After reading radfemcraft’s latest post, where it is becoming clear that language, commonsense, and understandability are hitting all-time lows in TwanzLand, it was about time to decode the bullshit. Quelle surprise, most of them are reversals as well as fast becoming gobbledygook (see compound usage in RFC’s post) so that the average person gets duped into thinking all of this is grounded in real and bonafide fact.

The first one is easy-peasy.


  • What they say it means:
    The incongruity of one’s internal gender with one’s born (biological) sex. Their proposed solution for this ‘incongruity’ is to ‘fix’ the appearance of their sex characteristics to match their ‘internal gender’. So, what are they changing exactly? Not their beloved ‘internal gender’ (as indicated by the term, ‘trans’ = changing between on thing and the other; and ‘gender’ = the thing supposedly being changed). Nope, they ain’t changing their ‘gender’ at all, they keep that, and surgically/chemically altering the appearance of their biological sex.
  • What it really means:
    Transgender, by keeping their ‘internal gender’ and changing their sex are in fact, transsexual (ie changing their sex (or appearance thereof) from one to the other. I believe the term was probably adopted in order to distance themselves from the pervy associations of transsexuals and transvestites (nice try, but you twanzgenders also managed to embrace and defend the creepy pervs in your numbers).


  • What they say it means:
    Briefly, persons who have Gender Identity Disorder (GID) who seek Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS) to live as the opposite sex. Well, sort of right, except they are relying on the ‘mysterious’ and indefinable ‘internal gender identity‘ to justify the surgical modifications. Also, it includes those who wish to ‘pass’ as the opposite sex by having only partial SRS (in the case of M2T breast implants, in the case of F2T breast removal) and leaving the rest of the genitalia as it is.
  • What it really means:
    The two main problems here are the partial SRS (because that is technically a mixed-sex adaptation), and even the British Government don’t even require any SRS at all in order to officially recognise ‘gender reassignment’. Secondly, the concept of ‘gender’ itself in order to justify the surgery. The diagnosis of ‘gender’ relies not just on self-reporting, but is also steeped in gender role stereotypes (sex role stereotypes) of acceptable and expected behaviours and likes/dislikes based on sex. Here is one such bullshit justification, of a prisoner who decorated his cell with lace curtains and flowers. Seriously, wtf? These gender roles and supposed ‘expression of gender’ are rooted in 1950s American TV programmes, not reality.


  • What they say it means:
    Someone who has congruity between their born sex and internal gender. Someone not seeking SRS.
  • What it really means:
    Anyone who is not-tranz. Furthermore, it is insulting particularly to feminists who for decades have been fighting sex-role/gender-role stereotypes, that pigeon-hole females into particular roles, occupations and behaviours. Calling non-tranz persons ‘cisgender’ is also a way to try and get sympathy for and legitimise their ‘condition’.


  • What they say it means:
    Exactly the same crap as cisgender (above).
  • What it really means:
    Exactly the same as cisgender (above). Also, another proof of conflating biological sex with gender roles, as well as the fact that twanz are just making this shit up as they go along.


  • What they say it means:
    Cross-dresser, and one who generally has no intention of living as (or passing as) the opposite sex on a full-time basis.
  • What it really means:
    Part-time twanz in other words, particularly males who like to retain their male privilege in all other respects. There are generally two categories for males, female impersonators (drag queens) who generally do impersonations for comedic purposes, usually ridicule of the female sex – a lot of this ridicule relies on gender stereotypes that females are made to conform to. The second type of males are the sexual fetishists who get a sexual thrill out of female clothing, particularly underwear. This lot are the creepy pervs that twanz currently have residing under the twanz parasol. For females, most of the female transvestites have historically donned male attire in order to participate in male-only professions. Latterly, there are a few more that do it comedically, but again rely on gender stereotypes for the comedic entertainment, although some ‘drag kings’ also live full-time off-stage as males.


  • What they say it means:
    Queer was historically the term used for (male) homosexual. Generally queer and genderqueer are now used interchangeably. The genderqueer thing is not specifically one thing and the following can be included (nicked from diki):
    * both man and woman
    * neither man nor woman (genderless, agender)
    * moving between genders (gender fluid)
    * third gendered; includes those who do not name their gender
    * having an overlap between gender identity and sexual orientation
    Generally it seems to mean the ‘gender fluid’ lot, who like to play mixy-matchy with traditionally male/female items (usually clothing, but including haircuts and make-up). 
  • What it really means:
    Really funky man, and apparently a rilly kewl thing for college/uni students. They usually grow out of it when they realise they have to pay back the student loans and join the workforce. Genderqueer includes the delusion that they are ‘breaking down the gender barriers’, which they strangely end up conforming to when they get a job in the real world. Not a complete loss though, they at least have lots of colourful photos from the college digs to look back on in years to come, unlike those monochromed goths.

All the above wunderful and colourful terms of gender-related expression can be independent or overlap sexuality (or sexual attraction).

With the addition of compound terminology from the TwanzWorld vocab, things become even more meaningless than they are currently. Stuff like ‘cisgendered transsexuals’ is nonsense, even in their own speak.

The whole thing is a farce.

17 thoughts on “Twanz-wot?

  1. Undercover Punk

    This just kills me:

    All the above wunderful and colourful terms of gender-related expression can be independent or overlap sexuality (or sexual attraction).

    Hello, people, GENDER as originally conceived of my feminists is inextricably rooted in HETERO NORMATIVITY: the dominant paradigm that dictates our sexuality through tropes about how males and females should relate to each other. By refusing to separate “jendah expression” from sex and sexuality, queers (or whatever the fuck) are OBVIOUSLY RE-PURPOSING the entire concept. There is nothing radical about it. It’s so maddening. MAD! Yes, I’m mad!11!!!!


  2. luckynkl

    Trans just have a fetish for women’s clothing and as you said, in particular, their underwear. But we’re going to allow these perverts in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms?

    Transgenderism is just another way for men to claim ownership of women’s bodies. If women cannot claim their own bodies, then women cannot exist nor change anything. They instead become assets, tools and commodities for men and drown in their own delusions of existence. It is an act of violence for an oppressor to tell those he oppresses, they don’t exist. It is psychological warfare.

    In short, women have good reason to feel threatened by men. I abhor violence but then I started thinking about it. Every species on the planet will defend itself when threatened. Even a mouse. Why are women the only species on the planet not allowed to defend themselves?

    I think it’s high time women stopped putting up with men’s shit and started defending themselves, their bodies, their spaces and their existence. For starters, we can make it more dangerous for trans to use the women’s room than the men’s room and chase men right back into the sewer from which they crawled out of.


  3. Undercover Punk

    @ Lucky, I’ve been thinking about what you said too. Especially when I read this this morning:

    It’s true!! Pacifism is a losing strategy. I’m having an emotionally difficult time accepting that responding to domination with domination is acceptable/inevitable, but purism is also not necessarily productive.


  4. Sargasso Sea

    What a handy, user-friendly field guide Fab!

    It is actually pretty simple isn’t it? They’re just full of shit 😛


  5. FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel

    awww SarSea, it would make for a very short post if I just cut to the chase and put “They’re just full of shit”! I had to pad it out. 😛

    Agree with Lucky/UCP/wgwt, pacifism as an absolute, just allows the elephant to continue stamping on our collective tails. I will fight back to defend myself, and the next dude that ever tries to attack me had better have ‘his affairs in order’.

    Pacifism in females is a groomed trait, specifically so that we can be picked off as prey at a later date.


  6. survivorthriver

    “Why are women the only species on the planet not allowed to defend themselves?”

    Because, it took 10,000 years to murder woman warriors, woman priests (priestesses), take away our lands, establish rape as viable, steal our livelihoods as healers and midwives…..

    The historical eradication of all of the above depended on three things (IMHO):
    1) Make sure women never have weapons, don’t have defense training,
    2) Make sure women are owned by individual men so most don’t have sexual autonomy.
    3) Make sure women’s guild/tribal local economy is dominated annd eliminated by Industrialism, war, isolation.

    I’d like to hear more about gender essentialist.

    I’ve shared this with old school radfem, very inspiring.


  7. delphyne

    Catharine MacKinnon thinks violence should be on the table as a possible strategy:

    “I think about the question of violence and war that it is a sort of the ultimate male tool. And whether that means it will work in our hands or not, I’m not sure. But I really do think that most women have decided not only that they don’t want to do it, but that it wouldn’t work.

    But it really is worth considering seriously, instead of just dismissing outright, or on moral grounds.”


    Patriarchy is in part at least built on female non-violence. Maybe that’s why they have to terrorise us at such tender ages, to make sure the animal instinct for self-defense and self-preservation is never developed.


  8. cherryblossomlife

    “They usually grow out of it when they realise they have to pay back the student loans and join the workforce. Genderqueer includes the delusion that they are ‘breaking down the gender barriers’, which they strangely end up conforming to when they get a job in the real world. Not a complete loss though, they at least have lots of colourful photos from the college digs to look back on in years to come, unlike those monochromed goths. “

    This is genius LOL LOL! Thanks for breaking it all down. Anyone would think they were TRYING to confuse people….!!

    Delphyne, I am thinking more about that these days, especially about that woman who murdered her daughter’s rapist in spain…. Hmm, no specific plans as yet… but yes, violence doesn’t need to be ELIMINATED as an option.


  9. FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel

    I am working on ‘gender essentialist’, but having trouble with ‘what they say it means’ – which is mainly because they never actually explain it, just toss it around (at radfems usually) in order to shut them up. The ‘what it really means’ part is easy peasy.

    So, asking for any suggestions for the first part…


  10. FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel

    I am thinking “rigid adherence to gender (roles)” is what they say it means.
    Basically, what they pretend it to mean is the opposite of what it really means.


  11. Undercover Punk

    Yo Dave, I think they usually mean “SEX essentialism” when they throw ‘gender essentialism’ at rad fems. You know, cause we think that there are CONSEQUENCES to sex. But they can’t tell the diff between sex and gender. Obvi.


  12. jilla

    That’s what I am confused about. What is it they think they are DOING when they transition? They think they are really female (which they think is a gender) so they transition, but it’s a “gender” they trans to, not a sex and they can go back and forth as long as social services and health insurerers will pay for it. No limit. Life time guarantee of….nothing. And of course, this senseless and useless waste of medical time and money impacts on women’s health needs.

    Remember my story of how I began to pursue breast reduction? Was told I would be put on a waiting list of between 2 and 3 years, at minimum, because the breast surgeons are other wise busy. Ka-ching. After they do all the breast mutations, they slot their remaining time for breast cancer patients who want reconstruction. No time left for old broads with cervical vertebrae that are collapsing. They also get paid a whack more for the two procedures, although I will grant breast cancer patients the right to choice there. (Wouldn’t be mine). But.

    They only get paid basic health care rates for the surgery I asked about AND it is more time consuming than putting in a pop-out part.

    Between the fun fems and transDiots, there is so little time for actual health care to women.

    I’m somewhat relieved I didn’t do it. Not physically of course.


  13. Pingback: Links: June 14, 2011 « Against All Evidence

  14. Pingback: Twanzsplainer of the Week: Ashlie | twanzphobic since forever

Leave a rilly rilly twanzphobic reply, go on, dares ya!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s