Autogynephilia is a transphobic trope

I'm gonna start this article with a dare.

Go on Twitter or Facebook and mention autogynephilia on a public post. Await, with true suspense, for the response.

If you did this an hour ago and haven't been bombarded with abuse, a load of tag groups  or received some unsolicited PMs etc please contact me and let me know what world you live in. I want to join you.

If you don't include Jami in your feminism, you're apparently not a feminist

The conflating of what we once called transexuals with transvestites has not, contrary to popular belief, been the fault of us bigoted TERFs. It has actually come from places like Stonewall and all number of other advocacy groups

Here's Stonewall on Twitter 

The Scottish Trans Alliance

There's actually few Gender Critical Feminists (GC) who don't distinguish between the two, although it is always how it's presented - 'you TERFs think girls should wear pink dresses and bake cakes and boys should wear blue and never cry'. It's been a huge part of the incessant campaigning to remove all boundaries and categories. This is a central thesis to Queer Theory, for which I'd recommend you read Jane Clare Jones, Kathleen Stock, Heather Brunskell-Evans or Dr Em.

Erasing categories is integral here. The idea that gender dysphoria is the critical basis for being trans is now anathema. How dare you police bodies? You only recognise a trans woman as a woman if she's had her penis inverted? Shame on you, fascist.

In essence, this is the problem. If a woman has fears over sexual violence she's now a TERF and should be excluded, ridiculed and if she's beaten up, oh well, what-a-pity-nevermind.

She will be misrepresented by an extent she is a parody of a creepy, frigid hysteric who wants to inspect pants and is obsessed with genitalia. In the (similar) words of the Republican right; penises dont rape people, people do.

So, back to autogynephilia, or AGP for the frequent flyer. 

I take issue with the ridiculing of the condition by some GCs. I'm far from convinced it's helpful, and, as we know, some of our trans allies have openly admitted to having AGP as the driving factor behind their transition; this includes those who surgically transition, i.e. lose their penises. There's got to be a very powerful drive to compell someone to make such radical and brutal changes to their body.

 

That said, with the notion of self ID, the expansion of the trans umbrella and the fact we know well over 80% of trans women retain their penises, it's more a crucial conversation than ever.

It's just extremely difficult to speak about without being condemned, abused and dismissed as the parody feminist who chants that all sex is rape.

Ray Blanchard, a sexologist, first created the term. It was in response to his treatment and study of patients with a trans identity. It wasnt an unheard of term then - the old style transvestic disorder could cover it. Other people have followed, with Ann Laurence, an autogynephilic trans woman who wrote Men Trapped in Men's Bodies. Michael Bailey, who wrote The Man who would be Queen has, along with all those with the temerity to defend the taxonomy, been unfairly dismissed. Here's a typical take down of Blanchard, with some digs at Laurence for good measure.

So, apparently it's a trope, a dog whistle. What this means is it is forbidden; taboo.

The most open displays you'll ever seen are the AGPs themselves, however.

Genuine apologies for the imagery. It's an infinitesimal fraction of the tip of a very large iceberg. If you have stomach for it, look at the hashtags #girlslikeus and #sissy, a whole world of degradation that hinges on cock-hungry submission.

Andrea Long Chu is a transwoman who wrote a book called ‘Females’ with the quote “distilling the femaleness to its barest essentials- an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank blank eyes”. When describing how porn made Andrea trans...

Autogynephilia has seen a rise in popularity on porn sites. Sissy porn, too, has boomed. It's all about the subjugation, the worthless-fuck-puppetry of BDSM, and it's easily found online. 

Blanchard theorised that male-to-female trans people come in two types; the homosexual transexual, who feels a deep unease with their sexed body at a very young age. These are the people who mainly comprised the transexuals of old - naturally effeminate, often passing pretty well, attracted to men. Then there are the autogynephiles, or what we might have just known as transvestites. Autogynephilia, meaning love of oneself as a woman in Greek, is clearly evidenced in the multiple groups, tags, displays and porn genres which litter the internet. According to Blanchard's typology, AGPs are those who tend to be heterosexual. They transition later in life and often after long relationships with women, often having had children too. The end result is not that one group deserves more sympathy than another, but that the demands and expectations of the two are different.

Autogynephilia may begin with some excitement in cross-dressing. This will normally be private and shameful. All of this feeds into the fetishism - the forbidden.  It's often described as a drug-like hit, which in a similar path as addiction, becomes required more frequently, with more exposure to the world and the risk that brings. Ultimately this leaves us where we are now - middle aged, normally white males with a growing need for validationas women. While homosexual transexualism is an internal need normally sated by physical transition, the autogynephile will be caught in a cycle of growing fixation. Among the most prized achievement is that of pushing it to the point they become synonymous with other women around them. Autogynephiles boast online of entering women's spaces to masturbate, sometimes of leaving spunk on the hooks of changing rooms etc. It is not necessarilyas nefarious as this; but it happens far more than anyone would like to admit.

The crucial point here is breaching boundaries. It is not, as the 'classic' homosexual transexual, to merge seamlessly, but to encroach. Those AGP transexuals who have spoken out about this are pretty brave, and it's important to note that many of them are respectful of our spaces, and campaign for third spaces to accommodate them rather than demand they be allowed access.

Demanding validation, joining lesbian dating sites and reporting the women who turn them down on account of their 'lady-dicks'. Does this make sense yet?

Still, if you were lucky and experienced no deafening pushback earlier with that AGP comment, it might be worth checking it now. Have you been called a transphobe? A TERF? Have you finally been exposed as a notorious human rights abuser, erasing trans people and their rights? Are YOU the Christian right, climate denialism and Sargon of Akkad?

There's many places you can find decent and honest descriptions of autogynephilia;  Miranda Yardley writes about it; and here is the story of one man who has been deeply caught in it; Maya Kaye, a sensitive, sympathetic and wise transwomen talks here and here is Debbie Hayton, also being empathetic and honest.

You can also find the testimony of one wife here, advice to the wives of sufferers from a transexual ally, and their clinicians and more.

Trans activism fails to provide on-the-ground resources and outreach for homeless or domestic violence-fleeing trans people. Instead it demands those built by and belonging to women. It doesn't help struggling trans people who need a safe space, one that could actually fulfill their needs and not force them to either come out in an alien, potentially hostile environment, or to live stealth among women and their children, who will ask blunter questions.

No. It demands everyone, from drag queens to fetishists and men who choose their gender differently on any given day are seen as credible, committed and sympathetic as those who will pay to have their genitals reconfigured beyond any resemblance and removed.  It isn't helping trans people, it wont accept the realities behind the numerous causes of trans-ism, and it ruthlessly vilifies any dissent, especially from women.

So, what is really going on?

*Edited in response to Kay's comment. Occasionally worth reading his blog

https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/advice-for-wivesgirlfriends-of-autogynephiles/

A letter to my daughters, now you are fodder for the wolves

So, I've been trying to work out when exactly did we begin to celebrate throwing you, dear daughters to the wolves?

It can't have been so long ago, as women have for many years been gaining ground. Our legal rights have been up until recently consistently strengthening; our representation has improved; we have faster, louder, harsher backlash to overt misogyny.

Sometimes.

While I imagine today countdowns in tabloids whereby a girl about to turn 16 is slowly exposed, an item of clothing a day, til she can legally occupy page 3 with her tits out would provoke fury, and rape within marriage wasn't even a crime until 1992, I'm not convinced a popular 'civil rights' movement would get away with sexual degradation to a wall of silence as they do now, with every critic decried as a TERF.

When JK Rowling is subject to an unhinged and gleefully repulsive, misogynistic backlash for month upon month for critiquing the current doctrine and the erasure of women, you know which side you're demanded to stand with. When women wishing to discuss proposed changes to the law which will directly impact them and their rights are both libelled and harassed without anyone giving an example of their supposed hate, every other woman is made aware that self-defence is indefensible. Everyone knows to be TERF or a SWERF is the worst thing that you can be. But it's definitely not a slur.

So, what makes a TERF? 

Lots of things! Being traumatised by rape and / or child sexual abuse and, as a consequence of that, not liking penises. Not having sex with those penis-persons because you are a lesbian. You think everyone has a right to full sexual autonomy and that this necessarily includes discrimination, in the purest sense of the word? Genital preferences and penis aversion are TERF dog whistles. They are exclusionary, colonial constructs. Penises can be female; it's all about the mouth-feel. 

Jana Cornell is one of the bravest women on earth. See here for a catalogue of some of the abuse she has suffered from trans rights activists 

Maybe it's doubting that crushing the ingrained response to males in sensitive female only spaces is an acceptable thing and not wildly dangerous. Or not believing you can actually change sex; caring for women in prison and their rights to safety, privacy and dignity 

Not pretending that FGM is based on gender, rather than sex could do it, too. Let's keep it intersectional and relevant - in the first world, thanks. Maybe you dared show knowledge of the crime patterns that distinguishes males and females, although that won't be a problem for long, not with modern crime recording.

Believing a male MMA fighter who, age 31, transitions to 'female' probably shouldn't be fighting actual females makes you a violent TERF. Calling a sex offender out for using trans rights definitely does, too.

TERF vacancies are also available for belief in biology, 'misgendering'. An absence of praise and hyperbole when confronted with a balding male asserting his womanhood. General wrongthink. The symptoms might be varied, subjective even - but the prognosis is always the same - unworthy of representation; fascist; scum; filth; beneath contempt and certainly undeserving of human rights.

And a SWERF?

Not believing that prostitution is just normal work like any other. Or, maybe you think lap dancing clubs are damaging to women, or the degrading and gross-out acts  which dominate the porn industry are often harmful to the actors, viewers, and society. Congratulations, you are now scum.

If I wasn't so afraid of assuming gender, I'd say this is a man's chest in this teeshirt. How nice of him to 'support' those oppressed workers, eh?

We used to have fiery, outspoken women in feminist media that, although niche, took no shit. They didn't pander to men or to gender stereotypes, and sometimes they were so fucking wild they didn't even remove body hair!

Despite multiple attempts, this rag refuses to allow women to comment. Brave and stunning

Feminism is now mainstream, but with an important caveat - it is not about women, but for everyone! Today university magazine feminism which should be brave, enlightening, empowering and at least not outright patriarchy-wanking instruction comes out with preposterous bullshit like "SWERFs engender hatred, fear, and oppression of individuals in the sex work industry...(their)...SWERF ideology is not, in fact, focused on ending violence against sex workers, but rather on policing women’s bodies and sexuality." "SWERFs also make sex workers the target of bullying and abuse through doxxing .... protesting and picketing against safe sex work"

What the fuck has happened? How dare they publish such massive fucking lies and general old-bitch-shaming cautionary tales? We should be angry that you, our daughters, are being groomed by an edifice of smug, highly styled conspiritors with booming voices mansplaining women's experiences, orchestrating chants of 'burn the witch' and spinning entitled, male demands as essential civil rights.

It has infected our schools, universities and workplaces, our charities and popular culture, creating a surround sound of instruction that must be adhered to and while you are free to go about your life as long as you're not harming others, your every comment, like, connection and associate will be assessed and may be used against you in the court of public opinion.
Some things will be kept for prosperity, to be reeled off without context. Most things will be delivered immediately to the memory hole.
Be nice, they tell you. Be kind, repeat by rote these mantras and lies, deny your own most primal senses, your eyes and ears . You do not know male from female, you do not count for anything unless you centre the identity of males. 

Once at uni, any remnants of basic self protection learnt in childhood must be obliterated. Ladies, do not trust your gut instinct. Protect males in women's toilets.

Getting back to that article, where are the texts of these 'SWERFS'? What is the praxis? Where has a radical feminist doxxed a sex worker? What is 'safe' sex work? Why are they pushing abject bullshit with a tone designed for a primary school age group? Well, I wouldn't suggest asking this in real life. Think bible class under a theocracy and shut your fucking mouth.

breathe in love, radiate hatred

Intersectionality was a system by which black women could examine their own oppression. It was never for centreing males in feminism and giving them endless back up with analogies of segregation and the civil rights movement. It's the greatest imaginable gift to white, middle class males. Black women are paraded as props to compare with men, black men mean nothing unless 'queer' or killed by cop. But still, it's kindly gifted to them by a weary, porn-drenched generation who think that calling for their female sex class to have the legal protections other generations spilled blood over is akin to English nationalism or a Trump rally in MAGA hats.

As long as you forgo your intellectual honesty, privacy and dignity these you can continue in ditching your more vulnerable sisters and live in peace. You have to, because your whole media is colluding in this grand trick. To be female is nothing without being worthy, compassionate and self-sacrificing. You must know which fights to pick (when there are 'allies' and an audience) and which to sneer at. Sneer well, with good teeth and lipstick and you too can be the pseudo-punk caricature that men claim to be just a little bit scared of while slapping one out to your image.

The abject betrayal of this generation of women is hard to quantify. Where do you have to turn? Being in any way gender critical is social suicide, and any evidence at all of 'hostility' 'erasing the identity' 'denying the existence' of trans people (i.e. not joyfully reciting the slogans, admitting to a concern for same sex spaces, misgendering a penis etc) could easily result in social justice champions smirking heroically as they email your employers to demand your dismissal, lest they desire a hashtag campaign and gender defenders camping outside like very angry happy-clappy twats. If you're a lesbian, you have a rough time ahead. Apart from a couple of highly contentious lesbian magazines that would require some sort of justification if found, every one has come out as 'trans inclusive'. There's Autostraddle - How to have lesbian sex with a trans woman, along with DIVA magazine, Lez Spread the Word, Curve, LOTL and more who graciously include male-bodied 'lesbians' in their editorials, campaigns and readerships. If you read LGBTQ Nation, GayStar News, PinkNews etc etc you are constantly reminded to toe the line or be excommunicated as a bigot, bitch, cunt. A TERF.

Charlotte Clymer, the ex armed forces hunchback of not-sir-but-ma'am berates 'TERFs' from an ivory tower before slinging on heels to blush at compelled compliments. Clymer, we are told, is a feminist. And the cheat goes on, with Teen Vogue telling girls how to enjoy anal and dissociate themselves further from their manifest selves, while vice tells lesbians how to 'eat out' a woman with a cock and balls and the dreary, shallow lib fem magazines drone on "The argument behind SWERF ideology tends to be that sex workers, particularly those in the prostitution and pornography industries, become the victims of regular sexual objectification, exploitation, and violence" - well no shit. How delusional are these frigid bitches, huh? Continually banging on about how 'so many women happily choose sex work' is really going to free those trafficked into it, those groomed and coerced into it, those left with no other means to survive than by it, hey? How about the fact that in areas where prostitution is legalised there is a subsequent increase in illegal trafficking? And when the JobCentre orders you to down to that 'gentleman's club' and suck it or your benefits will be stopped? Does that honestly never occur to them, such is their insulation from relative poverty? Those who like to mention, but never critique, late stage capitalism have a problem. They can't see the problem.

ahh, of course - short-haired older women are the fly in the ointment, condemning these two young, attractive people for using their bodies! Intersectional feminism; centreing the image of smiley, white, photogenic  prostitutes from ad campaigns 

For those of us who do give a flying fuck about the people in sex work, apparently we argue that by "participating in this kind of industry, sex workers become co-perpetrators of these crimes...SWERFs take it upon themselves to tell other people what to do and what not to do with their bodies." Yeah, for fucks sake mum! It's, like, my body you know? Who are you to say that woman who desperately needs to fund her habit isn't really a nymphomaniac who finds me very attractive? It's supply and demand, no ethical choicrs in end stage capitalism, bitches.

Most 'SWERFs' have had some dealing with the reality of prostitution, and the problem here is really that men legitimise fucking someone who actually doesn't want to fuck them. It's a peculiarly male thing, an ambivalence to turn-on to sadistic kick, and I would argue the sexual conqueror attitudes among some men has a lot to do with their vast over-representation (97%) among sex offenders. And what is 'SWERF ideology'? You'll occasionally find women refer to themselves with heavy irony as TERFs, but never have I seen SWERF used as an auto-descriptor. Women who have concerns about the sex industries are very often victims of it. The idea male sexuality is such an ungovernable force that we would have a tide of rape in the event prostitutes were not up for business is the most insidious patriarchal lie I can think of.

So it goes that males need the outlet - everyone watches porn (which is increasingly engaged in violent, degrading and painful acts) and many women are empowered by it, we are told. The highly atypical woman with every benefit of capitalism is our muse here. Lets not think about the abused and broken, drug addicted and desperate, the trafficked, raped multiple times a day.

No glamorisation or romanticism here! This is 'shit in the way work is shit' non-judgemental realism! Look at her with her twirling feet, held up leisurely, flirtatiously as she poses like a teen girl in an American rom-com while negotiating her price

Victims are irrelevant, apparently. What is essential is to create a self fulfilling prophesy of empowerment, that's how it works. And it's okay - we'll deal with all the racial inequality issues with some hashtags and BLM logos. 

Sophie Wilson, a 23 year old, fully-comprehensive package deal ideologue and Labour councillor for Rotherham in Yorkshire, joined protesters campaigning against the council's decision to close Spearmint Rhino, a lap dance club which had over 200 breaches for code of conduct regulations, mostly relating to sexual touching. Of Wilson's critics was Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham grooming gangs. While Wilson was planning her homework timetable and school trips, Woodhouse was being systematically raped by a never-ending series of men. She went on to fall pregnant by one of her pimps, but at some point she actually worked at the club. Rather than checking her privilege, listening to the oppressed, so she could gain insight, or at least balance, Wilson reached for labels. Slurs, used against women, that seek to delegitimise and shame the target. To Wilson, objection to Spearmint Rhino made these women 'Trashy SWERFs' with 'twisted morality' and an 'arrogance of old age'. In a move I'm sure Tommy Robinson embraced, she also accused MP Sarah Champion of using 'dog whistle racism' when she took up the issue of grooming gangs which had trafficked thousands of girls in the town over a couple of decades. So there we are - a role model for today's class warfare. Well, class war's top brass. A middle class, English Literature graduate who gives not a fuck about upsetting and publicly dismissing a well known constituent who was raped and controlled by a series of men from her early teens, because somehow it feels too close to punching down. Debate, notes this bright young thing, should be conducted in a 'comradely and respectful manner'. Which is just great, isn't it?

Katelyn Burns, a journalist and transwoman who claims to understand feminism, wrote for Vox "They (TERFs) now prefer to call themselves “gender critical,” a euphemism akin to white supremacists calling themselves “race realists.” 

Canadian politician Morgane Oger, who successfully defunded a rape crisis centre for their 'fascist' exclusion of penis-persons 

Yes, I suppose that's the feminazi bit explained. Perhaps all the Murdoch empire publications were correct all along. Acknowledging a manifest difference between male and female is Klu Klux Klan-adjacent. It's of course the best way to frame feminism - as a female supremacy. 

Burns goes on "In the early ’70s, groups of what would now be called “gender critical” feminists threatened violence against many trans women who dared exist in women’s and lesbian spaces" Burns' examples for this? "Beth Elliott, who was at the 1973 West Coast Lesbian Feminist Conference to perform with her lesbian band, was ridiculed onstage and had her existence protested"

How does one have their existence protested? Is ridicule violence? Burns then goes on to give a highly edited account of Mitchfest, a female only event, and how "pro-trans festival attendees organized “Camp Trans,” a space specifically welcoming to trans women who were otherwise banned from attending the event. The two groups clashed for a number of years, until more artists and organizations boycotted MichFest and organizers chose to end the event in 2015"
What Burns fails to mention is the organiser of camp trans, well known trans activist David Warfield / Dana Rivers had been driven to such fury over their woman-only policy, he went on to beat, stab, shoot and murder two attendees and their child.      Lesbian couple Patricia Wright and Charlotte Reed, and their adopted son, Benny were found dead and dying while Dana Rivers tried to set their home alight. This unspeakable level of hatred (in only 2016 - possibly why 2015 was the final event, eh, Katelyn?) clearly has some way to go for Burns before eclipsing the horror of a transwoman being sniggered at on stage nearly half a century ago.

Your only options are to laugh or ignore. Women - know your place 

But it's important not to get caught up in this. Consistency is the enemy. Men's sexual urges may be untameable and only managed by the subjugation of women who aren't you or your loved ones, but they're absolutely fine in women's same sex spaces. I mean, just look where exclusion can lead you! Trust them; they know better than you.

"TERFs, (who) promote(s) mistreatment and oppression of trans women and transgender people" continues the uni rag dressed up as a feminist publication. How so, we are not told. Just believe it, repeat ad nauseam, dear. "Both SWERF and TERF constitute anti-feminist hate groups." I really would like to evidence of this, over a refusal to refer to cocks and balls as she/her/hers.

Social media is awash with TERF and SWERF-damning. The gift that keeps on giving is the linguistic proximity to surf and turf, thereby allowing a slew of tags and groups and pages referencing 'excuse me, waiter, I didn't order the SWERF and TERF' imbuing the user of said phrase as the adult professional calmly correcting a mistaken table service, and definitely not the child of some hated, useless mother, rejecting her food and opinions with a smug pretence of sophistication.

Emilia Decaudin is a member of New York  State Democratic Committee. Decaudin's bio states "In October of 2019, she spearheaded a successful effort to amend the rules of the committee to remove unnecessary references to the gender binary and to accommodate the election of gender non-binary members". In wrongspeak, this means the rule 'one woman for one man' first introduced by suffragettes to ensure fair representation was gleefully destroyed, in the name of progress. Here's Emilia.

Doesn't this cheer your stony old heart? We have everything here - shaved side, kinky choker, dorky glasses, feminism, a tiny cock and all that rebellion! You could almost forget this is an average but sub-par white male. Until that is, those old of us to recognise base misogyny see this.

The audacity required to stand there, micro-penis slightly cresting the expance of a dour, shrunken dress, sparrow-legs in 10 denier, and claim to be a woman is astonishing to me. To then offer up his pitiful cornichon as a weapon of defiance is the most pathetically offensive act I can think of. The entitlement and delusions of adequacy are staggering 

How in fuck this is not a parody I cannot understand. Some budgy-smuggling, bandy-legged cretin in undersized clothes, a worthy expression almost concealing his smirking face, is on a stage, desperately fighting for any additional privilege he can wangle with a self entitlement rarely seen outside of the male sex of the ruling class. He demands his self-claimed identity makes him a literal women, and his prerogative to take their opportunities and spaces, too. Suffragettes, woman-centred campaigning is an anachronism, and this young white male represents one of our most marginalised minorities.

Then he tweets classic male sexual aggression as an attempt to to assert himself, unaware what it actually does is portray the pathetic incel he secretly so admires. And you better accept it, ladies.

What can you do? You have no right to examine nuance here, the only option for the modern, populist left-wing woman that leaves you socially intact is to denounce the canaries in the mine, kick sand in the faces of the real feminists, excommunicate heretics, scour your historic social media for anything dodgy and get ready to 'apologise unreservedly' for the hurt feelings of vainglorious cry-bullies. 

If you're fast enough off the blocks you don't need to incite violence. Tell the heretic in your mentions they are worthless, call them a TERF, post a snappy meme, deluge them in laughing emojis. Block them. Once this has been screen shot and immortalised, to be shown like certificate of vaccination, you are free to go for a while longer.  Or, you can refuse to play. You can avoid immersing yourself in, declaring allegiance to a 'left' that doesn't give a flying fuck about any rapes you suffer if it requires them to examine their politics. A 'left' that is not left, but poses as.

Legal fictions and Sea-Unicorns

 

SEAHORSE, INCUBATOR, BIRTH-GIVER, FATHER

*For an update on Freddie's Fabulous Fallacies, see Shite Said Fred

Aye, that's right. Freddie is the Swiss knife of animal life. Freddie's probably also a poet,

although may not, as yet, know it.

What a guy. What a mother. What a sea creature and vagina-haver.

So, Freddie is angry that the British government refuse to change her child's birth certificate to record her as father. A lot of people are supporting McConnell. They say Freddie is the father, that it's archaic to have these gendered and binary roles. They also say adopted children have their birth certificates changed, so why can't Freddie? This, Freddie and supporters claim, is an offence against her and her child's human rights.

When a baby is born, the parents must get to the register office within a few weeks to officially record it. 

The mother can leave the father part blank, as it's recognised she may not know who is the father, or have his cooperation or even acknowledgement. She cannot just write in anyone's name without their express consent.

When it was decided that police should go larping as environmental activists, spending years - and millions - tricking whole communities, some women were duped into cohabiting relationships with them. Some even had babies in these coerced, duplicitous couplings, and after one day disappearing off the face of the earth, the father was ultimately revealed to be an undercover police officer who has lied through his teeth for years. With apparently kosher identities, these coppers groomed, even knocked up unwitting victims using the name and birth date of a sadly long dead baby - another fiction. Nice, isn't it? To not have the truth. A victimless crime.

(This police mindfuckery actually might be ok - even if this is the very same woman who took a heroic stand against a fast food conglomerate, because she is now a 'TERF' thus it's ok to attack her - thank god trans activists have their priorities straight)

If a woman wilfully and deliberately lies and claims another man is the father, she has committed a crime and can be sent to prison.

In the case of an adopted child, they, still, have a birth certificate recording the mother's name and details and hopefully the father's, too. Then when the adoption is formalised the child is issued with a second, amended birth certificate. The first one is still there. It is not overwritten. It is not hidden. But it is not the standard certificate that's shown when seeking a passport etc.

This is how adoptees trace their biological families. 

No one says 'oh dear, Mrs Jones! This birth certificate records that other woman as the actual mother! *The one who may have even been abusive!* No no no, Mrs Jones, I'm not allowing this! YOU are the mother - It is YOU who does the night time feeds and changes, the school run, the dinners - how dare they erase you! Let's just lose this, and have the REAL mother recorded'

No one does that. They appreciate that the document itself is belonging to the child. To prevent continual bureaucratic nightmares and afford some privacy, a second birth certificate is issued. This is the extent of the legal fiction afforded.

BECAUSE IT IS THE CHILD'S PAPERWORK 

Freddie McConnell is trans, and has had 'top surgery' (mastectomy) and taken testosterone, but like most transmen hasn't had the 'bottom surgery' like metoidioplasty or phalloplasty. 

My understanding used to be that transition was essentially the last option coping mechanism for people enduring intolerable dysphoria. It's the last option because it is so radical and isolating, exhausting and the changes are permanent and irreparable. But that's the only thing left to do sometimes, and the people driven to that have nothing but my sympathy and I want their lives made as peaceable and easy as possible. 

But I find it difficult to square this with Freddie's actions and demands. Being able to go through the most female thing in the world seems somewhat incompatible with needing to assert one's identity as a 'man'. Stopping hormone therapy and tracking periods, growing the baby with the kaleidoscope of eostrogen, progesterone etc that bombards you during pregnancy, seeing your body change and having endless exams on the very defining feature of a female body, this sounds like the most antithetical choice.

In a Guardian interview, Freddie was asked why he felt the need to go through so much to have a child that was 'his'. Why did having a child related by blood matter so much? After explaining that she feared adoption would be just as stressful, with an uncertain result and a longer waiting time, she said "Straight people don’t get asked, ‘Why didn’t you adopt? Why was it so important to be genetic parents?’ So why do gay and trans people get asked that?” 

I don't know if that's true though. It isn't as if Freddie was straight this would be a comparable story, because falling pregnant inside of a relationship doesn't normally require the planning and choices involved in insemination with donor sperm. If any lesbian couple or single parent went to these lengths to conceive a child they would face questions, and even if these were never uttered, many would feel the need to justify this. “It took me a long time to separate identity from biology" she said "I’m just using my hardware to do a thing. It’s pragmatic.”

I'm not judging her choices or 'validity' but 

it strikes me she's being somewhat disingenuous about her motivations. 

Freddie became pregnant just 10 days after having her legal documentation changed from female. That's quite fast, and it seems like Freddie was on a mission to smash pre-perceived ideas, in a bit of a rush.

The pregnancy came about via sperm donation. So, this is a child wholly reliant on Freddie and Freddie's support network.

That's not necessarily terrible, but it's loss, and a serious responsibility. The children born of sperm donation don't have a legal right to find out about their father until they're 18 years old. The father's details are thus blank on the birth certificate of Freddie's little boy. And depending on whether Freddie used donor sperm from the UK or not, it could always remain a mystery. 

After becoming pregnant, for which Freddie had to stop taking testosterone after about 4 years (luckily her uterus was still functional) Freddie became involved in a film project and was followed during her time carrying and giving birth. Medical exams are documented, as are scans; the birth is partially filmed, along with many conversations with Freddie's mum. Apparently it was only when asking the registrar to record her as father and being told this was impossibility did Freddie begin this crusade. 

I'm not convinced I believe that someone who has fought through so much beaurocracy, had to plan ahead and field the unholy number of questions as she has, wouldn't question this much earlier. It seems like an obvious thing, that on appearing at the register office with your documents and baby, she thought 'well, I am a man, am I not? clearly I am legally a man, and I'm sure in these situations a precedent exists whi...' Nah. Did no one - not her mother, documentary maker, midwife, obstetrician, friends, other activists, did no one ask or suggest this might be... problematic?

This whole episode has been about Freddie and her wishes. Despite what she has claimed about needing anonymity in her battle to be recorded as the father, describing a 'bone-deep urge just to keep your child safe' she invited a film crew into her home, her life, medical exams and spoke candidly about her feelings to them, even allowing access to the birthing pool. 

She felt "having that genetic link is something I felt I needed to have". Which is lovely. It is - as selfish as we parents often are about it - an innate urge that still leaves kids in care needing needing homes in a second (or third) class position, and that is a genuine human rights issue. But, as her recent case has shown, wanting to be recorded as something which is a legal fiction on someone else's documentation is not a human right. 

Freddie speaks a lot about being a dad and not a mother, and I can't help but feel this particular hurdle was anticipated a fair way ahead. 

Clearly, Freddie believes it essential, the truth - she has to be father. Fathers are men, right? Using her 'hardware' (i.e. female reproductive system) is 'pragmatic', but it's the only thing which she admits she must face. 

This becomes even more complex when considering she used intrauterine insemination fertility treatment, with donor sperm. While the actual father's name doesn't appear, her treatment is governed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act which is classified as 'assisting women to carry children'. The very law which covered the conception of this child places Freddie as a woman and mother. This didn't stop her, however.

After wrapping up the filming and 'stumbling' across this new barrier, Freddie set up her website, wrote widely (she was a journalist for The Guardian) on her status as 'seahorse dad' and pressed ahead with making legal history as the father who gave birth. Without an inch of irony, Freddie demanded anonymity in this battle. She was afraid that revealing her identity would cause difficulties for her son.

Having sought to remain anonymous while simultaneously inviting media scrutiny on the exact same topic, Freddie and sympathetic media portrayed this as a ruthless and somewhat creepy obsession of the tabloids to interrogate her private life. In her media interviews and in her own output, Freddie is uncompromising on what she sees as transphobic content and motive in the media.

For the courts, upon realising that a film which clearly identified Freddie, her home town, mother, friends and even the birthing pool and delivery, the judge, Sir Andrew McFarlane, said this made McConnell's claim for anonymity incompatible and unreasonable. Freddies response was she never mentioned the whole birth certificate thing in the documentary - which is obviously true - how was she to know she'd encounter a Karen on the day she registered her son?

In court, her barrister put that ''The current argument used to resist change in the law is seemingly to allow transgender people to assume rights in their acquired legal gender only in some circumstances. It is a piecemeal approach and extremely problematic'

'The transgender community will be looking at this case as a measure in how the law understands their needs and fundamental rights; a cherry-picking policy simply cannot be endorsed going forward, and the courts should recognise this when they hear the case.'  

The 'cherry picking' here is based on a really, really simple principle - trans people can change their documents; their birth certificate, to record life as they would rather it was. Freddie is a biological female who 'utilised his hardware' / body, and is trying for another baby now. 

The thing which seems to be over her head is words have real meanings, ESPECIALLY in law and just as much as a woman who adopts a newborn baby might be the practical mother, the one who labours that love and is treated in every day life as a mother, when we're talking about law, definitions, manifest things, mothers are the maternal parent. 

The giver of mitochondria. The one who gestates and births. But Freddie's pursuit continued with her solicitor claiming it is “wrong to focus on giving birth as the determining issue when deciding parental role” on the birth certificate and that the judge “fell into error in determining the term ‘mother’ not to be a gendered term”. 

Freddie said she should not be referred to as a mother, as it has caused her psychological scarring. Her legal team have stressed the impact on her has been sidelined.

It seems like a slippery slope whereby everything is amended for the will of a single person, and with the consequence that could result in an 18 year old one day discovering their actual birth certificate is entirely constructed on falsehoods. Or maybe they wont, maybe the State, with it's gender recognition certificates, legal fictions and laws over registrations and sperm donors will all combine with a fragile parent's collusion to hide ancestral and biological fact.

 

Would there be more legal challenges if this was passed into law? You bet there would. How about when the biological father also wants to be recorded? Are we seriously meant to be ok with fabrications on the primary documents of babies, which could result in the absurdity of two father's and no mother? Gay couples who use a surrogate aren't recorded this way, it's as logical and fair as allowing a religious extremist to record herself as 'mother - servant of God' and the father as 'God' occupation 'omnipotent supreme being' with a note written in Latin explaining He cannot manifest for the registrar.

No one is interfering in Freddie's wish to be known as 'dad'. 'Mothering' is not necessarily the same 'gendered term', but my God be careful with the law and a change that could affect everyone, or at least some others; i.e. children.

“In society, being a mother is a social construct and for a person who is trying to move away from those gendered terms because of their gender dysphoria, then that is an offence to their right to a private life, an offence to their being and identity,” her legal representation tried in court. Freddie can have that social construct, and she has. But she doesnt have to keep putting her fictitious introversion in the the spotlight. She could just get on with it and the millions of people who know who she is need not, if she wanted. She could be an anonymous man in the street.

Our bodies carry the marks, scars and cells from gestating. We are what we are and motherhood is a definitive act of females.

The mothers of stillborn babies are still mothers; they carried, grew and birthed them, though often they feel they lost that title with their baby. This isn't just a social construct - it is real and it is often all they have left. I'm inclined to take their feelings more seriously. Recording a death certificate after a neonatal death, I dont want to see any grieving mother recorded as 'parent one', which is Freddie's alternative.

After the latest hearing, the law firm representing her said: 'Freddy McConnell's plight demonstrates just how important this recognition is, for him, his family, and his child. 'Maintaining the label of 'mother' may in the future force the child to disclose his or her procreational history, which should be a private matter."

But, Freddie's child, going by a pseudonym, and 2 years old, is in no position to voice an opinion. I become seriously irritated and cynical when what is all about Freddie and his/her identity becomes framed as an essential or important step to resolving problems with the whole family's identity. It just isn't true.

As for 'procreational history', are we seriously meant to be fighting for a scenario which could lead to a child believing their mother is their father, while their real father is unknown? That's one hell of a time bomb to set at the beginning of a tiny life. It is taking away the actual facts of a child's entry to the world and leaving the disclosure of truth to the parent. What if they don't want to? What if revealing the 'procreational history' of a parent to child feels unsafe, unnecessary, intrusive? 

This movement is extremely individualist. It's about the right of the individual to identify themselves in defiance of all else. It is the only thing that makes one 'valid' and everyone needs regularly reminding that they are 'valid'.

And while this is important, our identities are not formed in a vacuum but with interaction between others within society. I could call myself antifascist, but if support an ultra-nationalist party with authoritarian, dictatorial rule; believe in strong and rigid hierarchy in society and oppress and censor opposition to my beliefs, you could rightly call me a liar, an idiot or a fantasist.

But among all the hyperbole remains a simple fact; children deserve the truth on their origins, and the birth certificate is the first port of call. If Freddie's child decides in the future to track his biological father, I hope to god the reality and words used dont trigger emotional blackmail and similar accusations of erasing identity.

In court her brief speaks about 'the right side of history' and "We are talking about the impact on transgender people of being misgendered and it is the right and responsibility of this court to ensure that this does not continue. Parenthood has many hats and what we mustn’t do is tie this up in a gendered way.”

The birth certificate will be in use long after Freddie's death. No one is stopping the child from calling her dad, but there becomes a time where rights clash and wishing to overwrite the factual documentation of a baby, with no voice, is just wrong. Do we seriously view her fear of 'misgendering' is such a horror the child must be mis-parented?

When are birth certificates seen? When getting your first doctor; first passport; starting school. It is used in conditions where confidentiality are legal requirements. Freddie is clearly not shy about being trans, and is trying to smash expectations and traditional definitions. That, Freddie, doesn't work when a cloud of invisibility is conjured. You are not ashamed of who you are - good for you. But let's be real here - the whole debacle that is 'Freddie's fight for recognition' has been held in her sights for a very long time, as an integral part of the assault on social understandings, words, categories and laws. This is activism, not the need of one gender dysphoric person trying to raise a child without outing themself.

The debate over the Gender Recognition Act has been turbulent, and we are constantly being told children have an identity beyond that of their parents; that parents who disagree with a child's desires to transition are abusive, driving them to such distress they commit suicide. But the child in question here has no say in this, and if it were that these legal changes were implemented it leaves open a possibility that a child could never know the manifest truth on their ancestry. That really can harm people.

We are also told with moral imperative that we must respect the rights of vulnerable people. But no one is more vulnerable than a child, so fight your fight but at least don't try to stop other people from knowing who they are or from being acknowledged as the mother and father of a baby who has tragically died.

The biological reality, the fundamental and manifest truth is that Freddie is the mother. She can utilise the social constructivist view to its full potential, but there will always be inconsistencies because it is a compassionate nod to Freddie's feelings, to the feelings of trans people generally, to use a legal fiction in amending her documents. What it should not be is a thin end of the wedge Trojan horse that requires the whole of society to reconstruct reality with the feelings of trans people first and everyone else second. Live with the conflict, Freddie. Accept the law has already accommodated you with bestowing a title and category to you which is not based in fact. Be pragmatic.