7 thoughts on “Bonnie J. Mann @Univ_Of_Oregon (USA)”

  1. First, I see that Bonnie has a gender book of her own being published this year. I suspect more than a little coat tails riding on the publicity of the “controversy” of Lierre speaking.

    Second, I notice that Bonnie’s letter does not address the overwhelming majority of transgenders whose dysphoria is caused by their obsessive sexual fetishes of transvestism and autogynephilia. You cannot address transgender without acknowledging that over 90% of the trans population are male-born not female-born, and you cannot ignore the fact that over 80% of those males are practicing a sexual fetish which objectifies and demeans women.

    THIS is transgender: men who have an obsession to be viewed as a sexually attractive woman. Same old same old. Men. Sex.

  2. Third, (sorry I hit “reply” by accident). So, third, I don’t believe any radical feminist analysis would deny that men who do not want the burden of masculinity are also giving up the many benefits of masculinity and it’s position in the power hierarchy of gender. I, as a feminist, applaud men who are willing to reject those benefits and work as allies for women’s liberation from male supremacy. Rejecting femininity, in any, or all, it’s guises, is certainly to be expected after a thorough analysis. But my rejection of femininity does not change my sex class to male. Nor does a mans rejection of masculinity and his ensuing practice of femininity change his sex class to female.

    And our sex class, female, has always been the basis of our oppression. We cannot escape that by assuming male manner of dress and surface behaviors. We can only escape our oppression by naming it as sex class oppression and destroying the structures which continue to elevate and prioritize male sex class over female sex class. Males are not going to liberate us, only we can liberate ourselves. And we cannot organize our liberation while under the watchful eyes, and eventual mansplaining, of men, regardless how they present. Men in dresses and high heels do not destroy the male supremacy, they reinforce the female subjugation.

  3. People who hide out in the rarified atmosphere of academia rarely know what is going on in the real world. Tenured professors are more interested in maintaining the status quo instead of instilling critical thinking skills in students. Every pet theory and philosophy will have to stand on its own merit, and be judged by future historians. When they muster enough courage to finally peek outside and view the vibrant real world where people actually live and work, they are often amazed at what they see.

    Professor Mann should stop paying homage to the queen of postmodern queer theory, Judith Butler, and open her mind. This is brilliant analysis by a very bright young woman.

    The End Of Gender: Revolution Not Reform


    The Same Sexual Threats, the Same Silence for Women

    The Emperor’s New Penis


    “Men have been silencing women for ten thousand years and it’s happening still.

    At the “Law and Disorder Conference” in Portland, OR, on May 11-12, two women were peacefully tabling, handing out literature, and selling books from our organization, Deep Green Resistance. A group of five queer activists came up to the table and one of the men began shouting at the women, using aggressive language and threatening gestures. He grabbed and defaced table materials. When one of the women went to protect the materials, he marked her arm and hand as well.

    This conference states it has a policy of safer spaces, but “safer spaces” evidently doesn’t apply to women, because although most people in the room had no choice but to hear the shouting, no one, including the organizers, intervened to stop this man and his aggressive behavior.

    We see nothing in the creation of gender to celebrate or embrace. As feminists, we are abolitionists. Patriarchy is a corrupt and brutal arrangement of power, and we want to see it dismantled so that the category of gender no longer exists. This is also our position on race and class. The categories are not natural: they only exist because hierarchical systems of power create them (see, for instance, Audrey Smedley’s book Race in North America). We want a world of justice and equality, where the material conditions that currently create race, class, and gender have been forever overcome…

    But to make “sex-class” a dirty word means that the realities of women’s lives become once more unspeakable, each woman cut adrift in a hostile, chaotic sea. Apply the word “sex-class,” and that chaos snaps into a sharp pattern of subordination, from the small, daily insults to body and soul to the shattering traumas of incest and rape. The crimes men commit against women aren’t done to women as random individuals; they’re done because women belong to a subordinate class and they’re done to keep women a subordinate class.

    But the basic truths of women’s lives are once more becoming unspeakable. Why? Because genderists are literally shouting feminists down to shut us up. They’ve declared “female” passé, probably because even they can see past the postmodern smoke and mirrors: they know they can never be biologically female. Instead, they’ve laid claim to “woman.” Their definition of woman lines up rather precisely with everything that the Princess Industrial Complex constrains girls into accepting and that sexual violations break women into being. The genderists claim that this is all natural, eternal, basic to the structure of the universe. A typical comment: “There is a distinct, substantive, immutable feminine gender, and it can not be transcended.” This is what systems of power always have to imprint on our psyches: not only is this state of affairs natural, resistance is futile. We beg to disagree. Some of us are living proof that feminine gender can be transcended—and the feminist movement is even larger proof that it can be fought.

    But the genderists don’t want to resist gender. They are, in fact, quite attached to it. Writes one, “It would be a crying shame if ‘woman’ and ‘man’ ceased to be relevant categories for me to play with.” Substitute poor and rich or black and white if you don’t understand how offensive that is. People being oppressed are not categories to be played with. If you understand that, the only question left is: are women people?”

  4. Below are some questions that I would like to ask Professor Mann:

    (1.) The sterilization of healthy children is generally viewed as a human rights abuse. Can she predict how future historians will judge the sterilization of children through the use of GnRH agonists and cross gender hormones? Transgender activists promote puberty suppression in healthy children as part of an overall “transitioning” process. Twelve and thirteen year old “trans” children are prescribed GnRH agonists. The transgender community knows full well that fertility is an issue with these drugs. Has there ever been a time in history in which a normal part of human development, adolescence, has been intentionally delayed because of what basically amounts to a psychological diagnosis?

    (2.) I’m sure Professor Mann is well versed in the myriad of ways in which the female body has been radically altered throughout history. Indeed, culture has always left its mark on the female sex. From Chinese foot-binding to female genital mutilation, it never completely goes out of style. It simply morphs into something new. How will future historians view FTM “transitioning”? Watching videos of “top surgery” and “bottom surgery” on healthy female breasts and genitals looks like a form of violence to me.

    Unless we take the time to actually research it and see it ourselves, we don’t see the blood, or violence being carried out on the female sex. The reality is carefully cloaked behind words such as “top surgery” and “transitioning”. “Transitioning” sounds so benign, even progressively trendy. When I first saw the video of “top surgery” in which the nipples and areolas were literally being cut off and surgically trimmed down to size, and I saw what is for all practical purposes elective mastectomies, the images haunted me. Think about this carefully. It basically amounts to elective mastectomies with the surgical trimming down of areolas and nipples.


    As we have seen with the Belgian woman who felt so depressed after botched sex reassignment surgery that she asked a doctor to euthanize her, “transitioning” can’t magically fix deep emotional scars. This deeply depressed woman probably was too emotionally unstable for surgery and hormones.

    (3.) There have been numerous scholarly articles exploring the cultural reasons why women flock to plastic surgeons. Why are most plastic surgery patients female? Why are women more likely to be anorexics or bulimics? Certainly there are cultural factors at play. This is my question. Could cultural factors and internalized misogyny be a major factor in the increase in FTM “transitioning?

  5. @pantypopo

    “Second, I notice that Bonnie’s letter does not address the overwhelming majority of transgenders whose dysphoria is caused by their obsessive sexual fetishes of transvestism and autogynephilia… and you cannot ignore the fact that over 80% of those males are practicing a sexual fetish which objectifies and demeans women.”

    Paraphilias of all sorts are far more common in males. I read that it’s usually about twenty to one. For every female with a kinky sexual fetish, there are twenty males with obsessive sexual fetishes. Pedophilia and voyeurism are rare in females.

    I don’t think every transwoman has a autogynephile sexual fetish, but I wish people would stop denying reality. For some males, cross dressing is more of a sexual fetish than an actual “gender identity”. It’s a dirty little secret that people aren’t allowed to whisper. Under “gender identity” laws, how is it possible to tell the difference between a cross dressing autogynephile and a transwoman if they are both dressed alike? This is a graphic of the Trans* Umbrella. Notice that crossdressers are included. Since when is a sexual fetish a civil right? I could care less what people do in the privacy of their homes, but cross dressing autogynephiles shouldn’t demand special civil rights status, and be granted access to women’s restrooms by claiming “gender identity”.


    Intersex is NOT the same as transgender, but they include it anyway. Only Native or First Nation persons are “two spirit”.

  6. More questions for professor Mann.

    (4.) Why are women the only historically oppressed group of people who aren’t granted the right to define themselves? This would never be tolerated in any other historically marginalized or oppressed ethnic group or race. For example, if there is nothing unique or special about being Black or Asian, and anyone can be Black of Asian, then doesn’t this throw these identities out the window? I say that biological males can’t be women, and they say they can. Why are they right and I’m wrong? Men have basically defined everything that exists in the world, and now they get to define who is and isn’t a woman. As a female, I find the appropriation of the word woman highly offensive.

    Does Professor Mann believe that the female sex exists in and of itself, or is it primarily socially constructed? As to MTF (male to female) sex reassignment surgery, if it’s possible to surgically create a woman where non clearly existed before, then why can’t females just be created in a laboratory?

    (5.) I would like to follow up on (2.) and (3.) above. FTM stands for female to male. In FTM “transitioning”, we are socially losing female identity? How can the loss of female identity not be a feminist issue? I’m sure people are going to say, “Well, they aren’t really girls”. Is this true in every individual case? If a human being is born female from the womb of a woman, how can she not be of the female sex? Currently, it’s not possible to change one’s sex from male to female. Sex reassignment surgery basically amounts to extensive plastic surgery on healthy breasts and genitals. If humans advance technology to the of point perfecting cloning, or create other reproductive technologies that replace sexual reproduction, will females even be necessary. In five hundred or six hundred years from now, it might be possible to easily change one’s sex down to the DNA level. Is this something that we really want to do? With the aid of an old technology called ultrasound, there are 163 million missing girls from India and China

Comments are closed.