Intent to Oppress
The anonymous author declares war on me and for that matter on all transpeople. He or she and his or her six compatriots will raise an army of graduate students who will opress me and others like me and render us impotent and invisible– in the name of academic freedom. It’s a peculiarly-worded and most impolite declaration of war based upon an irrational philosophy of who I and others like me are. Happily, he or she is not the arbiter of who I am. I get to say who I am. The Letter appeared first here in Chrysalis on 22 July, 2012 and was published on TG Forum the following day. It was reposted last week on the TransAdvocate website. Source: Dallas Denny. (2012, 22 July). The letter. Published on Chrysalis Quarterly, http://www.dallasdeny.com/Chrysalis and 23 July 2012 on the TG Forum website. Read the Chrysalis version here and the TG Forum version here. Reposted 20 July, 2013 on the TransAdvocate website (read here)
|
Subject: Letter
To: [Dallas Denny]
|
I am writing to let you know that we were all sent a copy of your recent letter to Rutledge Press in reference to Sheila Jeffreys’ forthcoming book, Gender Hurts, and have organized a small but growing group to address the issue. We realize a corrective is urgently needed. We have held preliminary discussions to ensure that as academic women we will confront the questions beginning in the fall semester 2013 and again in the spring semester 2014. Currently, we are in the planning stage of developing correctives that both counter and point up the dangers revealed in the letter to Rutledge Press. In order to highlight the numerous incidents designed to deny women and feminists the right to express critical theories we decided it best to focus on Ms. Jeffreys’ theories specifically. Her analysis will then serve equally as a touchstone for discussions, and as a frame for historical and political trends.
In researching this situation we have found a deeply disturbing pattern of lies and manipulations coupled with threats and other unsavory tactics, all of which are documented, some even on video. As academics, as researchers and as writers we assert that this tyranny carries us right back to McCarthyism. The letter, a prodigious example of arrogance and bullshit sounded a warning and rallied us from across the curriculum. We recognize the telltale signs of a dangerous movement that feigns legitimacy in postmodern pseudoscience and meaningless jargon—, you catchin’ my cis drift?
We will continue to coordinate our efforts so that our classrooms will be at the forefront of questioning transgender as a valid political movement—or perhaps that is just a veil for a misogynist hate group. We will take a holistic approach and posit the distinct possibility of a fatuous diagnosis designed to camouflage less sympathetic and socially accepted issues. Students after they sift through the death and rape threats sent by Transgender “activist” to women and feminists will understand why the syllabi are not posted on-line or on the blackboard, and our decision to procure texts from other than usual sources will make clear sense to them. Such measures are also taken to ensure that we are not personally harassed, threatened or slandered. Needless distractions make it difficult to serve our students, write our research, and apply for grants.
Ideologically, as educators and women, some feminist, others not, we see the classroom as an open space designed for the investigation of controversial ideas and a forum to embrace our commitment equally to academic freedom, women’s rights and free expression. Our students deserve no less from us. These freedoms that we exercise (even if it really pisses you off) are above all sacred. But so too is teaching, and helping students to make sense of what is going on in the world. We highly doubt any student is so profoundly unsophisticated or uncritical as to accept the canard of hate speech that you attempt to make. Students know bullshit when it presented. These undergraduates will arrive at more honest and apt conclusions simply by drawing facts into the conversation. In other words you do not get an opportunity to lie like a rug on our watch. We will dismantle the basic claim of “transgender” oppression. Once exposed the list of fraudulent claims that follow falls apart.
The questions students will invariably ask is: why? Why the distinctly male rage? Why the threats and why the attempts to silence women and other academics? In order to illuminate these questions we will turn attentions toward Michael Bailey’s The Man That Would Be Queen and Dr. Anne Lawrence’s notions on transgender narcissistic rage, as both may serve to posit alternate theories of equal merit that students can understand. An added dimension will be the story behind the entire attempt to silence, harass, menace and threaten Dr. Bailey and then level threats against his children and post their pictures on the internet. Perhaps finally, a critical analysis will reveal not a new civil rights cause but a movement that has unhinged itself from the conventional expected social mores of honesty and integrity so completely as to now only be read as anti-social and unscrupulous—and a danger to women and not above threatening children. We will keep questioning, what would cause this particular pathological compulsive behavior? Bailey alongside Jeffreys may offer up theories that undergraduate students can make sense of.
In the classroom the first order of the day will confront the ever ubiquitous over used manipulative claim of “transphobia”—which sounds hollow when students see that the primary victims are natal women who happen to hold opinions and write things that you and others do not happen to like. Again we will address, why? The claim of transphobia, once undressed and parsed is revealed as a bullying and shaming tactic used specifically against natal women. A point-by-point analysis of all the false analogies will speak to the ever-worsening manipulations of a misogynistic movement. The classroom will be a platform to pursue truth, and students will have opportunities to check facts and question the use of statistics and finally realize that movements lie and some are bigger bullshit masters than others.
Be cognizant that any reasonable undergraduates will question a movement that lies and plays fast and loose sans accepted ethical considerations. As educators, researchers, and theorists we value critical thinking and cherish the opportunity to enable our students to ask hard questions even when those questions risk making people uncomfortable. That’s called education. It will not go over students’ heads that certain forms of contemporary thought push toward Orwellian conformity and can be understood best as tools of the privileged, by which they manipulate the uninformed into imagining the victimizer is the victim. Even the least critical undergrad will have at least one “ah ha” moment and that’s what education is all about.
We are not using anything by which any our identities are accessible to you or any other person that has demonstrated a past inclination and criminal like pathology to threaten or slander women. You both have demonstrated this pathology clearly. This is not only a logistical decision; the choice is made in consideration of our physical safety—yes “die cis scum” has a kind of scary ring to it. Simply put, we’re “stealth”. We’re confident that you realize this piece of correspondence is not meant in anyway to be interpreted as part of dialogue. It is meant to let you know that you just secured Sheila Jeffreys another generation and your attempts to censor her are a case study in: the reach exceeds the grasp. By the time we are done the transgender movement and those names attached will be more accurately seen as like carnival hucksters and boss man thugs and Sheila Jeffreys will drop a note on personal stationary thanking you for the spike in sales.
Thank you for your time and attention, and most specifically for the inspiration and the opportunity to show another generation what academic freedom really means on the ground and in the classroom. We wish you all the best in your future endeavors to delude people, and yes we’re flippin’ you the bird. Take this as the “fuck you” it is intended to be.
Sincerely
Women For Academic Freedom
J.K.-NY
B.N.S.-NY
L.L.-NJ
C.M.-NH
M.S. -IN
N.S.-OH
A.E.-OH
I would have a harder time with this letter if I didn’t know that transactivists (not necessarily trans*persons, mind you) have teamed up with the sex industry and men’s rights activists to threaten and intimidate radical feminists.
http://smashesthep.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/imitation-infiltration-and-invasion-at-radfem-rise-up-2013/
What happened in Toronto is just so, so wrong. Everyone has the right to hold a private meeting without fearing rape or physical harm, trans*women and women both.
Thank you for your comment, Julesice.
Just as only a strident minority of separatist feminists have attacked transsexuals in print and in public, only a minority of transpeople attack feminists– and I must say, what can the womens’ movement expect when they become the patriarchy, treating transsexuals in the most horrible of ways. That is not to justify threats or intimidation, but it’s a logical response to a campaign of hate. The majority of us don’t engage in such bevavior, and most of us have no interest in attending events at which we are not wanted. Perhaps if the womens’ movement would call off its attack dogs transpeople wouldn’t feel the need to bite back.
I am sorry and deeply troubled but the level of animosity between radfems and trans persons (male and female). Having been in stealth for eighteen years I have been out of touch with many of the issues affecting transgendered persons but it allowed me to be privy to some of the mistrust, misunderstanding, and suspicion of trans people among natal females, so that I feel empathy for them in a way that could not have felt without my experiences. I understand that there are those,including other kinds of women who may never understand me, and yet still accept me and my kind (not natural born) and those who do not and will never accept us (those with a T before our gender). I hope that you and others realize that this small group of misguided persons you or the radfems have labeled” trans activists” do not represent the majority of transgendered persons ( at least the ones I have met since comingbback into the light) and that most like me, respect the rights of natal women to associate with whom they please in a manner in which they see fit, albeit we watch them with a heavy heart, and hope that someday they come to understand that we are more alike, have suffered to, and are equally concerned with eradicating or changing the patriarchal gender system that troubles all women regardless of origin.
Thank you, Michelle. We shall never have total support from any group. As to those who do not support or accept us, we can – and perhaps must – respect their views and allow them to go their separate ways “with a heavy heart” as Michelle suggests. Replying in kind, while tempting, is a no win situation for neither they nor we will change our opinions. “Do as thy will save it harm no one” might be a rule to be followed. The letter to Dallas crossed that line, to be sure, but to reply more than has been done would give it more not less credence. Like matters of politics and religion, best not discussed at the table and best not responded to in kind…
Scary to me what i have personally witnessed coming from transbullies who seek to discredit any effort ever made to address the reality of abuse so many suffer regardless of identity. Old timers have told me the stories of Michegan women’s festival that never had an issue with transwomen until the porno hoards descended promoting BDSM and degradation as well as Macha tanswomen with penises making it difficult for many survivors of rape, battering and trafficking to feel safe. We are under assualt by well funded misogynists twisting the truth around the middle fingers of men hating women pure and simple. Wonder if women becoming extinct isn’t the goal… Juarez killers would be proud and may be part of this scheme.
If you would read your history, you would know transwoman Nancy Burkholder was summarily ejected from MWMF simply because she was trans. I know because I reported it in my magazine Chrysalis when it occurred back in 1992 or 1993. That was the start of the controversy about the festival. Your last sentence, the parts both before and after the ellipsis, is, quite simply, delusional. You should be concerned about today’s rape culture in which the military, universities and corporations look the other way when women are attacked and think for yourself and stop parrotting the party line.
I wrote a response to this awful letter over at Shakesville:
http://www.shakesville.com/2013/07/transphobia-in-academy-feminist-edition.html
I’m so sorry you received this bigoted garbage letter. 🙁
An excellent repost to the letter sent to Ms, Denny. My thanks for such a cogent response. As academics (I am in a Masters program) we must not only bear in mind our duty to be open to other points of view, but also to engage in discussion that is based upon shared values, mutual respect, goodwill, civility, and good manners. In view of this letter, one might add that threats of any sort, ad hominum attacks and other such tools are totally abhorrent to academic dialogue.
Thanks for your observations, Michelle.
I would agree the experiences of trans women differ from those of cisgendered women, but then again every woman’s experience differs from every other woman’s. How much that difference in experience relates to male privilege is debatable, and yet is seldom discussed, despite being something with which we repeatedly get beaten over the head.
Privilege differs along a multitude of axes: gender, race, class, ableness, intelligence, skill, level of education, weight, how attractive we are to others, and ability to flout any privilege we might have– to name just a few. I would argue that having theoretical access to privilege doesn’t necessarily privilege us. If we don’t know it’s there, for instance, are we privileged? If we know it’s there and loath it and never use it,if we in fact run from it throughout our lives, are we privileged– and if so, ow? If we don’t actually have the privilege and yet exercise it nonetheless, are we privileged? If we identify with those who aren’t privileged, what does that mean? How do our many privileges influence, interact with, overcome, and override one another?
Being male crates a wealth of potential privileges, even when our other characteristics don’t add much to our overall level of privilege. But how much male privilege does a male child or adolescent have when he is bullied, teased, ridiculed, and beaten by others, when he is less privileged than every other single person in his sphere of acquaintance? These are questions I don’t see discussed much, especially by trans-exclusionary radical feminists. They write about it as if it were a unitary, inviable thing, as if someone who is born in a male body but never inhabits it (due, say, to lack of a cerebral cortex) has the same level of privilege as Dick Cheney and oppresses women as much as the most vile rapist.
It would be nice to see more discussion of these issues in our own community. And it would certainly be nice if we ourselves don’t view male privilege as certain and unavoidable simply because we lack one leg of one of our chromosomes is missing.
My beloved sister. I write only to clarify my position, and not necessarily disagree with you except in the part of your response that impliedly, albeit more accurately, extrinsically describes a MTF transsexual’s inherent “crates [][] of potential privileges” (as opposed to those male born transgendered persons who choose to hold onto their goods for a multitude of reasons). This crated privilege is in reality uncrated at birth, and presented as a gift by the binary-gendered society to any child born with an appendage protruding between his (or her) legs, and not to those babies born without external genitalia (whether they be in essence–masculine or feminine beings) . My reference to privilege begins at the moment the doctor, midwife or parent sees the appendage and begins treating that child differently than the one without. This cultural bias permeates our very existence at inception and attaches thereafter in such a seditious manner as to go undetected until enlightened either by experience, or education. Unfortunately, the years of intrinsic rearing, training and even interaction with other gendered, whether it be cisgendered or transgendered persons, has an effect on the thinking process, behavior, and make-up of each individual regardless of sex. Such discussion as you say is best held for another day. The point of my comment was to point out merely that my observations regarding the letter by these natal women (and I point out that it is women, not a single woman author, although one may have actually written the document, but it was initialed by several women) was that it was more defensive than aggressive–primarily because they too are affected by cultural bias, and rightly so–they have lived with the cultural oppression simply because they were not born with that appendage a patriarchal society posits on male children. I believe that the import of their argument was misunderstood, perhaps because the tone of the letter was hostile. I think, and this is merely my observation, that what they were trying to say was that boycotting, censoring, or condemning any literature, writing or exposition of another person’s view, whether it be viable or not, is reprehensible, and they will not take it lying down–they intend to fight, and have chosen to hide (use stealth) for whatever reason, as they must have felt that any discourse would not be productive, or that their position on this point was immutable. I did observe also that they appear to defend the right of the controversial author to be read, and for intellectual discourse, and academic critique in the classroom to decide whether or not it had merit, and not necessarily adopted everything she had said in her book. None-the-less, I admit that there were substantial references to their own belief that cisgendered persons are different than transgendered in the form of outright denial of the existence or viability of such a movement. However, I believe this was defensive of their position based upon the perceived threat that someone may have improvidently mentioned death to the concept of cis in order to suggest that women are women, and men are men regardless of anatomical sex, and may have been taken out of context. It is unfortunate that some groups do not like to share their pain and vehemently defend the right to wear the badge of victimhood in order to clearly define their own identity. Even true transsexuals often (wrongly) cling to this selfish visage in excluding many other transgendered individuals in their experience, myself included, to preserve or to justify that internal and external suffering that had been unique to them. As Dr. Jamison Green so astutely pointed out to me at a recent LGBT meeting in Oxford, Mississippi, if we isolate ourselves by calling ourselves anything but transgendered we lose a larger force to be reckoned with, in a movement for positive change, under one flag, in the war against gender bias. So I do not disagree with my sisters, these women for academic freedom, in saying that only through critical analysis in the classroom by reading many diverse opinions can true change ever be achieved, not by the oppression of ideas, but by exposing them, and allowing intelligent persons make informed, enlightened decisions, and sound judgments. This is our future course, and from what I have seen in these forums, it has already taken place. Excelsior!
It’s like ethnocentricity, but sometimes people fail the initiation. Everyone opens doors for you if you’re male, but you’re free to walk through them or not, as you choose.
I do not disagree with these natal women for academic freedom entirely, as I believe in the full discourse in all matters of controversy, and I am sensitive to the manner in which they claim that they take offense in the presentation of what may well have been perceived as a threat. After living 18 years in stealth I have finally come to the conclusion that, although we think alike, we are not the same. There are significant differences in a person who has been raised in privilege, to one who has not, just as there are differences between trans men, and trans women–they way they think, and how they perceive their situation. The cultural bias inherent in our (and their) make up as a post-modernist Western society permeates the thinking process, mores, and ideologies, so intrinsically, like breathing the air around us, we don’t even consciously think about it–until its gone. Sadly, we must always accept unsupported suspicions, inarticulate responses, and intemperate challenges to our existence, make up, and intentions, in order to present our position, and establish ourselves as a unique, and viable identity–as a transgendered community. Regardless, that they claim not to desire discourse on the subject of perceived censorship. I welcome any educated, civil, and well thought out argument on any subject of interest that affect all genders, and sexes, and any who may deny these baser concepts.
Timely, for me in any event. I just submitted a paper on the trans-radfem war, arguing that it was basically over save for small groups of combatants in either side. The day after submission along comes post to say “ain’t so”.
Yet, the transphobic radfems are indeed only a portion of the radfems. No I do not support the idea of their being a text that simply extends the nonsense of the radomes, not at all. Have yo seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBUNdv2sVzY
Shades of nixon and VRR, but well done.
Perhaps in Canada it is less of an issue. I rather think – save for warning publishers and such – that one has to treat the transphobic radfems like a certain Jennifer Usher in SF. if one replies. They are basically one trick ponies and if ignored, they simply wither. The general mood of society is favourable towards us. Taking attention off seeking full HR in society takes priority over fighting with a group of fanatics. The only reply should be to publishers and the like and educational. Slinging mud back to these transphobic feminists only encourages them to play their one note again…
I fully understand how anger-provoking this anonymous declaration of war is. Feel free to express your outrage, or lack thereof, but please let’s not give separatists ammo by harsh language or threats in these comments. If even one of us does that it will be used as a gotcha to damn our entire community.
hatred under any other name still smells like bullshit!
here’s a big FUCK YOU right back atcha!!!- Cathy Brennan and ALL “radical fems”
i am NO threat to you & yours, why are YOU so threatened by TRUE TRANS?!?!?!?!? i realize that there are many intermediate so-called “trans” who may be nothing more than mistaken transvestites & glorified crossdressers and/or drag queens– but there ARE true transsexual/transgender- and have been throughout history-
and just because YOU choose to ignore this FACT does NOT make it go away- it merely exposes your extreme ignorance and makes YOU the ones who ignore science AND history- AND truth
sincerely,
jenifer divine
PS: ANY threats and/or attempts to silence and/or hurt me WILL be dealt with by appropriate authorities- why don’t you come try to find ME? — ignorant scum w/pseudo-radical agenda is ALL you are…
They misspelled the name of one of the more well-known publishers in the humanities. Something tells me that they’re not actually academics, after all…
Know what else has “a scary ring to it?” That thing Bev Jo posted once, where she said that trans women would be surprised to know that many radfems want all trans women to be dead. The sudden delicate sensibilities of these radfems concerning such violently-inclined speech seems rather hypocritical and self-serving, considering that they were being violent against trans women for years before trans women even knew that radfems hated them. The actions of radfems like Janice Raymond back in the Seventies and Eighties were like a knife in the back to trans women. Her report to Congress that killed out health insurance coverage has probably killed thousands.
dreadful dribble…..dribble…..and more dribble…I could not get through the, dribble……however, whoever these “6” are, they must improve their ability to be at the very least, interesting to those reading.
What gets me is how these TERFs always claim that they are just expressing an opinion. Yeah, much like the Westboro bigots are just expressing their opinion, or how the bigots who show up at Pride parades with their banners expressing contempt for gays and lesbians are just expressing their opinion. For instance, Brennan, who seems to have all kinds of time to harass trans people online, watches Twitter for people talking about transgender or transphobia, and then sends them an unwelcome tweet, such as “you’re a man”, knowing full well what sort of distress those words cause many trans women. I have seen this sort of behavior time and time again.
Your cartoon of the TERF yelling slurs is right on the money. TERFs feel they should have the right to trash trans people, but trans people are supposed to sit quietly and take it. Once the trans community started fighting back, the TERFs got bent out of shape. How dare “the trans” expose Sheila Jeffreys’ bigotry! How dare “the trans” expose Lierre Keith’s bigotry! How dare “the trans” contact the scheduled venues for Radfem 2013 and Radfem Rise Up and expose those hatefests for what they are, causing the radfems to lose their venue….. two years in a row!!! And just like the Westboro clowns, the TERFs just don’t get it. In their minds, they’re right and everybody else is wrong.
So now comes the letter, written by the brave souls who chose to remain anonymous (though I suspect that if the email’s headers were scrutinized, it might be discovered that the email came from somewhere in Maryland). I would love to see some academic try pushing TERF bigotry in class. Can you imagine what a scandal that would cause? It might even make the national news, highlighting the bigotry that trans people have to experience every day from such people as these pretend feminists. Yeah, like everything else they try, this will surely backfire on them.
Scary, that someone uses that tone and language in a supposed academic response which blatantly disaffirms basic human rights to Trans* and the gender diverse.
What a bitch!
Oooooh Dallas. This is scary! Was there a skull and crossbones on the original? Was it signed in blood???? The curse of the “Women For Academic Freedom” has been cast! We are doomed, doomed I tell you!!!!!
Honestly, this would be funny, as all blind hatred is, if we weren’t in a world where women are being stripped of their rights every day. When they are not being killed or raped that is. But hey, attacking the trans community is WAYYYY more important than any of that! Fortunately 99.9% of the young women out there can clearly see that.
WFAF “ladies,” that “ah ha” moment may be sooner than you think!
I am a cis woman, and I have been friends with dallas and other transwomen and men for a long time, your ideas are crap, just plain crap.