Questioning Transphobia

Marti Abernathey posted about an 8-year old child beginning transition and some guy named Peter LaBarbera’s response to that.

Peter LaBarbera’s website describes him as president of “Americans for Truth, a newly reorganized national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda.”

Could it be that permissive parenting plays a major role in encouraging a gender-confused identity in a child? Pearson says she felt “relief” on hearing that her daughter claimed to have a male identity. Relief? A wiser parent might have sought professional help from someone not beholden to “transgender” activist ideology — to guide the troubled girl into accepting the wonderful body and sex that God gave her. 

In the case of the eight-year-old boy, to what future are the politically correct adults — parents and school authorities included — consigning him with their “caring” embrace of deviance? Could a body-mutilating ”sex change” operation be down the road — funded by the taxpayers if the “GLBT” Lobby gets its way? In a saner era, it would be clear to all that the child — not society — has the problem. But what do we know? We’re just “trans-phobes.”

Wow, that language looks familiar. Oh, right, writing like this. Sheila Jeffreys doesn’t quite descend to referring to surgery as mutilation, but you can see the vibe there. But really, she’s fulminating against a boy transitioning during his teens. How about Julie Bindel, who actually calls surgery “mutilation?” She even acknowledges that anti-trans sentiment is most acceptable among the homophobic right wing, reproduces their language, and apparently doesn’t see where this puts her:

This realisation made me determined to further explore why any criticism of transsexuality seems to be deemed unacceptable outside of homophobic, rightwing circles. Which is why, when the producer of the Radio 4 debating series Hecklers approached me, asking if I would argue a controversial point in opposition to four leading experts, I chose the title, “Sex change surgery is unnecessary mutilation”.

But how about that other bit from LaBarbera’s piece? How he can’t criticize transsexualism without being called a transphobe? I’d link something here, but my last few posts have covered that.

To be honest, though, this isn’t a new observation. It’s just not every day that such a clear parallel presents itself.

Personally, I’m not sure how transphobic radical feminists can call themselves radical or feminist if they’re parroting the same line that people who are out to stop the so-called homosexual agenda are using.  Never mind trying to claim that trans people would be all for an alliance with the religious right, while simultaneously using the religious right’s arguments against trans people:

In fact, this is already what is happening in Iran, as this article demonstrates.   As radical feminists have been theorizing for a very long time by now,  we are not the ones in cahoots with the Religious Right or fundamentalists as to issues around gender. 

Tell it to LaBarbera, Cheryl. Between you and me, he’s more likely to cheer you on – and you him.

The inaccuracies in Cheryl Seelhoff’s post about Iran and surgery for transsexual people could fill a whole other post. The basic thing to be aware of there is that it came about due to an interpretation of the Quran, not to trans people cozying up to a government that kills gay men and lesbian women. Trans people are as vulnerable to violence in Iran as they are anywhere else in the world, probably moreso.