The projections of FETAs (Female-Excluding Trans Activists).

Transgenderism, like all other forms of Gender, is pure evil.

The Prime Directive

I’ve discussed in the past how advocates of irrational ideologies have no material to attack their opponents with, so their attacks are heavily laced with projections, if not exclusively projections.

A FETA called Miriam Dobson wrote an entry called “Truly radical environmentalism must have anti-oppression at its heart.” This is basically an anti-DGR (Deep Green Resistance) screed, which I find despicable in itself, but I’ve chosen this entry specifically because virtually every single criticism raised by Dobson is actually a projection of what FETAs are doing. It provides us with a wide overview of all that’s wrong with trans genderism.

Just so it’s clear, let me restate what I mean by trans genderism: I mean by that an ideology which uses transgender people as an argument to rationalize the existence of gender. Trans genderists (FETAs) believe that individuals whose “gender identity” (a nonsense concept) clashes with…

View original post 1,731 more words

Guest Post: Derrick Jensen Responds to John Stoltenberg

About a year ago, pro-feminist author John Stoltenberg wrote a very disturbing article entitled “Andrea Dworkin Was Not Transphobic” for the website Feminist Times. In response, I wrote an open letter, which you can read here. His response is in the comments.

When I received this response from Stoltenberg – a man who has been undeniably influential to me and my pro-feminist development – I shared it with my mentor and friend Derrick Jensen, who was equally upset. Derrick is one of the foremost radical environmentalists in the world today and perhaps, along with Lierre Keith, the greatest single influence on my worldview and life. His response to Stoltenberg is absolutely spot-on, and he’s graciously granted me permission to host it here.

Derrick Jensen responds to John Stoltenberg

I’d like to thank you both for the above exchange, which is both illuminating and disturbing.

As a fellow writer, I understand…

View original post 3,362 more words

Neo-vagina? Or second asshole?


there is absolutely NO non-patriarchal, non-misogynist reason to regard this structure as a neo-vagina rather than a second asshole.  this structure is EXACTLY as much a vagina as it is an asshole: which is to say that it is neither.  if you must, call it a second asshole, because at least thats not misogynist.  its still patriarchal though.  as if patriarchal medicine could create an actual asshole!  it cant.

View original post