Julie Bindel, in a moment of outstanding clarity, declared rafemhub as people in need of mental health care.
This isn’t news to most of us who are unfortunate to see what they write and do often.
Peter J Reilly, however, a contributor to the fairly well-respected Forbes magazine, is unaware of this, which he demonstrates when he uses them as his source for information on Radical feminism and its conflict with Trans people.
To give you an idea what that strikes me as resembling, it is akin to going to the MassResistance website and asking for their opinion on something relating to trans folk.
This comes out because in an interview with Jill Stein, the Presidential Candidate for the Green party (who is not on my endorsement list, even though she’s pretty ok politically on paper), he asked about the stuff relating to the concern that radical feminists have regarding trans people in “female only spaces”.
Here’s the excerpt that he provided on Forbes’ website:
Now, this might not strike you as all that interesting, but a few things stand out. First of all, this is a direct question asked of a presidential candidate regarding trans people. That, in and of itself, is pretty impressive. He makes mention of the issue surrounding the Kosilek case where people who would otherwise not do so are making a big stink and trying to stop someone from accessing their civil rights.
Also impressive is Stein’s reaction to this. She’s obviously not pleased by the question at all, and then she slips back into that politician mode which is key and to be expected. She then notes how this question hasn’t been brought up to her on the campaign trail, but the question of access to care and so forth have been.
The money line that’s making the rounds right now is the whole bit about how “it will work itself out”, which has set the nerves of Cathy Brennan on edge.
She was reached out to, since Mr. Reilly uses radfemhub as his source on radical feminist thought (it isn’t a very good resource and represents a minority view within radical feminism as a whole, but white cpa guys generally don’t have a huge amount of reason to delve into the subtleties and differences in various forms of feminism let alone one as markedly diverse as radical feminism), and she provided him with a quote that will meet the wants of the readership of Forbes, who tend to be a bit more independent if right leaning (as a former subscriber, I’m well aware of the demographics here, lol).
I have to say that I am slightly hurt. Monica got mention but I didn’t. I am pretty sure I will live and forget about this shortly after I click the schedule button here, but I should mention it in order to give Brennan and her cronies an excuse to call me some variation of butthurt.
The reason this came to my attention is that I do subscribe to news regarding trans people, and Brennan has posted a bit of a highlight of it that was picked up. I’m rather glad it was — it became one of three things that I will be writing on over the next several days, I suspect.
What caught my attention here wasn’t Brennan, however — as is usual for her, she took what is a relatively simple interview by a strong supporter of the Green party and someone backing Jill Stein who saw the point about patriarchy in the green platform and just ran with it. He probably used google, probably took the top ten hits, and then moved on, feeling comfortable in his grasp, yet he’s making a serious mistake.
One that Brennan was pleased to allow him to make.
The mistake is in the ciscentric thinking, in the buying into the model that radfemhub promotes, and that is fairly common among those uninformed and threatened by transness and trans people in general.
Stein seems reasonably aware of it. Reilly isn’t.
The problem, the mistake, is that he bought into the idea that trans women are not women — which is the point that Brennan and radfemhub drive home and over and over again, usually in ways that are violent and filled with enough pure hate to make even one of their own condemn them.
And his post promotes and continues that idea. Instead of this being a question about should trans men be allowed in men’s spaces as well as trans women being allowed in women’s spaces, it becomes only about trans women, just as Brennan and her ilk desire it to be.
Because to them, we are not women, and that thinking is actually in direct contradiction to the green party — so, for an article on the green party, he goes to a group that is generally opposed to part of the platform of the green party.
This is akin to asking the government of Uganda what they think of gay people being able to be public about themselves. Seriously — we aren’t talking reasonable people who have a grasp of sanity around this argument.
Hell, the argument itself is based in and dependent on fear, loathing, and hate just to exist — it is a fabrication that relies on a boogeyman and a distraction from the real question:
Should women be allowed in places where women are.
Peter Reilly’s twitter account is https://twitter.com/peterreillycpa. I suggest that you, my loyal readers, ask him why he turns to a hate group (radfemhub) for information on a problem that isn’t a problem, and exists only in the minds of people who hate trans folk?