1969 - 2015
2015. The year that Transgender became an issue. In that year, Owen Jones wrote his first piece on transgender back in those pre-Brexit, pre-Trump halcyon days; Stonewall is right to bring our trans brothers and sisters in from the cold, in which he argued that:
"Trans issues have been neglected by progressives – myself included – for far too long, but at last this mistake is being rectified."
Oh god, yes, it has certainly been rectified. In four years we've gone from discussions about what transgender means and what it means for biological women being biological women to no platforming anyone who has a contradictory view to the new consensus. Women are cautioned for arguing that trans women are not women on media platforms. Irish comedians are cautioned for "misgendering" a trans woman and has to change their Twitter account to private to avoid the barrage of abuse. When a trans woman was employed by the NSPCC despite having a history of rather outrageous homophobic comments on social media and doing a shoot for a well known "men's magazine" (that is definitely not porn by any definition according to Jones) and suggesting that children get in touch with her privately on Social Media, those who called for her dismissal were transphobic, hate mongering, racist, (homophobic in some bizarre way) zealots according to Jones.
Jones now argues, four years on, that we're living in a time of "rampant transphobia" despite the consensus in the media that anyone arguing that trans women aren't women are enacting hate crimes.
Jones had an epiphany in 2015 that queer people must embrace their trans sisters and fight this transphobia, under a banner that the history of gay rights is exactly the same as the history of trans rights.
"The iconic Stonewall riots of 1969 that did so much to galvanise the gay rights movement were dominated by trans people," he argues. Whilst, what we now define as trans, women were among the protesters in the riots the overwhelming majority were young gay men.
Trans people taking part in the call for equal rights for trans people...no wait, transgender didn't exist back in 1969, it only became common currency in the 1990s. What were these 'queens' rioting about?
I think you might find that those 'trans' people back in the 60s and 70s fighting for gay rights were actually gay...
Most were male.
Most had interesting hair.
And electricity was yet to be invented.
"But there are other reasons, and that should lead to some reflection and self-criticism by people like me. I have written columns on all sorts of topics – hell, I’ve even written about the merits of cycling helmets – but this is the first time I’ve ever written about trans issues. Neglected by mainstream movements, trans rights have also failed to receive the attention they deserve from all sorts of progressively minded people."
102 people died from cycling deaths last year, over 3,000 seriously injured. Cyclists are 15 times more likely than drivers to be killed on UK roads. But transgender is clearly more important than cycling safety. In fact cycling safety is now deemed a rather petty and silly concern for Jones to write about before his epiphany.
Fortunately for Jones and mainstream movements and progressively minded people they aren't even the real enemy.
"The other reason is more straightforward and deeply troubling. Transphobia is not confined to knuckle-dragging bigots..."
Transphobia "contaminates [interesting wording] the thinking of some progressives. A recent article objects to an ideology whose “core … is the assertion ‘trans women are women’.” There was a “discussion to be had” over whether trans people are “a social category”, but “trans women are not, by definition, biological females.” This was published in the New Statesman, a left-of-centre publication. It is my firm belief that in generations to come we will look back at such commentary as we do now on discussions of women, gays and black people in the magazines of the 1950s."
Yeah, feminists are the enemy. You see, transgender, Jones implies, isn't an ideology apparently. Even though it is. "A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." Everything is ideological, surely Jones must recognize that being a political journalist?
The article is written by Terry MacDonald, a pseudonym, so I'm not sure who wrote it and why they felt the need to write under a pseudonym, Oh yes, I know why they did the latter. It's in a piece called Are you now or have you ever been a TERF? The suggestion being that Transgender lobbying is like the McCarthy witchhunts of post war America.
Many left wing intellectuals lost their jobs in the communist purge under Senator Joe McCarthy.
That could never happen again, of course. People couldn't lose their jobs over being defined as transphobic, right?
It's quite astonishing that Jones implicitly implies that there is no "discussion to be had." That smacks of fascism.
Fascism: "A political philosophy, movement, or regime...that stands for a centralized autocratic government...severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." Merriam Webster
And Jones, again, implies that "trans women are not, by definition, biological females" is not a statement of fact. Ha, let's deny science..
But then Jones argues that: "In truth, debates over the latest scientific research are of little interest to me: what matters is that the happiness, security and even lives of a minority are at stake, and all too little has been done about it."
Oh well, yeah, let's ignore science and concentrate on keeping a vocal minority happy.
Jones oddly doesn't quote MacDonald arguing that: "Feminists across the political spectrum support the right of trans people not to be discriminated against at work, harassed or subjected to physical and sexual assault. On the last point, there is a particularly clear intersection between feminist and trans concerns. Radical feminists have long been at the forefront of campaigns opposing male violence and demanding justice for its victims: assaults on trans people, overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, are seen as part of the same problem. There is absolutely no question about whether such attacks should be condemned: they should be and they are."
MacDonald suggests: "So, what gets people labelled TERFs is not their opposition to the fundamental rights most trans people care about. Rather it is a form of political dissent: you are labelled a TERF if you question or criticise the bizarre ideology which is currently promoted by some trans activists. I stress the word ‘some’ here, because the activists in question are assiduous and vocal, but they clearly don’t speak for the entire trans community: their critics include people who are trans themselves. If disagreeing with their extreme views makes you a TERF, then frankly, almost everyone is a TERF."
Oh how it has changed in those heady four years. Even, sadly, those trans people who do not accept the prescribed ideological stance that trans women are the same as biological women have been shouted down and are now all but invisible.
When it comes to trans issues Jones is happy to selectively quote others to put negative spins on the "discussion," something that our right wing enemies so often choose to do. The full argument by MacDonald runs:
"The core of the ideology I’m referring to is the assertion that ‘trans women are women’. (We hear a lot less from and about trans men.) Exactly what this statement means depends on whether the speaker is using the word ‘women’ to refer to a social category or a biological one. In the first case there is a discussion to be had (though people may reasonably differ in their conclusions), but in the second case the assertion is patently false. Trans women are not, by definition, biological females. Yet in the most extreme version of the ideology, you cannot say that without being labelled a TERF.
In practice everyone knows that trans women are not identical to women, but if you don’t want to be called a TERF you must deny the differences as far as possible. For feminists this has become a particular problem: any discussion of experiences which are not shared by trans women because they were not born with female bodies is liable to be denounced as ‘trans-exclusionary’. "
A TERF is not someone who disputes trans people’s right to exist. What s/he disputes is the right of a small subset of trans extremists to impose their definition of reality, and their political agenda, on everyone. A TERF is someone prepared to say that the Emperor has no clothes.[my italics]"
Is this transphobic? To use reason and science? According to Jones, it is.
Jones argues that: "There will be those who do not believe that it is for a man to intervene in a debate within feminism."
I think Jones is correct. No wait...isn't that nonsense?
"This is a nonsense, of course."
Phew.
"...as I expect straight people to speak out against homophobia, non-trans people need to stand in solidarity with trans people, too. Indeed – as we have established – as a gay man I share many of the same enemies. And we know where these sentiments all lead."
Oh my. Jones has nicely tangled things up there. Yup, it's fine for me to speak up against homophobia, I'm straight, it has no impact on anyone else (except hopefully positive for queer people). But it's not fine for me, a man, to tell women what they should feel or think. Right? That's a whole different ballbag. I mean, other than Jones sexually preferring men, we have fundamentally the same experiences as men. We have no experience as (natal) women. Nor do trans women. How on earth can Jones or myself speak for women? But you are Hughes in your arguments here! No, I'm arguing for reason. Have we forgotten reality and science?
If non-trans people standing with trans people conflicts with (natal) women's needs then how does that all work out then (see below)?
Of course, gay rights did not start in Greenwich Village in 1969. It's an oddity that the US was one of the last countries in the western (read not crazy religious dictatorships) world to legalize homosexuality. The French legalized it during the revolution of 1789. The Mexicans legalized it a century before the US. In the UK homosexuality was legalized in 1967 and the Gay Liberation Front was created three years later to promote gay rights. Integral to the gay rights movement in the west was the crossover with the feminist movement, many notable second wave feminists were also queer; Adrienne Rich, Audre Lorde and the Women's Liberation Movement was closely allied to the Gay Liberation Movement (it's in the names). However, transgender rights, specifically, transgender women's rights conflict with biological women's rights so the gay rights are the same as trans rights really holds no water.
TERF ZEALOTS
Two years later, Owen Jones has become far more militant in his trans rights crusade: Anti-trans zealots, know this: history will judge you
By that point Jones is happy to completely distort data to back up his argument:
"At the same time, though a new wave of feminism stresses its trans inclusivity, there are self-described progressives who claim that support for trans rights is driven by misogyny. Women feel threatened by trans women using female toilets, goes the argument. Yet, according to the British Social Attitudes survey, 58% of women say prejudice against trans people is “always wrong”, 12 points higher than for men; and 72% of women say they are “very” or “quite” comfortable with a trans woman using a female toilet – compared with 64% of men who feel similarly about trans men in male toilets. Transphobia is, disproportionately, a male problem."
What he fails to mention to mention is that in the survey it specifically states:
"Please think about a transgender woman - that is a man who has gone through all or part of a process to become a woman. How comfortable or uncomfortable would you be for a
transgender woman to use female public toilets?"
That is, if trans women have been castrated. No one even knows how many trans people there are in the UK and with the explosion of services advising young people about gender dysphoria the numbers are likely to grow. Thus no one knows how many trans women are fully transitioned. Figures vary between as low as 7% transitioning to as high as 33% though this is based on testimony rather than evidence from medical services. Vox
Let's assume around two thirds to three quarters don't transition. Let's ask that question again.
"Please think about a transgender woman - that is a man who probably still has male genitalia. How comfortable or uncomfortable would you be for a transgender woman to use female public toilets?"
Would we still get the same result?
In the survey, 58% of women do indeed argue that prejudice towards trans people is always wrong. Yet, Jones doesn't mention that in exactly the same section "Overwhelmingly, the public reports themselves as not prejudiced against transgender people. Over 8 in 10 (82%) describe themselves as “not prejudiced at all” yet "only 4 in 10 people feel a suitably qualified transgender person should definitely be employed as a police officer or primary school teacher."
Unravel that one. That's why surveys aren't science or fact and it's very very naughty of Jones to quote it as if it were.
Jones argues that with the GRA: "The plan is to move in line with countries, such as Ireland, that have a process of self-identification. But, goes the argument, this will mean men falsely declaring themselves as women to invade women’s spaces and harass women – even though in countries that have adopted this system, such as Argentina (where it has been in place for years), such cases have simply not materialised."
Shockingly, Jones offers no data on Argentina and the non-materialization of harrassment. However, of course, again, Jones doesn't mention that safe spaces like prisons aren't suddenly open to all under GRAs in Argentina or Ireland:
Shockingly, Jones offers no data on Argentina and the non-materialization of harrassment. However, of course, again, Jones doesn't mention that safe spaces like prisons aren't suddenly open to all under GRAs in Argentina or Ireland:
"Crucially, many countries have retained sex-segregated spaces in recognition of the fact that women are also a protected group, and most sexual violence is perpetrated by male-born people. In Argentina, for example, trans individuals are usually placed in the segregated prisons designated for homosexuals. In Ireland, prisoners remain segregated by biological sex irrespective of gender identity. In Malta, trans prisoners are housed with people of the sex in which they identify, but prison officers are required to provide additional protections, which could entail separate shower times, for the safety of all prisoners." Rosemary Auchmuty, Professor of Law and Rosa Freedman, Professor of Law, Conflict and Global Development, University of Reading
Jones, of course, uses the same tired argument that gay rights are exactly the same as trans rights (odd for a man who describes himself a feminist):
"The tropes are the same. Back then, gay people were sexual predators; a “gay lobby” was brainwashing children; being gay was a mental illness, or just a phase; and gay rights was political correctness gone mad. Replace “gay” with “trans”, and that’s the state of the British press in 2017."
Except, of course, gay rights and feminism went hand in hand because gay rights had no impact (other than positive) on women whereas trans rights does and will have a profoundly negative effect on women (biological ones) and feminism (on equality and safety), so the two are not symbiotic at all. It's really tiresome to have to continually point out that gay rights and trans rights are fundamentally different.
"A 19-year-old trans woman, Lily Madigan, was hounded after being elected women’s officer at her local Labour party. Online trolls were spurred on by the media coverage: “I’ve had people hoping I commit suicide and calling me horrid things like dickhead and freak.” This should shame the media; it probably won’t," growls Jones.
Abuse on social media of an individual is wrong, see Graham Linehan for his supposed transphobia, but should the media then make a concerted effort to support Irish comedy writers? This is a peculiar faulty reasoning from Jones. Lily Madigan might have been hounded on social media but TERFs objected to her being elected in a role set aside by the Labour party specifically for women. I don't know Madigan at all but I do know she was once a he (up until four years ago) so how on earth can she represent women's needs? Whatever the case, she was made women's officer.
"In the US, opposition to trans rights has been spearheaded by the Republican right, who in many states have introduced “bathroom bills” to ban trans people from using toilets that match their gender identity," writes Jones.
"At the same time, though a new wave of feminism stresses its trans inclusivity, there are self-described progressives who claim that support for trans rights is driven by misogyny."
Can you see what Jones has done there? Yep, right wing Republicans who hold a view must then be the same as Feminists who hold a view. A lovely logical fallacy so commonly used in Tabloids. It's depressing seeing Jones using it.
And, hey, what do women know anyway? Jones, a man, knows better.
As Meghan Murphy argues, this ideology has taken hold at an astonishing rate (a rate that gay rights could only dream of back in the UK in the mid 1950s when Wolfenden made his report to legalize consensual homosexual relationships which only came to fruition some 13 years later):
"That transgenderism has become such a central debate in the public sphere and among feminists should come as no shock, considering how quickly this ideology and individuals who identify as trans have shot to prominence in every arena from academia, sports, media, and politics. Nonsensical terms like “cis” and “cisgender privilege” have been adopted almost universally by liberal feminist writers and progressive media, despite a large quotient of women repeatedly stating the term is insulting and misunderstands how gender works under patriarchy. Within only a few years, policies and legislation supporting the notion of “gender identity” have been proposed and adopted throughout Western nations, with little debate or attention to impacts on women. Simultaneously, those who question, challenge, or simply attempt to discuss the idea of transgenderism, the transing of children, the righteousness of trans activism, and gender identity legislation are bullied, no-platformed, smeared, and subjected to threats."
The fact that women who object to trans women (specifically) having the right to be defined as females are bullied, harassed, doxed, made to feel that they are wrong is especially ironic. As Murphy argues, the fact that transgender is privileged over the needs of women does suggest a misogynistic base.
Jones used to write about feminism and women's rights before he saw the light. Back in 2014 he wrote a piece Britain is going backwards on violence against women. In which Jones writes that: "Violence against women is a pandemic, and needs to be treated as such." He's specifically talking about Domestic Violence. He rightly does not fall into the trap of talking about physical violence because DV includes psychological violence too. And Jones's call to arms sounds strangely familiar:
"Women's voices, of course, need to be at the forefront of this campaign. But men have to speak out in solidarity, too, and to confront a culture within their own ranks that treats women as subordinate and as sexual objects. Britain is now going backwards."
Ah yes, that culture of men within their own ranks that treats women as subordinate and as sexual objects.
Weirdly though, when a trans woman does a photoshoot for Playboy treating women as sexual objects Jones thinks "it's just stunning."
Back in those heady days of 2015, of course, Jones was somewhat conflicted. Literally one week he was writing in the Guardian that TERFs are the enemy because they don't think trans women are female and the following week's article was Why more men should fight for women’s rights.
Hmm, how does Jones square the two stances?
"Before assessing how men can best speak out in support of women, it’s worth looking at the scale of gender oppression. The statistics reveal what looks like a campaign of terror. According to the World Health Organisation, over a third of women globally have suffered violence from a partner or sexual violence from another man...misery inflicted by men against women on a mass scale. [my italics]"
So, why on earth would you then want to allow the risk of letting self identifying men into female safe spaces? That doesn't make any sense.
"And then there’s the economic side of it," Jones continues. "The International Monetary Fund’s Christine Lagarde describes “an insidious conspiracy” against women through laws, varying in scale across the world, that prevent women from working. Women are disproportionately concentrated in the lowest paid, most insecure and often most demeaning forms of work; they also do the vast majority of unpaid housework and childcare. The oppression of women is comprehensive indeed. [my italics]"
So how exactly would letting men self identify as women help that inequality? Surely biological men self identifying will skew data and falsely give an impression that (biological) women are becoming more equal?
How will biological men self identifying as women alter the burden of childcare...you do know they can't have babies? The prevention of women working surely includes trans women taking the jobs of natal women, right? Like women's officer for the Labour Party?
"But how do men speak out about a form of oppression from which they benefit? Take this column. It is inherently problematic. There is no shortage of men offering their opinions on, well, everything. It is mostly men representing the nation and passing laws: about 80% of MPs are men."
Oh but it won't always be like that, Owen, if we have more Lily Madigans, Sophie Cooks, Heather Petos....
Before we know it our parliament will see the end of silly gender based divisions.
"A study in 2012 found that male journalists were behind 78% of all front page articles, and 84% of those mentioned or quoted in lead pieces were men."
Clearly we also need transgender women journalists to redress this imbalance.
" The national debate is shaped by men; issues are prioritised by men and the prism through which they are analysed is decided by men. What a farce it would be if men began to dominate the debate about men’s oppression of women. [my italics]"
Ha ha ha ha ha...Oh Jones is serious. I can never tell whether his transgender (and columns on women) pieces are satire or not. He just goes on and on with this cognitive dissonance:
"Indeed, there can be a perverse irony involved in men speaking out in support of women. As the US sociologist Kris Macomber has put it, men are “members of the dominant group; they have access to social and institutional power that women lack”. In other words, their support for feminism is useful for the very thing feminism is struggling against – their power. Feminists have often expressed their frustration to me that men are applauded for saying what women have said for generations. [my italics]"
Does that include women who used to be men? Surely it should.
"And then there are the men who elect themselves “feminists” as a way of granting themselves a certain type of coolness [yeah, that's me], or making themselves more attractive to women [yeah, that's me] or wearing a dress and calling themselves Chelsea: “Look how sensitive and caring I am – I’m even a feminist!”"
Yep, this is written by the same Owen Jones that links to all those pieces by trans activists called Munroe and Paris.
"Sexism is rife on the left – as it is everywhere in society – but the danger is that leftwing men may decide they cannot possibly be sexist, even as they interrupt a woman to assert their feminism. One leftwing feminist tells me she can work out a man’s attitude to women in five minutes: “Do they interrupt you? Do they listen to you? Do they presume they know more than you? Do they think that saying they're a woman means they know what it's like being a woman? [my italics]”
My goodness, how times have changed in Owen Jones's columns. Just like how he once campaigned against Page 3 glamour models but now finds Munroe Bergdorf's Playboy shoot "stunning." No, I will not stop repeating it. I found it stunning that he found it stunning.
"Men are so accustomed to various privileges – such as automatically being taken more seriously – that they are not even aware they exist. That’s why it is so crucial that men listen to women and their experiences, and learn."
Oh you have to laugh. Or cry like a Maybot. How does "men listening to women and their experiences, and learn" square with a week earlier Jones arguing that women who say "a “discussion to be had” over whether trans people are “a social category”, but “trans women are not, by definition, biological females” will be looked back on like 1950s homophobes and racists?
"Yet men will only stop killing, raping, injuring and oppressing women if they change. That means tackling attitudes within their ranks that make possible the objectification of women..."
You mean, like stunning Playboy shoots? Let it go, man.
Jones ends with the rallying cry: "Women’s voices are not heard enough. And when they are heard, they are taken less seriously than men. We have to be humble: to listen and to learn. Unless they're TERFs and transphobes."
Fair enough then.
The fact that women who object to trans women (specifically) having the right to be defined as females are bullied, harassed, doxed, made to feel that they are wrong is especially ironic. As Murphy argues, the fact that transgender is privileged over the needs of women does suggest a misogynistic base.
WOMEN & VIOLENCE
Jones used to write about feminism and women's rights before he saw the light. Back in 2014 he wrote a piece Britain is going backwards on violence against women. In which Jones writes that: "Violence against women is a pandemic, and needs to be treated as such." He's specifically talking about Domestic Violence. He rightly does not fall into the trap of talking about physical violence because DV includes psychological violence too. And Jones's call to arms sounds strangely familiar:
"Women's voices, of course, need to be at the forefront of this campaign. But men have to speak out in solidarity, too, and to confront a culture within their own ranks that treats women as subordinate and as sexual objects. Britain is now going backwards."
Ah yes, that culture of men within their own ranks that treats women as subordinate and as sexual objects.
Munroe Bergdorf's stunning and not sexually objectifying at all Gay Times shoot
Hmm, how does Jones square the two stances?
"Before assessing how men can best speak out in support of women, it’s worth looking at the scale of gender oppression. The statistics reveal what looks like a campaign of terror. According to the World Health Organisation, over a third of women globally have suffered violence from a partner or sexual violence from another man...misery inflicted by men against women on a mass scale. [my italics]"
So, why on earth would you then want to allow the risk of letting self identifying men into female safe spaces? That doesn't make any sense.
"And then there’s the economic side of it," Jones continues. "The International Monetary Fund’s Christine Lagarde describes “an insidious conspiracy” against women through laws, varying in scale across the world, that prevent women from working. Women are disproportionately concentrated in the lowest paid, most insecure and often most demeaning forms of work; they also do the vast majority of unpaid housework and childcare. The oppression of women is comprehensive indeed. [my italics]"
So how exactly would letting men self identify as women help that inequality? Surely biological men self identifying will skew data and falsely give an impression that (biological) women are becoming more equal?
How will biological men self identifying as women alter the burden of childcare...you do know they can't have babies? The prevention of women working surely includes trans women taking the jobs of natal women, right? Like women's officer for the Labour Party?
"But how do men speak out about a form of oppression from which they benefit? Take this column. It is inherently problematic. There is no shortage of men offering their opinions on, well, everything. It is mostly men representing the nation and passing laws: about 80% of MPs are men."
Oh but it won't always be like that, Owen, if we have more Lily Madigans, Sophie Cooks, Heather Petos....
We've perfected robots that can shed human-like tears so why not dare to dream.
Clearly we also need transgender women journalists to redress this imbalance.
" The national debate is shaped by men; issues are prioritised by men and the prism through which they are analysed is decided by men. What a farce it would be if men began to dominate the debate about men’s oppression of women. [my italics]"
Ha ha ha ha ha...Oh Jones is serious. I can never tell whether his transgender (and columns on women) pieces are satire or not. He just goes on and on with this cognitive dissonance:
"Indeed, there can be a perverse irony involved in men speaking out in support of women. As the US sociologist Kris Macomber has put it, men are “members of the dominant group; they have access to social and institutional power that women lack”. In other words, their support for feminism is useful for the very thing feminism is struggling against – their power. Feminists have often expressed their frustration to me that men are applauded for saying what women have said for generations. [my italics]"
Does that include women who used to be men? Surely it should.
"And then there are the men who elect themselves “feminists” as a way of granting themselves a certain type of coolness [yeah, that's me], or making themselves more attractive to women [yeah, that's me] or wearing a dress and calling themselves Chelsea: “Look how sensitive and caring I am – I’m even a feminist!”"
Yep, this is written by the same Owen Jones that links to all those pieces by trans activists called Munroe and Paris.
"Sexism is rife on the left – as it is everywhere in society – but the danger is that leftwing men may decide they cannot possibly be sexist, even as they interrupt a woman to assert their feminism. One leftwing feminist tells me she can work out a man’s attitude to women in five minutes: “Do they interrupt you? Do they listen to you? Do they presume they know more than you? Do they think that saying they're a woman means they know what it's like being a woman? [my italics]”
My goodness, how times have changed in Owen Jones's columns. Just like how he once campaigned against Page 3 glamour models but now finds Munroe Bergdorf's Playboy shoot "stunning." No, I will not stop repeating it. I found it stunning that he found it stunning.
"Men are so accustomed to various privileges – such as automatically being taken more seriously – that they are not even aware they exist. That’s why it is so crucial that men listen to women and their experiences, and learn."
Oh you have to laugh. Or cry like a Maybot. How does "men listening to women and their experiences, and learn" square with a week earlier Jones arguing that women who say "a “discussion to be had” over whether trans people are “a social category”, but “trans women are not, by definition, biological females” will be looked back on like 1950s homophobes and racists?
"Yet men will only stop killing, raping, injuring and oppressing women if they change. That means tackling attitudes within their ranks that make possible the objectification of women..."
You mean, like stunning Playboy shoots? Let it go, man.
Jones ends with the rallying cry: "Women’s voices are not heard enough. And when they are heard, they are taken less seriously than men. We have to be humble: to listen and to learn. Unless they're TERFs and transphobes."
Fair enough then.
Comments
Post a Comment