What About the Men? Now and Then.

by Guest Blogger

Guest post by Luckynickl

A little over a year ago in May, 2011, Ms. Julie Bindel wrote a fabulous piece here at the Hub titled, “What About The Men?”  The piece was radical and amazing.  Late last night, I ran across this post over at Gender Trender.  It’s an interview of Juile Bindel by male “transgender” Paris Lees conducted earlier this year.  Apparently, in the year since she first wrote for the Hub, Ms. Bindel has done an about-face on the issue of “What about the men?”.

I can only wonder, what happened between now and then?  Are aliens abducting radical feminists and replacing them with pod people?!

Back then, Julie Bindel was defending women-only space and saying how not enough has changed to invite men to the party.  Some excerpts from Julie Bindel’s post at the Hub:

I am becoming increasingly wild with rage and frustration at the mantra introduced into common feminist parlance, which goes: “We have to include men” and “we need men on board…”

We women are terrified of alienating men and being thought of as lesbians.  Let’s face it, it takes very little to be named a man-hater, and the intended slur of ‘lesbian’ is never that far behind.  All we have to do is gently suggest that it might be men who benefit most  from women’s subordination, and that they have no right to have special treatment simply because they were born male.

The reason why so many of the new-wave feminists bleat on (and on) about including men in feminism is because so many of them are unthinkingly heterosexual.  Women are the only oppressed group that is required to love their oppressor, sexually and every other way. Black civil rights campaigners of old were clear that the liberation they were demanding was liberation from white racism, and it was to benefit them by dismantling white supremacy, not love them more.

Fast-forward to Paris Lees’ interview with Julie Bindel.  Julie Bindel seems to have done a complete 180-degree turnaround and goes on and on about… drumroll please…what about the men and inclusivity!  The same thing Julie Bindel accused heterosexual and new-wave feminists of doing and scolded them for a year ago.

A year ago, Julie Bindel spoke about women being terrified of alienating men and being thought of as lesbians.  In her interview with Paris Lees, Julie Bindel jumps onboard the transgendered bandwagon, suggests she is transgendered herself, and expresses the hope that the identity and label of “lesbian” can come to an end.  As one commentor at GenderTrender, Weirdwand, pointed out, “That seems to be  moving towards erasure and invisibilising of harm the current system does, and will continue to do, to lesbians, regardless of whether we call ourselves lesbians or not.”  Perhaps Ms. Bindel is just terrified of continuing to be thought of as a lesbian?  Ms. Bindel also expresses the ewww-factor towards lesbian separatists and women’s land.  Ouch! The misogyny burns.

Paris Lees next brings up the Kimberly Nixon vs. Vancouver Rape Relief Society case from 1995.  (Vancouver as in Canada, not the States.)  This is the case where a transgendered male, Kimberly Nixon, sued a battered women’s shelter, compromising the shelter’s finances and ability to provide battered women important services, and for what offense?  Denying Nixon — a “transgendered” male — a position of counseling battered women.  The shelter thought it inappropriate for a male to counsel women who had been battered, terrorized and traumatized by males.  Julie Bindel was apparently angered by it all at the time, but in the interview with Paris Lees, she apologizes for her anger and reverses reality, implying that it was actually transgendered males who were put out and denied services.

The court has since ruled that the Vancouver shelter did not discriminate against Nixon, but awarded Nixon $7,500 because Nixon’s itty bitty feelings were hurt. But let’s go back a year ago, when Ms. Bindel said in her piece for the Hub, “Women have the right to have our own physical space to talk about what men do to us in our private and public lives. This movement only exists, because of men abusing and colonising us – in other words, you are the problem boys,  not equal partners.”  Well that’s most certainly true.  So how does one go from advocating for women-only space one year to apologizing to males for it later?

Julie Bindel then says something in the interview about the radical feminist mindset, and how radical feminists think women are all good and men are all bad.  Personally, I’ve never encountered any radical feminist who thought any such thing. So what are you suggesting here, Ms. Bindel?  That radical feminists are man-haters?  Let’s back-track to what Ms. Bindel said a year ago.  Ms. Bindel had quite a bit to say about radical feminists being labeled “man-haters.”  Here she is a year later, doing the same thing herself.  And sharing this patriarchal propaganda with Lees, an MRA in a skirt, who is noted for being pro-porn, pro-BDSM, pro-prostitution, anti-female, anti-feminist, homophobic, lesbophobic, and supports the sex roles which keep women down.

In fact, the male misogynist Paris Lees is the anti-thesis to that to which Julie Bindel has devoted her feminist life.  What’s wrong with this picture?

Julie Bindel did pull up short of betraying and denouncing Sheila Jeffreys when Paris Lees urged her to do so, falsely claiming Sheila Jeffreys had been posting to “transphobic” blogs.  Of course trans view any disobedience or challenge to their faith-based religion/cult as transphobia, including scientific evidence which contradicts their claims.  But whatever the case, it never happened.   Sheila Jeffreys has never posted to any of the blogs mentioned.   Apparently Paris Lees thinks all women named Sheila are Sheila Jeffreys.  Obsessed much, Paris?

Julie Bindel also did not back down from the assertion that children medicalized and pressured to conform under the duress of the transgender craze, is child abuse.  I’m also happy to say Julie Bindel would not denounce radical feminists in general at Paris Lees’ urging and said she would only be responsible for what she, herself, said.  Good for you, Julie!  Yes, I know there is a war on women and we all make deals with the devil in order to survive.  But capitulating to and appeasing the master and submitting to his demands and oppression has never liberated anyone in the history of humankind.

In the end, Mary Daly’s parting words about trans keep echoing inside my head.  “Ignore them,” she said.  By giving them attention, we are giving them power.  If we ignored them, they’d lose that power.  Her main concern was that we were giving these men too much of our time and energy.  We need to stop wasting our time with “what about the men?” and shift that time, energy and focus back to women.

Watch Ms. Bindel’s “interview” with Paris Lees here:

39 Comments to “What About the Men? Now and Then.”

  1. thanks for the reminder lucky! julie bindel did indeed write for the HUB about the importance of female-only space (among other things). it was one of the highlights for us as we opened this place, actually. how quickly things change…or does it take extreme amounts of heat and pressure over time, and who knows what else? it would be interesting to know more about how this 180 came about, but i think the before and afters speak for themselves.

    a great reason to keep all of our archives intact, and to read back through them once in awhile too.

  2. also, YES to not wasting time on men, including male transgenders. agreeing to be interviewed by a male transgender is never, ever, ever going to work out well for women is it? not for the woman being interviewed, and not for any woman, anywhere. its a trap.

  3. I read Ms. Bindel’s HUB essay and agreed with it. I watched this later video and saw what an intelligent and thoughtful woman she is. She says the “transgender women”s misogyny directed toward her has been horrific. She says, as Lucky points out, that the gender industry is promoting child abuse by blocking natural puberty in children. She says she is sick of the “war” between transactivists and radfems, if I have it right. She makes some statements that I find hard to evaluate, about her own status, whether she may be trans gender, and says something I’m lost on, about wishing lesbians would disappear.

    She says she expects hatred directed at her, from radfems, for doing this interview.

    I think she has been grievously attacked in the year since she wrote the article for the HUB, by transactivists, and that her judgment may be off. I understand that after enough hatred, one only expects more. I don’t think this radfem article attacks Ms. Bindel or contains any kind of hate. It asks why she has changed her position in some important ways. I doubt very much any one on this site “hates” Ms. Bindel. But there is puzzlement. I do feel strongly that individual women in this struggle for women’s liberation must do what they need to do for protection, and I for one don’t say that Ms. Bindel owes us an explanation. Yet, since she is a writer, since her politics seem to have changed radically, I would like to hear from her again on the HUB, and promise her my personal respect and attention.

  4. Less anyone get the wrong impression, for the most part I admire Julie Bindel. But yes, I think she was set up and fell into a trap. It was painful to watch her have to capitulate to that pig in a skirt. I was angry at first, but then I realized Julie didn’t have much of a choice. The U.K. laws are different than those here in the States regarding trans. Ms. Bindel could be sued and lose her career and livelihood if she made one false move. Much like trans are attempting to do with Sheila Jeffreys. So I understand why Ms. Bindel did what she did – which I alluded to when I said we all make deals with the devil in order to survive. I think Julie Bindel is still the Julie Bindel who wrote that piece for the Hub last year.

  5. Some of us are still angry about the VRR/Nixon thing. One single male transgender almost bankrupted a women’s services organisation, just because he didn’t get what he wanted. They offered him other positions, but he wouldn’t take them, he only wanted that position and nothing else (that actual attitude in itself shows that he was completely unsuitable for the role of counsellor full stop). Nixon was of course, a former service user of VRR – so they were not ‘transphobic’, did not deny him services – and the ten-year legal battle was his way of showing gratitude. Even this year, trans and their supporters tried disrupting VRR’s fundraising in the park, because VRR are deemed to be ‘transphobic’ – even though Nixon was a former service user.

    These kind of actions against women’s services are hostile and anti-female, and definitely unfeminist. Which is why we should never forget what trans and their supporters did and still do. Trans want 100% capitulation on their terms, or they will bully and terrorise you into submission.

    So for Bindel to excuse that VRR incident, minimise it, is totally unforgiveable.

    I don’t really care if she did that interview to ‘save face’ and get trans terrorism off her back, because in doing so, she threw a lot of women, and radfems, under the bus. Unforgiveable.

    The real kicker though, is that Bindel is being interviewed not only by a male transgender doing femininity to the max, but one who is also pro-porn, pro-bdsm and everything else anti-radfem – on top of all that, Lees is also trying to co-opt the radfem label. Would Bindel have been that nice to such an anti-radfem had he not been in woman-suit? Because there is no difference between Lees and a rightwing dude.

  6. Why, Julie? Why do the interview at all? What are you trying to save? Your career, or your face, or what? Guess what, though? It won’t work. No matter what you say, it will never be good enough for that man in a laydee suit. Never.

  7. Julie Bindel is well known within malestream media and her capitulation to the trans issue which is totally anti-feminist and promotes male domination over all women, will be viewed by men and Male Supremacist System as another feminist finally accepting she is wrong and men are right. Malestream media and its virulent MRA followers will delight in saying to Feminists ‘look another Feminist Icon has capitulated to male domination and it won’t be long before all you women fall in line and kiss the feet of us superior males.’

    Yes we all know women have to ‘make deals with the devil, (meaning we live within the Male Supremacist System) but there is a huge difference between deciding what is best for our well-being and security and blatantly reneging on one’s politics. Ms. Bindel has time and again declared she is a Radical Feminist but she has swiftly capitulated because her career is far more important than her politics.

    Ms. Bindel is not a fool and she knows what happens when women capitulate to male demands, because it is men as usual who win and the woman will not be accorded any kudos or financial security. Capitulating to male oppressors only ensures the Male Supremacist System continues to wage war on any woman who dares to speak out against male domination over all women.

    Ms. Bindel is no longer a feminist and she should say so rather than attempting to pander to a male in a frock. Note this male promotes virulent women-hating and male contempt for women.

  8. @karmarad: “She says she expects hatred directed at her, from radfems, for doing this interview.”

    Haha Whut? Where do you get that? She said that every time she speaks on gender she gets hatred from gender aficianados. As we all do. Violent horrible hatred. Bomb threats, stalking, bashing in the head with baseball bats, trigger of a gun fucking violent threats. How you interpreted that as Julie expecting hatred from fucking radfems of all things is totally bizarre. What in the WHAT? She has already had threats from transactivists comparing her to a nazi and stating that the only understanding between trans and radfems will be reached from the barrel of a gun FOR DOING THIS INTERVIEW. Jesus Christ.

    Julie is not afraid of “hatred” from radical feminists for Christssake. Radical Feminists don’t stalk her and threaten her and try to slice her face with thrown objects at public appearances FOR THE LAST TEN FUCKING YEARS. Julie has been apologizing for her humorous tone in that old article comparing a trans world to one populated by the cast of Grease FOR TEN FUCKING YEARS. That is nothing new. She has gone on record again and again and again saying she apologizes for that piece. (Personally I thought it was a hilarious descriptor and I know many trans people do as well- those with a sense of humor.)

    I also want to point out that this partial video interview was published two months ago as a “pay to view” part of Paris Lees’ META Magazine which describes itself as “Totally Devoted To Gender”. LMAO:

    The public release of this partial interview is a teaser for the next “pay to view” issue of Lees’ “gender devotional” rag which will supposedly contain the full interview. I look forward to Julie’s public response to this video. Clearly there are some jarring edits. Word to the wise: always video your own copy of live interviews.
    This video looks horrible. Let’s see what an actual unedited transcript turns out to be if we ever see one.

  9. creative editing perhaps? interesting. if julie bindel wants to write for the HUB again to address this (or anything) she is more than welcome here. this is what the HUB is for and we will continue to serve this purpose for as long as we can, or until its no longer needed.

  10. @GallusMag:

    Perhaps I misunderstood the very last part of the interview? What I thought I heard was that Ms. Bindel was talking about the misogynistic hatred expressed against her by transgender women for 10 years. She said it was “horrifically anti-feminist and anti-woman”. She said it had become a war. Then the interviewer started talking about a radfem posting on blogs like gendertrender (mistakenly calling her Sheila Jeffreys, I hear now). The interviewer asks, “why not condemn both sides?” She asks, why not do a guest post on a radfem site? And Ms. Bindel says, because I need to know it won’t be turned against me. She adds, “I will get hatred, there’s no question, from doing this interview”. I thought she was referring to radfems in the context of her previous words. I may be wrong in that interpretation. I certainly agree with you that the hatred she fears would in fact not come from radical feminists, and that she is wrong if that is indeed what she meant.

  11. I was talking about the hatred I would get from the TRANSLOBBY! Why was that not clear FFS?

  12. ‘In the end, Mary Daly’s parting words about trans keep echoing inside my head. “Ignore them,” she said. By giving them attention, we are giving them power. If we ignored them, they’d lose that power. Her main concern was that we were giving these men too much of our time and energy. We need to stop wasting our time with “what about the men?” and shift that time, energy and focus back to women.’

    I agree, and this is why I find myself reading less and less radfem blogs- because the output seems to be the same critique of trans ideology made again and again from slightly different angles. It’s a decent critique but it’s getting very boring.

  13. Julie, is there anything else you would like to say? The hub is offering you a platform if you want it. Frankly, its difficult for me to believe that the extent of your response to what Lees did to you or to whats been written here is to yell at one of our commenters for misunderstanding you? Let me know. Thanks

  14. Ignoring trans is a ‘choice’ like ignoring drunks/ sexists/misogybist assholes or others not on your wave…..so lets turn our attention to we womon pleeeeze?

  15. Sincere apologies for misinterpreting your remark, Ms. Bindel. Thank you for clarifying that.

  16. I’m glad you wrote this article Luckynkl, first of all because I always love your writing, and second of all, because you’re right.
    If radical feminists aren’t going to point out that this interview is capitulation to male supremacy, then who the hell is? The buck stops here. It’s unpleasant to fight against men–against MRAs and transwomen–but somebody’s got to do it. SOMEBODY had to write this article.
    I think Julie Bindel is very brave, just like any woman who takes a stand against men. Similarly, I think that any woman who supports Paris Lees’ behaviour in this interview is a complete and utter coward and a sell out.

    It’s just so utterly depressing to watch a woman being brow-beaten into submission by a man in lipstick (and who is decades younger). So fucking depressing. And I think that’s why the radfem blogosphere is now up in arms about what we’ve seen on that video. But I can’t say I wouldn’t have behaved the same way. Fear does indeed make you capitulate (which of course is the reason why transwomen are violent and aggressive towards radfems), but it’s still awful to see it in action.

    I guess one thing we can take from this is PLEASE forgodsake, nobody else engage with these delusional males by agreeing to be interviewed.

  17. And I agree Hecuba. Paris Lees cannot disguise his contempt for women.

  18. Just remember the new rules of ‘feminism’.

    1) Women have no existence other than that granted by men, who are empowered to define the category at their whim. (Note I use ‘women’ and not ‘womyn’ – the latter being a real from of human.) They have therefore the power to include penised persons at whim.
    2) Those creatures whom men chose to define as ‘women’ exist only to serve the ends of the patriarchy – having no authority to act of their own volition. They certainly have no say in the decisions in section 1. (If they has volition, they would have been classified as ‘men’ – seeing as only men have such authority.)
    3) Given 1 & 2 – it is clear that there is no reason to provide or allow any location or function where the class listed as ‘women’ can meet, speak, learn, decide, or act… as none of these actions are proper or even possible to the class.
    4) When members of the ‘women’ class do, by some chance, end up in a cluster, it is obvious and evident that they require a member of the ‘men’ class to enter, take over, and lead/control/police the activity or event. Some men are therefore allowed to retain their natural privilege and authority while pro-forma taking on the title (but not real status) of ‘women’ in order to perform this vital task on behalf of the patriarchy.

    There. All explained.

  19. God, that’s so depressing AnnieB, but you’re spot on.

  20. Well said Annie, absolutely right. And I loled at “in a cluster.”

  21. How do we define “feminist emergency” and how long do we attend to one before we move on? I think there are some who believe this trans business qualifies as an emergency and they are treating it as such. If thats the case though, when does it end? Is it even possible to stop the bleeding here? If not, its not an emergency, is it? If you cant stop the bleeding, its not an emergency. Its a tragedy.

  22. Coming out of lurkdom to make sure people have seen this:

    “I hearby denounce Rad Fem Hub for being rabid maniacs. Leave me alone. You are NOT my sisters, and nor do I owe you. Thank you.”

    I don’t know if this is the only motivator behind Julie’s declaration, but if I had copped the level of grief a prominent RadFem figure is routinely subjected to, I’m not 100% sure I’d be able to hold out either.

  23. Rabid maniacs? interesting.

  24. Yet more division and diversion and bad feelings inspired by trans* (male) focus.

    What a train wreck.

  25. I suspect she’s getting hit in pms, and yet…. . Please link to where she has called transgendering males “rabid maniacs”, I’m sure she must have, when a FAIR member, Anthony Casebeer, defato threatened to beat Cathy Brennan to death with a Louisville Slugger, and run her down and crash into her with car, when we have been threatened with Die Cis Scum, and depicted getting our throats slashed. When we are told by transgendering persons to Die In A Fire, fucked in every hole after several new ones have been made with a knife. Please post Julie’s outrage to the Cotton Ceiling, where transgendering persons feel righteous in coercing her to let them penetrate her with their intact penises. When she has seen instances of transgendering rape and murder to females such as document here. When we as females are subjected to this. I know Julie would have commented. Wouldn’t she?

    http://theysaythisneverhappens.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/asher-bauer/

    Please post Julie’s horror and uncontrolled anger made about these and other similar threats from transgendering persons. I know she must have made them, being the conscientious Lesbian feminist she is, in a public position which carries responsibilities as well as privilege.

  26. I’m assuming you mean private messages, and yes. I’m quite sure of that.

  27. Julie Bindel denounces the Hub? Seems to me, she also denounced women, lesbians, a battered women’s shelter and RF conferences, among other things.

    We’re not her sisters? Nope, apparently MRAs in skirts, who totally despise her and plan on eating “Julie Bindel Lemon Drizzle Cake,” and think Julie is “full of nonsense” (both Paris Lees quotes) and post Julie’s genitals to the internet (also courtesy of Paris Lees), are your sisters. Good luck with that, Julie.

    Apparently RF Hubbers are rabid maniacs for comparing Julie’s statements from a year ago to the statements she’s currently making and saying WTF to the contradiction? No, no, no,not those boys in skirts who are pro-porn, pro-BDSM, pro-prostitution, anti-female, anti-feminist, homophobic, lesbophobic, and support the sex roles which keep women down. Not those boys who, as Doublevez alludes to, want to take a Louisville slugger to your head, run you over with their cars, burn you at the stake, slice, dice and rape you in every orifice, and want to rape, murder and commit violence against you in 1,000 different ways. After all, boys will be boys. That about sum things up for you, Julie? Oh wait. That’s right. These boys are your sisters! Like I said, good luck with that, Julie.

    But I understand, Julie, why you are a coward and a sell-out. These boys are really, really scary. What protection do we have to offer you? These boys decide whether or not you get a paycheck and can eat and have a roof over your head next week. What do we have to offer you? These boys have gods made in their own image and are in charge and rule the world. What do we have? I can’t blame you for selling out. You’d be a fool not to know which side of the bread it’s buttered on.

    But **sigh** as I’ve said for over a decade now, kissing the boys’ ass will not save your own. It doesn’t matter if you sell out or capitulate to them or not. It doesn’t matter how compassionate or empathetic you are or how much you love them or don’t. It doesn’t matter how much you sacrifice yourself, take care of them, do for them or don’t. It is irrelevant. In Germaine Greer’s famous words, Men Hate Women. Men despise and hate women for being female. Period. That is our crime. Be-ing female. Not for what we do or don’t do. You can kiss these boys’ ass now until the cows come home and it won’t change a thing. At the end of the day, you will still be female, and men will hate you for that. Deal with it.

  28. I don’t really have anything to add – I think it has all been said. Just popping by to say…Radfem Hub, you are welcome to quote me. I am flattered.

  29. Thank you for that quote, Weirdward. It really resonated with me. I realized how right you were. I mean, JB didn’t express any hope that the labels for trans, gay men, bi or het folks be removed. Nope. Just our kind. Lesbians. And women, of course, can now be anyone! I find that disturbing on so many levels. Who does this benefit? Women?! Of course not. Who it benefits are men. Apparently, only men are allowed to exist.

  30. “Rabid” seems a very transgendery sort of word. Dunno, very camp, I guess, and similar in style to the language the transgenderists tend to opt for.
    Like “vile” or “screeching” or the term “die in a fire”.
    “Thoughtcrime” is another of their favourites. The first time I mentioned on a mainstream website that I didn’t think males could be females I was accused, without a hint of irony, of committing “thoughtcrime”.

  31. But **sigh** as I’ve said for over a decade now, kissing the boys’ ass will not save your own. It doesn’t matter if you sell out or capitulate to them or not. It doesn’t matter how compassionate or empathetic you are or how much you love them or don’t. It doesn’t matter how much you sacrifice yourself, take care of them, do for them or don’t. It is irrelevant. In Germaine Greer’s famous words, Men Hate Women.

    Yes, absolutely. And once she has served her purpose, to disrupt or discredit radfems, they will toss her aside. I once saw a very popular RF blog, the owner became trans-friendly, dumped most of the RFs. It is now *crickets* – deadly quiet. She had served her purpose for them, they took out a very popular place, then they dumped her. Male approval, and its companion, trans-approval, is purely conditional. When a female stops sucking up to them, or stops being useful, she will be unceremoniously dumped.

    And Bindel chose to do the interview with Lees of all people? Pro-porn, pro-prostitution, pro-bdsm.
    But look, it’s rubbing off – notice how Julie Bindel references the new mainstream pro-bdsm novel in this tweet, whilst putting down radfems? Just, ewww. Who else uses porn/bdsm/rape to put down females? Men and trans of course!

    No radfem credibility there at all.

  32. seeing bindel tweeting porn now is sad and gross.

  33. I’ve been thinking these past few days about what Cherry said just above because that was my first reaction as well. Now with this tweet (seriously, how many groups of people CAN she slam in 30 words or less???) if you told me that some trans had hacked her twiiter account I would be less surprised than than I am right now.

  34. A radfem in my area, years ago, told me we should ignore trans. I was furious that she did not support my desire to do activism around trans, early intervention before it got as far as it did. Recently, she discovered trans had invaded one of the lesbian organizations she belonged to and most appreciated, and the trans were supported by most of the lesbians in that group. She then had to try to mount a quick campaign before the group decided to let trans in, and she lost. Now I read she will be leaving the organization. My thoughts are: what comes around, goes around. If you’re not willing to speak up about trans, you will pay the price.

    From the comments below this post, I suspect she took her “ignore the trans” politics from Mary Daly. Very bad call, on both Daly’s and her parts.

    I am damn glad Jeffreys, Gallus Mag and so many others are speaking out against trans. Yes, it gets tedious to talk, read, and think about it, but it is extremely serious business. As a poster above wrote, trans are rapidly dismantling women’s rights that the second wave worked so hard to achieve.

    It is only a matter before they dismantle what the first wave achieved. They’ve already dismantled any reference to biology with being female.

    Trans are a bigger threat to women’s rights than the anti-abortion movement, because they seek to exclude bio-womyn from all rights who do not “perform” “female.”

    So I disagree with Daly. We cannot afford to ignore trans and their political and social inroads and dismantling.

  35. Trans are a bigger threat to women’s rights than the anti-abortion movement, because they seek to exclude bio-womyn from all rights who do not “perform” “female.”

    So I disagree with Daly. We cannot afford to ignore trans and their political and social inroads and dismantling.

    ok, but who is “we”? and if all radfems spend their time this way, who is there left to write and imagine about womens culture and do the radical work of getting to the root of womens oppression by men, and the sources of male power? we cant do and be everything at once. saying that trans is a “bigger threat to womens rights than the anti-abortion movement” is arguable and might be true, but both are issues of legal reformism and politicking. “womens rights” is about legal rights and therefore about getting crumbs from men, and they can take away those crumbs whenever they want. radfems are the only ones writing and thinking about WOMENS RIGHT to be liberated from men and male abuse in all its forms.

  36. Julie Bindel is pampering to Paris Lee and all the transactivist journalists who work for the Guardian including Roz Kaveny, Natacha Kennedy etc She has been outnumbered and isolated as a lesbian so shes now playing the woman card to scrape a living. Amazing how she now can ‘set tup’ her sisters but no surprise as they (Paris, Roz Natacha etc) hold all the connections particulalrly in the academic fields and have been heard to affect the scientific studies and conclusions of people writing thesis on sex.Furthermore gay men especially Tatchell would side with transwomen more than lesbians because they are not directly affected by them. remember Tatchell would have happily soled out the gay movement back in the 90′s for a parliamentary seat.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 392 other followers

%d bloggers like this: