The Restroom Revolution Vanguard

The restroom debate is a central topic in both trans and gender-critical issues and one which is often portrayed in simplistic terms by those on either ‘side.’ All parties tend to paint it as a conversation about safety, one which would be easily resolved if only participants in the discussion could embrace compassion and acceptance. I do not think the restroom issue is simple at all. I think it is complex, and needs to be made even more complex. In order to accomplish any real change in society at large, I recognize the restroom as a place in which revolution must begin – those of us trans who are willing should muster our courage and take up arms against the real problem faced by all trans and by all biological women: male dominance and gender itself.



In a survey published in 2013 of 93 trans and gender non-conforming individuals in the DC area, it was found that over 70% of respondents had experienced some sort of harassment in using sex-segregated (the study calls these gender-segregated) restrooms. Compared to the demographics of DC, the study was over-representative of whites and women (unfortunately I have to state that, yes, I am talking about women, AKA adult females). However, the study was somehow representative of income-based demographics. The respondents were over-representative of higher education levels versus DC averages. Unsurprisingly, the brunt of verbal harassment and physical assault while using sex-segregated restrooms was borne by low-income PoC.

Eight of the respondents (9%) reported being physically assaulted while attempting to use the restroom of their choice. One transwoman reported being sexually assaulted in the men’s restroom. This is the only reported instance I have heard of a male-to-trans being attacked or assaulted in our biologically correct restroom.

The above study is one of the only scholarly works analyzing the phenomenon of trans harassment in the context of sex-segregated restrooms. It is, as the author herself states, merely an exploratory introduction to further studies, and itself is subject to many limitations, such as the survey method being convenience sampling, and the respondents being not statistically representative of the DC area’s demographics.

It is a testament to the transgender movement’s need for dramatization in order to accomplish its goals that this study is unanimously cited as showing that “70% of transgender people surveyed reported harassment or discrimination in trying to use a restroom” here, here, and here, while failing to mention that this was a small study conducted using unreliable survey methods, and was not representative of the larger population (vital for a study’s generalizability).


All other instances of violence, whether sexual or no, have occurred when trans attempt to use cross-sex restrooms. For example, a female-to-trans (transman) was violently attacked in the men’s restroom: this is obviously a hate crime based upon the (male) perpetrator having carved ‘it’ into the female-to-trans’ flesh. Two other instances that are popularly touted as examples – the Hercules High assault and the Chrissy Polis case – are not, in fact, examples of trans experiencing discrimination in cross-sex restrooms. In the former incident, the student admitted the entire incident was falsified, and the Chrissy Polis assault was not due to them being trans, but because she was perceived as having been flirting with the perpetrator’s boyfriend (her assaulters thought she was a woman).


Fuzzy Discrimination

No one should face violence when using a restroom. No one should face harassment. However, when the claim is made that trans are being discriminated against when prohibited from using cross-sex restrooms, I have to ask: what makes this discrimination? A male-to-trans prevented from entering, or being told to leave, the women’s restroom is not being denied access because they are trans, but rather because they are male. The individual may disagree with this assessment, and in many cases the law is on their side in terms of gender identity/expression.

But not everyone thinks only in terms of gender. In fact, I might posit that most people either conflate the two concepts or would describe their process of differentiation more in terms of biology rather than self-expression through clothing or mannerisms.

So for example, if male-to-trans AKA transwomen are male (which we are), and all other males are being denied access to the women’s restroom, then someone who perceives the male-to-trans as male is not discriminating against them for being trans but rather applying to them the same restrictions ascribed to all other males. Understandably, this is embarrassing for the trans, and I know first-hand that being trans itself can be construed as a source of embarrassment, but we must acknowledge that this does not necessarily fit the definition of discrimination.


Validation Conflated With Violence

A trans being denied access to cross-sex restrooms is not, as I posited above, necessarily about discrimination. It is representative of the refusal by many individuals (myself included) to concede that biology itself – and the social realities that have become entwined and embedded within these biological categorizations from conception – are mercurial dependent upon the individual’s internal assessment of such. An individual who has been socialized as male, has been perceived as a man throughout their entire adult life (and received the privileges inherent to this class membership), does not suddenly and retroactively rewrite their entire life history to have “always been a woman” – unless one removes all meaning from the word ‘woman’ except whatever meaning the transgender movement allows to be included. We must remind ourselves that language not only describes, but also dictates, our relationship to reality.

Validation has become conflated with violence in trans circles. ‘Misgendering’ is violence and speaking openly about male-to-trans being male is regarded as an outright attack by well-known transgender activists. When the act of recognizing biological reality is tantamount to a hate crime, no conversation is possible.

It also prevents trans from being able to distinguish, and name, the real problem: male violence. Why are male-to-trans AKA transwomen afraid of going in to the men’s restroom? Supposedly, it is out of fear of greater risk of assault. Even though this has not been shown to necessarily be the case, it does illustrate that male-to-trans are aware of the issue of male violence enough to be wary of such places. The added threat of invalidation nails in the conviction that using men’s restrooms are less safe.

This is the same reason so many women are anxious about the idea of male-to-trans using the women’s restrooms: we are male, and they do not want males – many of us with a lifetime of masculine heritage – gaining legal access to their restrooms and places of refuge from men. To reiterate: the reason that male-to-trans (transwomen) avoid the men’s restroom is the same reason that women do not want us in theirs. Or, as someone else so succinctly described the issue:

“If trans don’t feel safe being around penises in spaces segregated by biological sex, and expect special accommodation because of their need for safety, then how come they won’t allow women the exact same consideration?” (comment by Cheryl in an article about Sheila Jeffreys).


Confronting the Problem: the Restroom Revolution Vanguard

What is the Restroom Revolution Vanguard? In short, it is a front-line confrontation of masculine supremacy and male violence. It is a way to turn the conversation around, so that the real issue of male violence, and the oppressive nature of gender itself, can be addressed. Not all male-to-trans – and this is truly a front-line protestation of specifically male-to-trans against other males – will be willing or able to join the RRV. For many, if not most of us,  the idea of invalidating or outing ourselves, or of deliberately putting ourselves within the scope-sights of the male Gaze and of possible male violence and harassment, is unthinkable.

Which is why this is a ‘vanguard.’

The more passing, the more feminine, the more perceived as a woman you are – this is the ideal candidate for revolution. Those who participate in the RRV would ideally have a solid understanding of gender-critical topics, and be able to effectively communicate these ideas with speed if and when they are confronted by other males or authority figures. Male-to-trans who are still legally male, and can provide documentation of such, are the most useful candidates. And last, but certainly not least, you should be willing and able to defend yourself.

The reasons for the above desired attributes are as follows:

  1. Witnessing a woman entering the restroom will initially cause confusion/distress and activate male-socialized paternalism. When closer inspection (or disclosure by the MtT) results in recognition of the individual as male, this will subsequently activate masculine tendencies towards homophobia and/or enforcement of social norms. The tendency towards aggression by the male in question is representative of their weakness. It is this weakness that is advantageous to the RRV.
  2. Being able to calmly and politely discuss gender-critical topics even in the face of emotional reactions may result in the unexpected education of individuals who would otherwise never (or rarely) be confronted by such topics. This opens the possibility of actively engaging the ambassadors of masculinity in revolutionary discussion.
  3. Being legally male offers a justification for being in the restroom, allows for an easy example of the distinction between sex and gender (an in-road to gender-critical discussion), and may provide recourse if accused of attempted prositution by law enforcement officials.
  4. The capacity to defend yourself is self-explanatory. I suspect that the risk is low considering the elements of homophobia and the discomfort most men would feel by being confronted with the specter of femininity in the man’s restroom, but as shown by the single instance reported in the study I referenced at the beginning of this post, violence can and does happen. Be careful. Confronting male violence and the reasons it occurs (masculinity) is no easy task, and not for those unsuited to its dangers. Yet I would also give an additional warning: do not allow yourself to desire such conflict or embrace its occurrence. If you participate in the RRV in hopes of ‘beating up a homophobe’ or some such, then you are part of the problem, you are part of the phenomenon of male violence. Learn how to de-escalate situations, first and foremost. The fundamental principle of the RRV is to start a conversation that is unerringly being silenced.

The truest revolutions occur within the mind. The RRV is a means to bring gender-critical conversations to the right audience: men. One of the foremost questions we of the RRV are assuredly going to be asked is why we do not use the women’s restroom. To a gender-critical trans, the answer is easy: we are not women, by virtue not only of having been identified as male at birth, but more importantly by having been subjected to male socialization.

This is a perfect opener for a conversation which needs to be had, a conversation which no one but radical feminists and gender-criticals seem to be asking for us to have. It is a way to bring to national attention the fact that people like Laverne Cox, who claim on television that they were not identified as male but rather ‘assigned’ male, are not representatives of all trans.

The RRV is an attempt to forcibly bring this conversation to a population that has ears only for those who represent the ideological dead-end of post-modern identity politics. It is a way to overcome the silencing tactics and no-platforming by the transgender movement.

Our mantra: “we do not identify as male, we are male.” Sex is a category, not an identity.

It’s about time we recognize the importance of this reality.

Using Male Stereotypes to Justify Misogyny: A Case Study

Put your fantastic-caps on, ladies and gents, we’re going for a ride! Wheeeee!

I recently had the pleasure of chatting with Marti386@marti3861 on Twitter. Like many individuals whose ideologies are strongly centered within the delusions rationale of the transgender movement, they believe that it is in fact women (uh..women-born-women, no wait, female assigned at birth, no I mean, vagina-havers, no wait, uterus-bearers, wait, no, no…what does this word mean again?) who are responsible for ending male violence.

Because as we all know, us men just can’t help ourselves! Women, fortunately, were born with an inherent sense of morality and responsibility (the good ones, of course, not those bad women) that men have to try so hard to learn. It’s just harder for us to be all loving and caring, ok? That’s why us men who are super-nice and awesome and don’t rape or kill women, we deserve lots and lots of praise for not deliberately hurting people! So, when men commit violence, especially when it’s directed at other men, we first have to stop and ask ourselves – what could the women in the situation have done to prevent it? Did they try hard enough? Did they do anything that may have contributed to an environment, a culture of danger for even one male in the scenario?

Luckily, there are daring, brave males pretty ladies asking all these hard questions, bringing home the straight facts, the bold truth. Staring corruption in its scarlet, glowing eyes and saying NO MORE, people who will not stand idly by while uppity women and their recognition of reality misgendering indirectly incite men to commit outrageous violence!



Everyone knows that certain kinds of men are just inherently violent. Men like straight construction workers are commonly known to assault fellow workers, especially if they are trans or gay. It’s just common knowledge, like how biological sex is a function of internal feelings. In these situations – heck, in any situation – a woman’s refusal to set aside her silly little contributions to the gender discourse might result in angering men! C’mon women, you’ve had your fun, but it’s time to let the men – I mean, transwomen – I mean, not-cis women (which one is the opposite of which, again?) – I mean, just-as-much-women-as-you-are women…um…handle this.

Because your ideas are all cute and whatever on paper, that’s fine, free speech is great and all (except for that Raymond book, BURN IT BURN IT BURN IT) but misgendering is violence and you are just as much responsible for any violence that occurs because you refuse to pander to my accept my fantasy femaley-ness. Seriously, feminists – put your fanciful analyses aside, get your act together and end male violence before yet another man transwoman gets hurt!


Castration On Demand, With An Apology

Pornography is one of the most down-played, and yet crucial, mistakes of our time.

As soon as I was able to gain access to it, I did, and I watched it religiously. I was addicted. It was a close companion during my growth and development as a human, and it undoubtedly had permanent biochemical and psychological effects that will be with me until the day I die. Along with many radical feminists who point this out, I fear for the future and the hordes of porn-sick men who will hold power and wield it in sado-masochistic ways learned early on from watching hardcore pornography.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might think that the patriarchal institutions deliberately encouraged the growth of these industries in order to sandbag the burgeoning feminist movement. Whether this is true or not, I do not see how a feminist movement can make much headway while it is being derailed by porn-sick men (see: Church of Trans). For that matter, I do not see how much progress in this world can be made at all without acknowledging the devastation that pornography is wreaking upon the minds and emotional landscapes of those who consume it. Any man who watches porn is porn-sick, but those who – like me – have filled our brains from childhood with toxic poison to the point that even when we stopped watching it, the pornography scrolled through our field of vision like it was right in front of us, we are damaged beyond any known semblance of repair.

Anyone who reads my blog knows that I am an admitted autogynephile. Paraphilias, once developed, are not known to simply go away. I fully expect to deal with autogynephilia for the rest of my life – I wish I had known all this sooner, or I would not have entered a committed relationship with a woman, and saved her and myself loads of grief.

With other paraphilias, even somewhat bizarre ones, the person can either gather certain items or certain types of people in order to complete the magic spell. There is a real-world formula for it which is attainable in a realistic fashion.

It would be easier if I was turned on by the idea of transvestism, then I would have an easy outlet. Or, any outlet. But there is no outlet for the type of autogynephilia I experience, except to transition. And there is no relief to be had without a lowering of libido, without castration – which is only medically available as a function of transition.

The male libido is not in short supply these days. Other paraphilias abound, and there are, I am sure, plenty of men whose libidos are connected to inflicting harm on other people. I guarantee that many of these men would willingly undergo castration if it was available on demand, with an apology. Why the apology? Well, it is closest we can come to a symbolic concession of male ego before getting to the Real Deal.

The male apology which is my only proposed prerequisite for castration goes something like this:

I apologize for embracing the dysfunctional socialization that turns male humans into abusers, so I could myself avoid abuse and ‘fit in.’

I apologize for the pornography I pretended was benign, because others told me it was and I wanted to believe them.

I apologize for the damage done to myself and others as I acted upon my male entitlement, over and over, in pursuit of personal lusts which I thought were my ‘right.’

I apologize to the victims of male violence and bigotry, a violence that stems not from libido, but from a refusal to comprehend the meaning of another’s boundaries.

I apologize to the male children who will follow in our footsteps unless we do something to change what is happening, change this sick socialization we continue to support.

I apologize to the libido which is not at fault in and of itself, but which has been made a catalyst of my misguided intentions, and has itself become permanently marred by the forces which I have permitted to move through it, and with such negligent passion.

Castration is both an individual act and a societal symbol. The apology is both a personal healing, and an allegorical cleansing of societal toxins.

For the sake of men, for the sake of our victims, and as a symbolic, ritual rejection of male socialization:

Castration on demand, with an apology.

One of the Lucky Ones

I am lucky.

Just a few minutes ago, I was reading an article on gendertrender, and Gallus Mag had linked to an article by naefearty, a blogger who authors a site for the support of wives, ex-wives, current partners, ex-partners, of autogynephiles. It’s been too long since I thought deeply about these things. It’s not as painful as it used to be, but it’s certainly not something I enjoy dwelling on either. A while back, I had the startling epiphany that I must be part of the category known as autogynephilic men. This was, unsurprisingly, a jolt to my ego and a deeply troubling revelation. It also was incredibly important to my development as an individual on their road to – hopefully – a life of meaning, which is not comprised of boundary violations. A life in which my own satisfaction does not come at the expense of other people.

My wife and I divorced 2-3 years before I decided to transition. This did not spare her the mind-fuck of living with an autogynephile – it simply made her experience less attributable to an obvious cause. If you’ve bothered to read the epiphany I’ve linked to above (unless you care to know more about the sickness that is AG, I suggest you avoid it) you will realize that advice such as, “why didn’t she just leave you?” or “why didn’t you just stop being so perverted?” are irrelevant to the situation and largely meaningless. She didn’t leave me because she loved me, and because she is a good person.

I always find myself wanting to talk about myself even when I try to talk about her. That’s probably due to the narcissism – oh, there I go again. Like all other autogynephiles, I love talking about myself. I don’t want to talk about myself in this post, that isn’t the cause of the emotion which brought me here. I am lucky.

I want to acknowledge the unlucky ones.

To the wives, ex-wives, partners, ex-partners of autogynephilic men: I am sorry. I am also sorry that my apology means less than nothing to you, because my apology is entirely worthless in this context. You are, or were, held prisoner by someone who cannot love the way you do, or the way you loved them. We may mimic it, if you are fortunate(?!), but it is just that – as long as we are focused upon our fantasies, everything we do is intended only for our personal validation. And don’t be mistaken – our fantasies are not limited to playing “woman” or “feeling like a woman.” We have many, many others. If you think upon it, I am sure you will realize that we have lived within dreams. This may have been what attracted you to us in the first place, our fantastical dreams which we seem always on the edge of realizing. You listening, rapt, to our odd and wondrous tales of strange things we might do and might become, until one day, we hit upon that one desire – that feeling. That feeling that overrides all other feelings, and especially overrides your feelings. So what if you are a woman, we feel like women, and isn’t this so much realer?

To us, this is logic. We are sick, we are porn-sick. We have probably watched it since we were children. Many of us may actually experience sex dysphoria, or whatever the hell that is. But who cares? We tricked you! Not on purpose, not really, because everything in our life is a trick, we trick ourselves first and we trick everyone else after, our lives are constant and never-ending deception, chasing the dragon at the end of the porn video that never ends because it just becomes another video and another and another and we possess ourselves and we possess you and we possess your possession with us and you are not permitted to escape.

We consume you. You become lost in us. I am sorry.

I am one of the lucky ones. My wife got a pretty bad case of mind-fucking, but at least she didn’t have to watch me transition. This would have killed her, I know this. Literally. She would have committed suicide if she had been forced to watch me transition.

She has moved on, thankfully. She has a husband, a child, a house, and the career she always wanted. We don’t talk. It is better that way.

My fantasies started to go dormant when I quit watching pornography. So much of my disease, the illness of autogynephilia, is directly attributable to porn-sickness. With the help of radical feminist thought, an ethic of sex-negativity, and cessation of all abusive substances, I have felt my autogynephilia begin to recede into dormancy. It is still there, I know this. It’s ugly face peeks around corners whenever something triggers that side of myself, that porn-sick side. This is one main reason I don’t watch TV – the advertisements trigger this side, because to my mind, many of these advertisements are just porn. I can control it, now.

People like me cannot be in relationships with women who want anything resembling a healthy life. I escaped, I let my wife go, she had help, she escaped as well – sigh – if it had gone on any longer I would have no choice but to live forever within my fantasies in order to unburden myself of the guilt. As it is, I feel able to explore alternatives to both appropriation and suicide.

I am one of the lucky ones. I guess.

Don’t Demean Yourself When You Pee

I had to pee.

For me, the bathroom question is one of honest assessment. “Is it unsafe in this situation, as a passing MtT, to use the men’s restroom?” This is the question I ask myself on those occasions I need to excrete waste products from my body while in a public setting, and was the question I asked myself, earlier today. Yes, it was safe.

The setting was a grocery store I worked at for over four years. Most of the people who work there are known to me, and today I enjoyed the opportunity to drink coffee and catch up with a few people I hadn’t seen in months, except in passing. Suffice to say, after a couple hours of dialogue and more than a few cups of coffee I had to pee. I really had to pee.

Coming from a childhood situation that gave my sister PTSD and probably had some similar effects on myself, I have spent the majority of my life assessing my environment for potential dangers. I knew that there was no danger in this situation. So, I steeled myself for using the men’s restroom. Now, this establishment sees a good amount of traffic, so it was highly probable there would be other men in the bathroom, other men who would be more than a little surprised at the sight of seeing a woman  (wait, that’s a man, why are they dressed like a…OH, OH, I GET IT) waiting patiently to use the one stall the tiny restroom boasts. However, this is the type of place where fairly liberal-minded people shop, so the thought of violence was the furthest thing from my mind. The only reason to not use the men’s restroom in this situation was the unwanted attention, the announcement of being trans. And if I wasn’t someone influenced by radfem politics, there would be the additional issue of validation to deal with.

I balked at the idea, and wondered if I would be able to get away with using the single restroom in the back room meant only for employees. Maybe they would make an exception for me? My old manager – a dear, dear friend of mine – was present and I lobbed my request at her.

“Oh, honey, you know you can’t go in the back since you don’t work here anymore.”

She told me to use the women’s bathroom. I told her I was going to use the men’s. She became immediately anxious and visibly upset.

“No, you don’t need to demean yourself like that! I will walk in there with you if you want!” At this point I was feeling an odd mix of emotions. Perhaps it was partially the higher dosage of estradiol I had just started on. Her crestfallen face, her aura of grandmotherly worry, her horror at seeing me demean myself…and I really had to pee.

I used the women’s restroom, knowing myself to be an outsider, albeit an invisible one. It was what I wanted to do anyway – and really, I just used her anxiety as an excuse, as a means to justify conceding my infantile and malformed attempt at radical ethics in favor of enjoying an uneventful micturation.

Concessions aside, the experience made visible something that I had not been exposed to previously, at least not in such a blatant manner. She didn’t want me to demean myself. This is important, and requires a deeper examination. What was demeaning about me using the men’s restroom? Certainly, it would attract attention. Certainly, some of that attention would be curious, some would be confused, and some would be judgmental. Interpretations of my presence would differ in extraordinary ways depending on whether someone ended up clocking me or not. The sheer fact of entering a men’s restroom would increase the chance of being clocked by a huge degree. Is that what is demeaning – being identified as trans? Is that what she meant? Maybe, but I’m not convinced that’s the answer.

To demean oneself implies that there is some party or individual that one is demeaning themselves towards – that the individual is bowing down, figuratively or literally, in homage of the greater power of some authority. But who is this authority? At this particular store, one of the employees is also a MtT – it has been made clear that I am welcome, nay, encouraged to use the women’s restroom, that the company’s policy on such things is all-inclusive, liberal, etc. It is certainly within their rights as a corporation to have whatever policy they want concerning their restrooms. By using the women’s restroom I was actually giving in to the contextual norms. So who, precisely, am I demeaning myself for? Society in general?

This would adequately reflect the liberal perspective my friend holds on such matters – in addition, the MtT employee works alongside her and has conveyed a little of some distinctly post-modern views on transgenderism (as a side note, this individual avoids me like the plague – perhaps transactivists really can smell gender-criticals?). I suspect what my friend meant was giving in to the notion that I am not a woman, despite me describing to her my politics and how the idea that one can simply identify as a woman is damaging to women’s liberation. In truth, I don’t think my friend really knew what she meant. I think she was trying to convey an emotion. She loves me, truly she does. We have been through a lot together: she has witnessed my multiple transformations over the years, seen me fall into and crawl out of the depths of depression and helped me through long months of living on the edge of suicide. I have listened to her stories of betrayal and suffering from her past, stories that close members of her family are unaware of – yeah, we have some history.

So, when she feels a desire to see me happy, to see me fit in, and then witnesses me engaging in what appears to be masochistic behavior in the service of alien politics, her emotional landscape becomes one of anxiety and fear. Understandable. She just wants me to use the restroom I feel comfortable using. But, I don’t feel comfortable using either restroom. And really, I don’t think it’s all about my ‘comfort.’

What about the comfort of those who don’t want an unexpected penis in the women’s restroom? Do they not have the right to demand a penis-free restroom in a society that not only privileges penis-holders but also teaches us a sense of entitlement because of this fact? A sense of entitlement that results in my class of people being responsible for 99% of rapes and 90% of murders? Just based on those statistics, this seems reasonable.

But this entire post is really about my friend, and the powerful emotion she felt in response to me using the men’s bathroom. I suspect that her emotion is not altogether different from the emotions felt by many other liberal-minded folks who feel an intense need to fight for us trans people – to see us fit in and be happy. To be safe. To not demean ourselves. Fitting in. That’s really it, isn’t it? I demean myself, not by being trans necessarily, but by not fitting in. By choosing not to fit in. Visually, I ‘match’ the women’s restroom.

Don’t stand out. You don’t want to demean yourself.

My body freaks me out, transition is serving its purpose, and I am finally, for the first time in maybe 15 years, able to think clearly about myself; able to critically analyze myself and the trauma I experienced growing up and the damage I’ve done to myself over the years through ritualistic, masochistic escapism. It is ironic that transition itself could be perceived as a ritualistic form of masochistic escapism. But I won’t go into that right now.

One of the many reasons I disagree with the idea of children transitioning is that in many cases, it is done with the motivation of fitting in. My transition has nothing to do with fitting in. I’ve tried to fit in my whole life. Transition is about rediscovering the creative potential, the confident voice, the sense of Self that I sacrificed repeatedly through the years in the interest of fitting in and doing what I was supposed to.

Now I am, apparently, demeaning myself by choosing not to fit in. In the interest of normalcy, in the interest of preserving the integrity of society and fitting in, I must not demean myself by using the men’s restroom. I can be my own special little snowflake. But just…don’t be that kind of different: Fit in.

Fuck that.

Geurrilla Oppression

Pronouns do not change depending upon someone’s skin color, height, physical abilities, or mental aptitude. They do, however, traditionally differ based upon sex. In the theoretical context of gender abolition, pronouns would be no different whether one was referring to a male or female of the human species. After all, why would they be? How would pronouns serve any purpose in such a social environment? In the absence of differences in socialization and privilege between males and females – because of being male or female – acknowledgement of one’s biological reality would be at best a quirky non sequiter, and at worst, a confusing boundary violation.

Thousands of years of recorded humanity have witnessed the utilization of these pronouns to refer specifically to one’s biological sex, or more accurately and in accordance with the historicity of the power structures in question, to one’s capacity to give birth, or lack thereof. Simply take a cursory glance at the social stigmas surrounding female infertility (in any society, really) and it becomes obvious how crucial is the connection between the social reality of women and the biological potential of female reproduction. In a human economy, there truly is no asset greater than other humans: control the means of human production – literally the creation of new humans – and you control the human economy.

This brings us to the current era, in which there seems to be a battle of pronouns. Who controls them? To whom do they refer?

In countless instances of ‘misgendering,’ trans persons accuse those who refuse to acknowledge their self-ascribed ‘gender identity’ with the Correct Pronoun to be committing a heinous act of violence against them. This ‘misgendering’ is given the emotional weight of death itself, and those who engage in this behavior are said to either be abstractly supporting the dehumanization of trans identities and thus contributing to a culture of violence against trans people, or more directly supporting the death of trans people by further depressing the emotional states of those individuals unable to escape suicidal ideation.

There is a huge misunderstanding here. Those engaged in the activity of ‘misgendering,’ usually radical feminists and gender-critical people, are more accurately performing ‘trusexing,’ a term I just made up. Maybe it’s been used before, I don’t know – the point being that the misunderstanding, the mis-communication, is thus: most trans persons use pronouns to refer to gender, while radfems and gendercrits use pronouns to acknowledge biological sex and its concurrent social realities. Of course, there are also the people who simply don’t have the energy or gumption to care and just ‘call it like they see it.’

A planetary-sized irony descends upon the situation. Pronouns help begin the process of socialization. Many (if not most) people will find it difficult to interact with an infant without knowing its biological sex and the socially-approved norms of treatment ascribed to handling an infant of that sex. Infants aren’t even really human until they are declared to be of one social destiny or another: “It’s a…!” As seen from scenarios of intersex children, a delay in this announcement results in a distressing dilemma for parents who live in a society of male-female discreteness. From this announcement, the new little human is given social form and fate, and its life begins. Presumably begins – in many situations where ultrasound technology meets a cultural history of sex-based infanticide, female fetuses are aborted simply for being female.

Women would benefit without gender, without pronouns, without anything in their daily life being altered or specifically oriented to their (assumed) ability to birth new humans, with the exception of medical care – which would be a private matter anyways. To reiterate: in the context of gender abolition, there would theoretically be no difference in male/female pronouns. However, I think that in order to reach a state of gender abolition, one must first cause this shift in pronoun usage to occur. Simply creating the divide between infant boys and infant girls leads them to very rapidly make assumptions about their place in the world by learning which group they ‘belong’ to. This perceptive divide must be eliminated first, otherwise children will inevitably fall victim to the dominant/submissive power structure that characterizes male/female socialization and relationships.

Here is the irony I see: the transgender movement is forcing the women’s liberation movement to use these pronouns, these master’s tools, as a means of defense; as a way of ‘calling out,’ in a sense, the socialization that men who claim to be women vehemently deny. The transgender movement – ‘The Church of Trans’ – is using these pronouns as a means to obfuscate reality and avoid responsibility for the social reality of being male in a world that teaches males, from infancy, that we are better, faster, stronger, smarter, more capable, and more entitled than the majority (52%) of our fellow humans. Radfems and gendercrits use pronouns to trusex people, to hold them accountable for the dual crime of both erasing their privileged reality and turning the tables on those who hold the least power in this gendered hierarchy.

Please allow me to reference a quote by Audre Lorde. (As a white male, I hope I am not removing it too much from its context or appropriating its meaning in an offensive way. If I am, I will gladly welcome criticism to correct my ignorance):

“Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male ignorance and to educate men as to our existence and our needs. This is an old and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the master’s concerns. Now we hear that it is the task of women of Color to educate white women—in the face of tremendous resistance—as to our existence, our differences, our relative roles in our joint survival. This is a diversion of energies and a tragic repetition of racist patriarchal thought.”
Lorde, Audre. “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.” 1984. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Ed. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press. 110- 114. 2007.

How much has changed since 1984? Well, quite a lot, and yet…we are in a situation where men who cannot possibly know anything about being a woman are claiming the title for themselves, as if it is a gleaming trophy to be won by trial. An inversion of the ‘damsel in distress’ story, with the male playing both parts. Armed with the shield of ‘misgendering’ and the sword of ‘cis privilege,’ the very existence of women’s oppression and women’s reality is being systematically erased.

Women are still being forced to occupy themselves with the master’s concerns. Women are coerced into using the master’s tools – the pronouns which spark the programming of gender that begins in infancy – to defend the reality of their subjugation before the Orwellian inevitability of being unable to even name the truth ascends from the depths of nightmare into our waking world. Women are being compelled to use the master’s tools to maintain the master’s house to prevent it from collapsing upon them before they can manage an escape: the only escape is women’s liberation. To be buried under the rubble of the master’s house is to be trapped in a situation I outlined in “Gender Dystopia:
“The female will have been erased, and the female will have no name for their oppression, and no name for their oppressors. They will, at this point, have no chance, no hope, and any knowledge of their position as eternal slaves to men will be obfuscated.”

Maybe it isn’t as dreadful as all that…maybe I am simply being paranoid and alarmist. I certainly hope so, but my hope is at odds with my informed suspicion.

Either way, there is an abstract war being fought over pronouns, and the victors will have won the right to name a crucial aspect of reality. For women, this is one more stepping-stone along the arduous road towards freedom from men and our violent sense of entitlement to their lives.

For the Church of Trans and the gender hierarchy to which it tithes, it means the elimination of objective reality and the progressive extinction of resistance to male forms of social sado-masochism. Or, something like this definition of ‘doublethink,’ which is:

“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary.”

Orwell, George (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd, London, part 1, chapter 3, pp 32