A couple of days ago, a man was kind enough to take the time to comment beneath the blog I wrote about the Brighton Bullies. As a gesture of appreciation and in the hope that many more will see the comment and learn from the writer’s manly wisdom, I’ve decided to copy and paste it here, with a few corrections of typos and punctuation for ease of reading. My response is below it.

Comment from Darryl Calvert ‘the male entitlement to colonise womanhood that is a core part of transgender ideology.’ ’emotionally blackmailed into supporting an agenda that hurts women and children because of what violent men do.’ ‘genuine feminists who do indeed include all women in our feminism but aren’t prepared to submit to male entitlement and don’t sink to using hate speech’, Having read your piece I find myself wondering if you are actually aware of your own confusion and that just because you can write a bit using straplines and buzzwords does not make you right or even close to accurate! Whilst I will concede that ‘trans’ activists can and have been overly emotional and perhaps ill-considered in some behaviour, you feminists must take some of the responsibility for the causing of this overreaction by using lines such as I picked out from this piece alone above. How can you claim that trans women are not real women and attempt to segregate them in public spaces from ‘real’ women and then claim to be inclusive ( quote taken above) and call being trans ‘Male entitlement” which is as far away from feminism as you can possibly get? I see there is no mention anywhere of trans males and the fact that many of these people are ‘lesbians’ and are as aggressive, if not more so in some cases, than gen men…… I don’t see you trying to segregate them out of your public toilets, All I can see, ON BOTH SIDES, is people with something lacking in their lives needing something to fill the void and get a kick out of being ‘right on’. Science and specifically genetics is continually researching and has proven that the huge majority of trans females are not merely ‘identifying’ as female but are female brained and are but for one chromosome essentially female but was born in a male body, and take steps brought about by science and technology to rectify this. Is it therefore not more logical to assert that they are more likely to be violent and abusive if they are unable to become that which they feel they are than when they are that which they are meant to be, and as such your support rather than segregation would be more effective? There are many steps a person has to go through before they can completely transform and a major factor in this is psychoanalysis and assessment by highly regarded specialists in their field, and I find incredulity in your assertions that you know better than these professionals and that even after becoming the woman or man that a person feels they should be that they would be violent or abusive??? It is pure logic to assume that becoming the female they feel they should be and after undergoing rigorous analysis and hours of painful surgery and years of hormone replacement therapy that they would feel complete and happy and therefore less likely to be violent and abusive is it not? So your argument(s) do not add up, all people can see, and are reacting to is transphobic rhetoric and confused feminist right wing drivel. What is it that you are afraid of really? Its not like trans women are a threat to ‘womanhood’ is it? As yet they are unable to carry a foetus or procreate in the traditional way and they want to be feminists and support feminist causes like the women they are, but you are putting them off and forcing an apartheid, shame on you.

Dear Darryl

Thank you so much for your comment and for helping me realise just how shamefully confused I am!

I am certainly confused that you call the quotes you selected from my blog on my experience at a feminist meeting in Brighton,”straplines and buzzwords” and that you offer these as a justification for what you generously concede are “overly emotional and perhaps ill-considered” responses of some trans rights activists, even though to those of us on the receiving end, they feel rather like vile misogynistic abuse, bullying, intimidation and violence.

Your implicit suggestion that if we only kept our opinions and concerns to ourselves, we wouldn’t provoke such “ill-considered behaviour” is, of course, the epitome of good sense and I can’t imagine why any of us didn’t think of it ourselves. Aren’t we silly girls!

However, it is just possible that you don’t realise those “straplines and buzzwords” contain these things known as ‘arguments’. I’m sure that once I’ve explained what I mean by them to you, you will be able to demolish them effectively using reason and evidence and, in so doing, you will help my development as a critical thinker. I can’t wait!

So here goes:

“the male entitlement to colonise womanhood that is a core part of transgender ideology.”

Definitions are useful, so here are mine:

Male: Member of reproductive class that produces small motile gametes, whose purpose is to fertilise ova;

Entitlement: Sense that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment;

Colonise: To appropriate and establish control over something one is not already a part of;

Womanhood: The state of being a woman;

Transgender ideology: Set of ideas promoted by many trans rights activists because they are held to represent the interests of transgender people. (More about this here.)

On this page of this site, I give many examples of what I see as men colonising womanhood. Here are a few of them:

The accomplishments of girls and women in sports stolen from them by males competing in women’s events.

The psychological and emotional well-being of vulnerable women in prisons and women’s shelters disregarded because of the feelings of some men who claim to be women.

Clothes shops, among them fashion chain store, Topshop, whose customers are primarily very young women, introducing gender neutral changing rooms out of deference to men who claim to be women.

A man who’s been married three times, fathered six children and won an Olympic Gold medal in a men’s event chosen to be Glamour magazine’s ‘Woman of the Year’.

I would be deeply honoured if you could take any one of these examples and explain to me why I am wrong to feel this way.

The next quote you selected is this one:

“emotionally blackmailed into supporting an agenda that hurts women and children because of what violent men do.”

Now you’re teasing me! The context makes it clear what I mean, does it not? Just a reminder, the context is about trans rights activists repeatedly suggesting that, because we refuse to kowtow to transgender ideology (see definition above), we are responsible for the suicides and murders of trans people. If you don’t think ’emotional blackmail’ is a fair description of that behaviour then please help me to improve it.

One wee question though: Why do you think an accusation of ’emotional blackmail’ is more provocative than an accusation that our disagreement with certain ideas makes us responsible for causing deaths by suicide or murder?

Your final selected quote from my blog:

“genuine feminists who do indeed include all women in our feminism but aren’t prepared to submit to male entitlement and don’t sink to using hate speech”

Now I admit my little girly brain doesn’t understand why you think this is so provocative as to justify “overly emotional” responses like saying we should be shot, burnt, have our throats slit, choke on their dicks and much more besides which, by happy coincidence, serve as examples of the kind of hate speech we genuine feminists don’t sink to. Oh! Is it the term “genuine feminists” you think is wrong? I’m so sorry!

But you see, I’m one of those old-school feminists who grew up in the 60s and 70s, when feminists were belittled as ‘Women’s Libbers’ because of our demand to be liberated from…well, all kinds of stuff, including the regressive gender stereotypes associated with women now being embraced by many men who demand to be accepted as bona fide women. My use of the word ‘genuine’ is intended to describe those feminists who define women as ‘adult human female’ and whose feminism is concerned with campaigning for women who fit that definition and not some flakey idea that a woman is anyone who feels like one some or all of the time.

But thank you so much for explaining to silly little me how I’ve been doing feminism wrong for the last four decades. I’m sure I would greatly benefit from some further explanation of what feminism actually is. And without wishing to place an undue burden on your important, manly time, there are a few more things for which I would be grateful for your instruction.

You ask me:

How can you claim that trans women are not real women…

You mean trans “women” are real women? Really? I know it’s totally my fault but I don’t see how they fit the definition of adult human female, which I thought was the globally accepted definition. Gosh, I feel so stupid! So women can actually be born male? How come? I mean, what exactly is it that makes them women and how do we distinguish between them and other males – the ones that aren’t women?

I see there is no mention anywhere of trans males…

Forgive my ignorance but what are “trans males”? I count among my trans friends, Miranda Yardley, who uses the term transsexual male, but from the context in which you use the term, I’m guessing you don’t mean anyone like Miranda. Perhaps you are talking about transgender females – by which I mean those adult human females who refer to themselves as ‘trans men’? Well, as I said in that sentence you don’t like, “genuine feminists who do indeed include all women in our feminism”. That includes even women who wish they weren’t women because they are still female, however they ‘identify’. The majority are indeed lesbians and, in the 20 months that I’ve deeply immersed in this subject, I’ve only heard of one such woman being seriously aggressive. Amazing, isn’t it? It’s almost as if men are more likely to be aggressive than women.

I see you’ve rumbled the fact that there is something missing in my life. Aren’t you clever in a way only a man can be! Yes, indeed it’s time to come clean and admit that what’s been missing from my life since I was treated to some “ill-considered behaviour” by trans activists last year:

A sense of pride in all the achievements of women of my generation and those that went before us because these are now being flushed down the toilet by those who think they’re being progressive.

A faith in basic human decency. I know now that I was silly and naive but, as a child of the 60s, I honestly thought people living in liberal democracies in the 21st century would be free to express opinions and to disagree with other opinions without being abused, assaulted or told to shut up. In my youth, there was this notion that violence was a bad thing that only bad people did. Violence didn’t win arguments and was only justifiable in self-defence. I didn’t imagine that hundreds of people would not only celebrate the violence of young men against an older woman but that they would exhort more violence be carried out against more women and that my attempt at defending my property would see me positioned as the aggressor attacking poor defenceless bepenised “girls”.

An enjoyment of young people’s company. Seeing so many people who are even younger than my own children joining in the bullying, harassment and attempts to silence dissent means that I no longer prefer the company of young people but will go to some lengths to avoid it in case they trigger my PTSD, which I am finding hard enough to cope with on a day-to-day basis.

But thank you for your enormous sensitivity in suggesting that the reason I’m filling “the void” in my life by maintaining this website is because I “get a kick out of being right on”.

And thank you for telling me about sciencey things that, as a woman, I can’t possibly be expected to know anything about. I am fascinated by your terms “female-brained” and “essentially female” and would love to learn what they mean. Does, say, Martin Ponting (aka Jessica Winfield), who used his penis to rape two underage girls, have a female brain?

Is Duncan Smart (aka Jacinta Brooks), who has three convictions for sex offences against children – the most recent after he pretended to be a teenage boy in order to groom a 12-year-old girl online – “essentially female”?

Are all these guys, who post the most misogynistic and disgusting comments I have seen in six decades, really females born into male bodies? How on earth did you work that out? Clever you!

You ask:

Is it therefore not more logical to assert that they are more likely to be violent and abusive if they are unable to become that which they feel they are than when they are that which they are meant to be, and as such your support rather than segregation would be more effective?

Well logic happens to be one of those subjects I’ve spent a considerable amount of time applying my fluffy little pink brain to. Of course, not having one of those big blokey blue brains, I did need to read this question some 367 times in my attempt to parse it (unfortunately my husband wasn’t around to help me). In the end I decided you might be trying to say this:

P1: Some males have female brains

P2: Some of these female-brained males are not allowed to become female

C: Therefore they are more likely to be violent and abusive because…that’s what people with female brains do when they don’t get what they want, innit!

Um…that’s an interesting argument. But I see a couple of teeny-weeny problems with it.

Firstly, without knowing what exactly you mean by ‘female brain’, I don’t see how males can have them. If a brain is in a male’s head (or, as is commonly believed, in some other part of his anatomy), that surely makes it a male brain by definition? A man may have qualities, tastes, interests, a demeanour and all the other things that go into making up an individual’s personality, that are more commonly viewed as feminine, but he’s still a man, isn’t he? Or is it our personalities that determine whether we are male or female? Someone had better tell those pimps and traffickers, eh!

Secondly, I don’t see how it’s possible to change sex. You can take hormones, have surgery, change your name, wear make-up and ponce around in a dress and high-heels if you like, Darryl, but you can’t change the fact that you were born with a penis and testicles, that there is a Y chromosome in every cell, that you are male – always have been, always will be. So it’s not a question of not being “allowed” to become a woman; it is an insurmountable truth that you cannot become one. The most you can do is present as your idea of one. The degree to which you may be sincerely accepted as one is out of your control, however much force is applied to those of us standing up for the truth. I’m trying to be gentle here because I’m afraid of what abuse and violence that ‘female brain’ of yours will unleash in you!

One more thing:

your support rather than segregation would be more effective.

Effective at what? Effective at letting males into places where they are not wanted like women’s prisons, shelters, changing rooms, sports teams, all-women shortlists? Ya think? Oh well that makes all the difference because that is exactly what we all need isn’t it? More Martin Pontings, Duncan Smarts, Travis Alabanzas, Liam Madigans…that would be my dream!

I find incredulity in your assertions that you know better than these professionals and that even after becoming the woman or man that a person feels they should be that they would be violent or abusive???

Now this one really confused me and induced me to read all through that particular blog again trying to find what assertion I had made that anyone could possibly interpret as my claiming to know better than “these professionals”, whoever they are. But I found nothing – not in the blog nor anywhere else on this entire site. So I have to conclude you’re winding me up, you big tease, you!

Anyway, I think you are suggesting that once people have achieved an approximation of an appearance of the other sex – the one they wish they were or think they really are – then “they would feel complete and happy and therefore less likely to be violent and abusive”.

Hmmm…..I can see why, if you think violence and abuse are caused by feeling incomplete and unhappy, that you might indeed make that assumption. (If only someone had realised Peter Sutcliffe and Ian Huntley were simply feeling incomplete and unhappy!) But please allow me to tell you the problem I have with that line of arguing.

The first is that, according to the evidence I’ve seen – and I am, of course, open to the possibility that this evidence is wrong and you know better – violence and abuse against women are not really typical female responses. So I find the idea that those who are violent and abusive are actually unhappy females occupying male bodies, a little bit hard to get my head round. And I don’t think there is a professional in existence who goes along with that idea anyway.

The second is the existence of transgender criminals. On this page of this site, I have accumulated reports of male-born trans people who have committed really horrible crimes, Darryl. Take, for example, these delightful ‘female-brained’ individuals, all of whom have undergone the process of transgendering.

Drunken transgender women stamp on defenceless teen in train station attack

Or this one:

Transwoman Activist Cherno Biko confesses to Raping a Transman

Or this one:

A stripper said he was a ‘cannibal,’ then killed him with a pen and a dresser drawer, police say

Or this one:

Woman arrested over violent triple murder of lesbian couple and adopted son

I could go on….and on and on. But I hope I’ve said enough for you to understand why I’m not entirely persuaded that transgendering makes people i.e. violent and abusive men, “less likely” to be violent and abusive.

So your argument(s) do not add up, all people can see, and are reacting to is transphobic rhetoric and confused feminist right wing drivel.

Well, yes, I understand my arguments do not add up to you. I’ve always had this unfortunate tendency to overestimate people intellectually and to be impatient when they can’t follow my reasoning or refuse to either provide evidence for their claims or consider the evidence I provide for mine. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

If I can just ask one more favour of you, it would be to explain exactly what you mean by “feminist right wing drivel”. You see, I’ve always thought ‘right wing’ meant ‘conservative’, ‘reactionary’. Cultural ideas and expectations about how people of each biological sex is supposed to think, feel and behave – what we might call ‘gender roles’ – are what I see as examples of conservative thinking. So when you talk about ‘female brains’ and being ‘essentially female’, it sounds to me like…well, right wing drivel. But not feminist right wing drivel. More the kind of right wing drivel that informs state policy in Iran.

The notion that we should be free to express ourselves however we choose and pursue the activities and lifestyles we want to regardless of our biological sex and provided we don’t harm anyone else is what I, as a feminist, see as progressive and worth fighting for.

Finally, you ask me:

What is it that you are afraid of really?

Thank you so much for the permission to tell you – on my own blog too!

I am afraid of the possibility of being a victim of physical violence (again) given that it is being promoted by trans rights activists and allies on social media every single day.

I am afraid of the loss of privacy and dignity afforded by sex-segregated spaces. Not to mention having to sit on toilet seats that men have pissed all over.

I am afraid of seeing women’s sports erased and of seeing sporty girls have their dreams of success crushed by males.

I am afraid of seeing more and more women being silenced by being banned from social media, our websites taken down as a result of targeting by trans activist bullies.

Every time I set off to attend a meeting in another part of the country, I am afraid I will arrive to find that the venue owners have given in to trans rights activist bullies and cancelled.

Every time I set off to attend a meeting anywhere, I am afraid of having to run the gauntlet of protesters who think I deserve to be punched for disagreeing.

I’m afraid of having my language policed as is happening in other parts of the English speaking-world.

I’m afraid of the consequences of my disobeying those who try to enforce an ideology of gender that I disagree with, as I surely will because I would rather die than go along with it.

I’m afraid of being treated as a criminal by the courts (again).

I’m afraid of the personal cost both financial and in terms of my emotional and psychological well-being for fighting for what I believe to be true.

Finally, I am afraid of having to live the rest of my life in a state of fear because of autogynephilic men like you claiming the right to tell women that we must accept you as women or you won’t support us and that you aren’t a threat to us as long as you can’t get pregnant because that’s what womanhood is!

But of course, you’re right. We should really just shut up, submit, support you and then you’ll be happy and that’s all that matters isn’t it?

Under His Eye.

Published 19.11.18