Trans sexual assault of homeless women and the sound of crickets
I’ve been angry and upset about the Christopher Hambrook case for several days. I can’t get the specter of homeless women sexually assaulted in shelters out of my mind for very long. This is a watershed event for a number of reasons, one of which is that the transactivist lobby has figured out that this particular rapist, as opposed to all the other criminals they’ve embraced, is not a good one to defend as one of their own. But Hambrook is every bit as trans as Robert “Michelle” Kosileck or Paul “Paula” Witherspoon or Avery Edison or the rest of these exploiters of born-women that transactivists have rallied behind. No more and no less. For transactivists it fits the bill to say that he’s an imposter (and I don’t doubt that some forensic psychiatrists employed by the government did call him out as a fake), but his own lawyer will no doubt find a psychiatrist to diagnose him with gender dysphoria. Hambrook’s history as a stripper and prostitute suggests that he’s been a part of that milieu. Maybe it’s transphobic to wonder if a man in the sex industry might be trans, but he did present at women’s shelters claiming he was a woman. And really, under the law that’s all that’s necessary. And according to left/liberals and libfems that’s all that’s necessary. So why defer and call this one a poseur and not a transgender woman? Because he actually completed what was an assault in anybody’s book? Not just exposing his erect lady penis, which according to liberals we just need to get hip and accept, but an extreme sexual assault on two homeless women, one of them deaf, made possible by gender identity laws pushed by the LGBT organizations.
So here’s what’s disturbing/confusing me. The crickets. All the usual suspects have reported on this. The Toronto Sun broke the story. Gender Identity Watch placed the events in legal context. GenderTrender connected the dots between this case and some other recent ones involving transgression of sexual boundaries. A few trans critical bloggers, on tumblr, both radfem and trans, have mentioned the incident. I haven’t really seen a comment from transactivists, aside from the Toronto councilwoman who lambasted coverage of the event as “transphobic,” and comments from Zoe Brain under the Sun articles. Nothing from the mainstream media or Huffington Post, though they’re still giving space to Janet Mock et al. This is a very important development. The well intentioned left and the media have been well trained in recognizing what transactivists will object to. And not going there. Censorship by trans has become complete enough that it’s become self-censorship. They don’t even need to cry “bigot”!
I will turn anon back on if anyone wants to point me to anything relevant that I’ve overlooked. (But please, nothing by Zoe Brain!) I’ll be coming back to this in a few weeks.
Here are the links. I’ve been having trouble getting tumblr to insert links for several days now. Anybody know what’s up with that?
Gender Identity Watch
thentheysaidburnher asked: Hey, just in regard to your last post, many radical feminists do believe that men are by nature violent and that rape is a product of both entitlement socialization and their biology. I just posted something by terri strange that goes into that.
Thats interesting and ill go read the article now. Thats why i specifically talked about gender abolitionists as opposed to radical feminists. The idea behind gender abolition is the idea that there is no innate behavior with regards to born sex.
Radical feminists may disagree in some cases but I feel like that is an innate part of gender abolition (if you believe some gender roles like masculine violence are inherent then the abolition of gender would not be radical enough to overturn the current toxic system, you would also need to eradicate the culture of violence among men, or at least separate yourself from it which is where seperationalists come in)
I am not saying that it is or isn’t innate necessarily, I have yet to form my own opinions on that specifically since it does seem so very widespread (like as much as gender norms culture to culture vary there is always this element of violence it seems but whether that is because violence denotes “alpha” or because violence is innate im not sure)
Terri is great but she is on the cusp of being a biological determinism, which is opposite of radical feminist.
Biological essentialism is not the same as biological determinism. The fact that men are innately violent does not therefore mean they have some sort of natural rule over women. This is plainly visible in nature where most animals live in clans of females with men on the periphery. Females band together to live apart from males.
Radical Feminism is about understanding the roots of patriarchy and working to dismantle it. In a world devoid of gender men will still be rapists.