Translesbians made possible by RadFems, Political Lesbianism

Who made female penises possible? Are homosexual communities there for your appropriation.

This is an article from the The Guardian, a left newspaper in Britain, in 2009 arguing that Political Lesbianism needs to be revived as a concept.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/30/women-gayrights

It is the topic of my essay here:

Radfems (Radical Feminists) are enraged by the “translesbian” claims to Lesbian identity, “translesbian” claims that Lesbians should have relations with them, and that they possess a “female penis.”

Now before going forward with this, I want to say that the Radfems are entirely justified in being outraged by this. Lesbians, whether they are Radfems or not, are entirely justified in being outraged by these translesbian claims. This is not because the Radfems need my approval or not, but to make it clear that I believe they are entirely justified in being outraged and that I think these trans claims are nonsense.

These “translesbian” claims are absurd. The “translesbian” claims are also a threat to Gay men since they have their counter part in transmen claims to be Gay men, though I haven’t see claims that they have a male vagina (I haven’t checked though to see if this claim has been made). I have seen claims that “men have periods.” There are a lot of these translesbians and their larger numbers than transmen give more social and political force behind absurd trans extremists claims than might be possible if it was just transmen by themselves or if transwomen existed in the same numbers as transmen do.

(Not all trans are supporting these claims, some are just trying to get along in life.)

Thus their problem becomes our problems.

I am somewhat amused and laughing inside seeing the Radfems suffer the consequence of their own absurdities. Radfems were contributors to the culture where you just denounced rather than discussed. The censorious, accusational, and denunciatory rhetorical tactics of trans extremists clearly originate from the rhetorical tactics of radfems and are turned around and applied to the radfems.

One benefit about the war between radfems and trans extremists is that the radfems don’t have that much time to bother Gay men. There is less time to attack drag queens, porn, sex workers, kink at pride and advance their generally anti-sex agenda. In the past, I would notice that some of these “rad”fems weren’t so radical in everyday life, but would be “rad” when it was in some event where they could safely vent on Gay men.

You can read The Guardian article if you want, but I can summarize it easily as follows. “Nearly all straight men are horrible and will be horrible, so the only possibility is to become a political Lesbian. We will have a patronizing space left for feminists who are still choosing to be heterosexual.”

Also, it was argued by one of the authors of the original pamphlet, “Love Your Enemy?,” in 1981, that advocated political Lesbianism, that you could choose your sexual orientation. She was interviewed for this 2009 article.

Alison Garthwaite was another of the authors, and she stands by the original argument. "Sexuality is not determined by a gene which we are born with," she says. "It can change over time, and is determined by both your circumstances and the choices you make." Garthwaite is keen to reassure heterosexual feminists, however, that their role in feminism is not redundant or unwanted. "Perhaps the original paper implied that heterosexual feminists were of no use, and that they need not bother. I don't think that."

Both Crockett and Garthwaite can see why LYE upset people. "The arguments in LYE were a stick of dynamite up a very cosy feminist convention," says Crockett, "that heterosexual feminists must never be criticised for choosing men over women."

It should be clear that in the ideology of these Radfems has enabled the claims of translesbians to be women, Lesbians, and that they have made possible the idea of a female penis, which originates from their own ideology. A structure dislodged from reality is free to drift all over the place driven by winds of emotion and self-rightous proclamation.

It isn’t just that in these absurdities that worlds lose rational meaning and you open up the door for other irrational claims when you demolish logic, which you do with this political Lesbian identity, but there are specific connections as well.

The idea that you can just choose to have sexual desire for a specific body whether it is consistent with your sexual orientation or not, that you can just choose to be sexually attracted to a specific body irrespective of sexual orientation, is clearly a core idea in trans demanding sex.

Trans ideology claims that you can and should be able to be attracted to a body irrespective of the biological sex, but based on the person’s claimed gender identity. If you won’t and refuse it is called a “genital fetish” using the stigmatizing term “fetish.” If you can demand women desire a vagina then it isn’t unreasonable that translesibans can demand that a Lesbian desire a “female penis.”

Political Lesbianism clearly sees women heterosexuals as having a “genital fetish” that they can change.

It is there any difference in Radfems demanding that heterosexual women find biological women sexually attractive, than transmen with penises, demanding Lesbians find them attractive and if rejected, accusing Lesbians of being transphobic? It is any different than “Gay” transmen demanding that Gay men find their bodies with a vagina and no penis an object of sexual desire?

Also, what is happening with “political” Lesbians is that they are appropriating a homosexual community for their own agenda. It isn’t any different than transwomen and transmen appropriating Lesbian and Gay spaces and communities for their own purposes.

Sexual orientation matters, and as far as can be observed it seems to be immutable.

Evangelical Christians want to pray the Gay away. It seems some Radfems think you can denounce the straightness away.

Even if sexual orientation was a choice, it is a choice that the individual makes, not some intolerant group of scolds.

Saying that homosexuality is something that can be changed, opens the Gay community to endless quack claims of being able to change sexual orientation and the infliction of these claims on Gay youth. Though I have some criticisms of how the idea of immutability is used to justify Gay rights, these criticism don’t deny that it is immutable.

When radfems make these claims of sexual orientation being subject to change, they put the homosexual communities, Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals at physical risk. Of course they don’t care, they are just cultivating their rage.

The other legacy of this radfem idea is the whole rhetorical tool box of denunciation, accuation, name calling, slander, misrepresentation, censorship and rage, a toolbox which has been adopted by the Alphabet Soup and the trans.

It should be very clear that the advocates of “Political Lesbianism” are not and cannot be allies to Gay men. They are the originators of rhetorical delusions which have led to the trans onslaught. They have a raging hostility towards men which drives them into these fevered delusions. Gay men are men. It would frustrate them if they couldn’t find some reason to hate us and so they will.

When we win against the trans onslaught, these “political” Lesbians will be coming for us and they will be working against our interests. Having just a consuming rage against men, they will likely target those men who are most vulnerable, which is us. This is one reason that efforts against the trans can only be an alliance for a specific issue.

Remember next time when the radfems are raging over translesbians and their claims to have a “female penis.” In multiple ways they have brought it upon themselves.