at least partly, by his own admission, an exercise in bettering andrew, you see.  because bettering andrew is important, and its why raped women exist, and its why women-only rape relief shelters should be erased from the face of the earth.  there are numerous and very serious problems with what andrew has said, and he should be taken to task for every bit of it, but lets dig a little bit deeper.

if we were to apply the concept of patriarchal surveillance to the situation of men therapizing raped women, what we see is the potential — or, you know, its demonstrably and obviously happening, in real life — for men to scrutinize and “treat” womens potential and actual thoughtcrime related to men raping women.  this is very sneaky indeed.  and andrew is telling us very clearly, if we only pay attention, that patriarchal surveillance is in fact not just his “potential” role, but his actual, real role that he plays every day.  he disabuses raped women of their notion that men, as a sexual class, rape women, as a sexual class, even though thats true.  he disabuses raped women of their anger, even though it is righteous anger.  he creates or re-creates (frames) what he defines as a non-abusive situation — in this case, a man, thought-policing a raped woman — and it is he that gets to define that as non-abusive and safe, you see.  then, after sufficient exposure to that very calculated environment, when — or rather, if and only if — the women “come around” to wanting to fuck men (again?) and not recognizing men as a sexual class, they have been successfully treated.  for thoughtcrime.  their thoughts about men are different — thats the only thing thats changed.  they have been reprogrammed.

transwomen want to be able to do this to women too, and cis-men sometimes (or you know, always) show up to “represent” when this is discussed.  lets connect the dots, people.  this is all very disturbing.  and i would say without a single moments hesitation or doubt of any kind that this is all very deliberate, and it benefits men at womens expense.

but my point, really, is this, and it should be fairly easy to swallow, for anyone, because i am not taking about absolutes, but merely possibilities.  even if its merely a possibility that these situations might be used for patriarchal surveillance, shouldnt feminists support womens right to female only space?  you know, just in case?

why is it so important that we never (never, ever, ever) be allowed to organize and gather without men there?   at the very least, why cant we do both?  and why is there no room for any doubt at all that transwomen are women, and why are we so certain that they arent actually men?  there are very few certainties in life, and yet we are willing to say that we are *certain* that male-to-female transgenders are really women?  really?  im not buying it.  the *zero* room for legitimate doubt here, on a subject that is at least worthy of 1% or even .01% uncertainty (if anything ever was!) is pretty convincing proof that this is a scam, and its operating at the level of thought.

we are dealing with thoughtcrime, and patriarchal surveillance, and attempted patriarchal surveillance.  this is nothing new.  all good academics, politickers and progressives understand what surveilling for thoughtcrime is all about — its a political tool of oppressive totalitarian regimes — and feminists know that there is an oppressor class under patriarchy.  lets put two and two together.  the whinging about the radfem summer conferences — and over the audacity of radical feminists to attempt to gather without men or transwomen — is just more of the same.

Thinks Like vs Thinks About May 15, 2012

Posted by FCM in gender roles, pop culture, rape, trans.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

trans make quite a deal about claiming that they “think like” women, or feel like women, or whatever.  this is historically speaking i mean — lately, its good enough to just say you *are* a woman with no qualification or explanation at all, but lets not forget the history here.  “thinking like” a woman has gotten a lot of play.  brain scans and whatnot allegedly proving that people “think like” other kinds of people have been very important and are still used to convince the unconvinced (or inconvincible) of the legitimacy of trans.  but whats in a brain scan?

by definition, there are certain aspects of culture that are not left in the archeological record.  as cultural artifacts, brain scans might survive history (and technology, assuming they are saving hard copies and arent all digital) but what people are thinking about is not included in a brain scan and relies on self-reports (or perhaps the controlled application of known stimuli, like gaming).  but no one ever listens to women when we tell them what concerns us, and the details of our internal lives.  indeed, many women still dont have the luxury of having an internal life that isnt consumed with the dialog of survival and constant strategizing around issues of survival as female-bodied persons under patriarchy.  many, many girls and women do not survive patriarchy at all.

so what are these men who allegedly “think like” women thinking about?  this is not a rhetorical question.  if (and its a big if) they really do think differently than other men, this alternate way of thinking is just another tool in their arsenal that can and will be used to further patriarchal interests and to achieve patriarchal ends.  thats all.  it will not be used as a way to further womens interests or to understand and remedy what female-bodied persons experience at the hands of men and male-centric institutions under patriarchy.

so regarding men who allegedly think like women, the only appropriate response is so the fuck what?  and possibly jesus.  of feminist concern is what men are thinking about, and they demonstrate the substance of their internal lives all the time: what men think about is (big surprise) accumulation (and violence).  specifically, accumulation of material wealth, sexual access to — and general exploitation of — women, and institutional and interpersonal power.  and that includes the ones who allegedly “think like” women.  they all think about the same things.  theres a reason for that.

and if there are some men who “think like” women, there are probably women who “think like” men, but what does that give us?  does thinking like a man change womens individual or collective institutional or political standing?  if a woman thinks like a man, is she likely to stop thinking about and strategizing around issues of survival as a female-bodied person under patriarchy?  does it negate the consequences to her of being born with a baby maker in a rape culture — of being female-bodied in a world where boys and men routinely stick their dicks into girls and women, and what that means?

wake me up when any man, or any trans politicker has anything interesting to say about what men and women think about, and why, and why there is obvious difference there.  until then, any alleged alternate way of thinking, when men do it, is just an alternate route to a patriarchal destination that benefits men at womens expense.  if this is expected to be their all-access ticket into the womens locker room, and it obviously is, well, lets just say that feminists disagree about the significance of the brain scan results.  or, alternatively, if they want to push the issue, and they obviously do — game on?

that they apparently didnt see this coming is unsurprising, considering their utter disregard for the substance or existence of womens internal selves and lives, and the details of womens internal dialog — what we think about — which 100% of the time, at whatever level, includes processing the details of our environment, in order to avoid rape.

Peak Fun March 26, 2012

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, gender roles, liberal dickwads, PIV, politics, pop culture, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

first, a question: has the great cotton ceiling debacle of 2012 affected you wrt your feelings towards trans politics and/or liberal “fun feminism” and if so, how?  if not, why not?  and is there a point at which it will become more than obvious what fun-feminism really is, including who it benefits, and why?  will the truth out?  does it ever?  if so, why?  if not, why not?

while all women are socialized to be compliant dick-pleasers, and frequently acquiesce or avoid confrontations with men due to the threats of violence and actual violence backing up mens demands, including their demand that we see the entire world through mens eyes, womens socialization to be pleasing to dicks (and penises!) cannot be the variable here, where some women are buying this trans politics/fun-fem shit and others are not.

most arent, in fact.  most women, i dare say, both globally and locally, simply are not on board with trans politics.  the oft-repeated claims by trans and fun-ems that trans are a political minority, and are often oppressed by women, is evidence that this is true.  so while the fun-fems are definitely being dick-pleasing and compliant in their acceptance of what is very obviously an anti-feminist mens rights (trans) agenda, conservative grandmas really arent, or if they are, they arent talking about it.  soccer moms arent.  wilting southern flowers arent.  even women who are compliant or even hesitant dick-pleasers in every other way, arent necessarily buying this one.  so whats the variable here?

it seems to me that the variable is sex-positivism, and liberal anti-woman sexual politics.  sex-positivism requires, absolutely requires that women see the world through mens eyes, where removing “sex” — including intercourse and its attendant reproductive consequences — from its anti-woman, patriarchy-supportive historical and political context is a good thing, because men have been in the wrong for millenia and it benefits them to ignore that.

and sex-positivism, and the idea that “sex” and intercourse with men is a good thing, and that it could and should be liberatory for women, at this time and place, is the most egregious mansplanation — aka. example of forced-male-perspective — that i have literally ever heard.  because in order for women or anyone to see sex with men as beneficial for women, even conditionally, but often as unconditionally beneficial, to us, we must agree that mens perspective on 4 critical points is correct and adopt their perspective as our own:

1) the political class-based oppression of women by men which is based on biological sex is a good thing and should continue; and 2) men deliberately systematically, institutionally and interpersonally harming women as a sexual class, via intercourse, is a good thing and should continue; and 3) the female-specific harms of the penis are particularly beneficial and should therefore be centered as much as possible; and 4) it further benefits us and supports our (male) power to publically deny 1-3.

viola!  sex is apolitical!  no more sex-based differences, no more male bodies, no more female bodies.  because we said so.  just potentially orgasmic bodies, just apolitical, ahistorical blobs of meat, catching friction on each other, for fun.  just like men pretend to be, when they are actually deliberately harming women with their dicks, to support male power.

now, let me just say a little bit about my utter disdain for sex-positivism, and how much of an atrocious fucking lie it is.

if women are really to be made whole again after literally millenia of systemic, institutional and interpersonal sexual abuse at mens hands — a history that no one can credibly deny, and when i say sexual abuse i mean abuses that are directed at our female genitals, and which often have intended reproductive consequences — it would not be too much to ask for a couple of millenia, or even a century, or a decade or even a year or a day, for that matter, of respite from that, so that women as a class could recover from our collective and individual histories of sexual abuse at mens hands and to heal.  and yet, to date, we have not been allowed to have even one day to heal from this.  we are not even allowed to acknowledge it happened, or that it never stopped.  even if the oppression had stopped years ago, (and it hasnt!) and even if sex with men wasnt inherently oppressive, (and i think it is inherent, or at least that PIV for pleasures sake is inherently oppressive to women) we would still deserve a chance to breathe in an environment that was substantially different from the oppressive one.  but what we have is men in womens pussies 24/7 like they have always been.  this is simply not a substantial, or substantial enough, change.

and to attempt to erase or deny history, including human rights violations in other contexts is a political and moral no-no, while attempting to reverse the course of oppressive histories on a dime is flatly impossible.  and sex-positivism attempts to do both.  when it comes to any other type of oppression, has either the oppressive or the oppressed class ever tried to reverse the course of that oppressive history on a dime, or expected it to work, or have they said “look it worked” when it obviously didnt, and had people believe them?  has anyone ever taken the site/source of a group’s political oppression and claimed it was now, magically, the site/source of their power, and had that be true?  its ridiculous.  there are lingering, ongoing effects of systemic political and physical oppression, we know this.  and this is true even when the oppressive institution is formally abolished, and ours hasnt been.

meanwhile, the part that liberal/progressive, anti-woman sexual politics plays in trans discourse is obvious: just go on the fucking pill already, and shut the fuck up.  that way, you (women, and especially liberal women) can be more easily resemble an apolitical, ahistorical, potentially-orgasmic meatbag, catching friction off of other people, for fun.  it furthers the illusion that this is true for either women or men, when of course it isnt.

and while we are pretending, lets *also* pretend that contraceptives actually do that for women, when in order for them to do that they would have to be 1) 100% effective, and 2) cause no side-effects themselves.  and clearly, neither applies.  women arent even effectively changed into pretend male-like meatbags, they just have to pretend they are!  but whats a little more pretending when you are already living in an alternate male-centric reality thats based on lies about men but also wasnt built for you?  note to women: if you have to take a pill to live in mens reality, a pill that men do not have to take, it indicates that 1) there is such a thing as male reality thats different from female reality and that these differences are biologically-based and 2) men are forcing women to fit male reality.  and oh what the hell, 3) there is probably a reason for that, ie. it benefits men to do this.  because everything men do benefits men, because patriarchy.  duh.

anyway, my point is this.  while other male-centric politics are decidedly woman-hating and thrive off of mens sexually abusing women too, liberal politics in particular seems to be the one thats heavily invested in turning both male and female bodies into apolitical, ahistorical, potentially-orgasmic meatbags that catch friction off of each other for fun.  where all women are collectively owned by all men, and women’s male-centric sexual activity and sexual slavery are prized over our virginity and reproductive slavery.  (contrast that to conservative sexual politics.  conservative and liberal men disagree with each other somewhat, on some points, regarding how to treat women, aka. liberal and conservative mens sexual, domestic and reproductive slaves).  and sex-positivism is the ideology that tells women this is *not* just a slimy political deal struck with sleazebag liberal men who demanded it: its really an acontextual (apolitical, ahistorical) choice.  women could not embrace trans politics without both of these things, i dont think.

and thats just (i think?) the fun-fem acceptance of the physical aspects of trans. ie. sex is a social construct, there are no meaningful physical differences between women and men.  acceptance of the gender part also requires internalized misogyny, homophobia and lesbophobia, ie. a woman who likes other women or can change her own oil or doesnt want to be a disempowered, feminized rape-object for a man, even when having intercourse with men, (gay transmen!) is really a man herself, so long as she says she is.  nope, no problem there.

are we having fun yet?  or, is this what peak-fun feminism looks like?  stay tuned…

Moron “The Cotton Ceiling” March 19, 2012

Posted by FCM in feminisms, logic, pop culture, porn, trans, WTF?.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

here are the recent tweets of trans porn star (and pretendbian!) drew deveaux (@drewdeveaux) in response to radical feminist and sex-positive criticism of his “theory” of “the cotton ceiling”.

its a “theory” because it makes you sound smart!  problems ensue when trying to plug in variables (facts) and getting reproducible results.  ie.  the claim that so-called lesbian transwomen are the same as lesbian women.  but the fact that it doesnt work (ie. its invalid) doesnt make it any less of a “theory”!  no it doesnt, shut up.

my commentary is on the right.  and you have to read these from the bottom-up to see them in chronological order.  sorry!  really, i am.


click on images to see in full size.  and feel free to comment below.  female-identified FAABs only, please.  thanks!