Why Feminists Are Wrong: How Transsexuals Prove Gender Is Not a Social Construction

By Rosa Lee

There is no available information at this time.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jul 29, 2006
• ISBN: 9781462840786

Rosa Lee

Identifying as a transgender woman, Rosa Lee Klaneski is an advocate for individual rights for all of the queer community. She attended Amherst College where she studied mathematics, physics, and played men’s rugby. She graduated in 2005 from Trinity College in Hartford, CT, with a B.A. in Women, Gender, and Sexuality as the 2005 Presidential Fellow in her discipline, having been honored with the IDP Council Award and the Sicherman Prize. She received her M.A. in Public Policy Analysis from Trinity in 2009. She describes her first book, Why Feminists Are Wrong: How Transsexuals Prove that Gender is not a Social Construction, as “a work of art—a profoundly pro-feminist statement written as an anti-feminist statement using language only a feminist would understand.”

Book preview

WHY FEMINISTS

ARE WRONG

How Transsexuals Prove Gender is not a Social Construction

ROSA LEE

Copyright © 2006 by Rosa Lee.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

This book was printed in the United States of America.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

34131

Contents

(1)

An Inelegant Proof

(2)

A Snapshot of Feminist Weaknesses

(3)

Drugs—A Primer

(4)

The Patriarchitecture

(5)

Why Transgender is Conceptually Difficult

(6)

FGM, PSF, and Intersexuality

(7)

On Bodies

(8)

Why QM Negates PSF

Structures of Hallucinogens

Related to Tryptophan

Chart Disproving that Gender

is a Social Construction

The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable that there were some millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their delight, their folly, their anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely read and write seemed capable of intricate calculations and staggering feats of memory.

From 1984, by George Orwell, ©1950, Harcourt Brace Inc.

INTRODUCTION

This work was originally titled TG, QM, and PSF, which was shorthand for The Transgendered, Quantum Mechanics, and Post-Structuralist Feminism, quite a mouthful without the help of acronyms. However, once I realized I needed to present this to the public, I had to change the name to something that would catch the attention of the feminist academic community.

I knew I needed to write this after I presented one of my shorter works at the National Women’s Studies Association 2004 Conference in Milwaukee. I was presenting on a panel called Lesbians and Trans Boundary Negotiations, and the title of my paper was Queering the Transwoman—Going Beyond Equality of the Two Sexes [sic]. The abstract appearing in the conference literature read: Removing ‘sex’ from our documentation and framing it like race is the first step toward true equality through destabilization and elimination of the category. Transwoman [NWSA typo—should read ‘Transwomen’] suffer under the same patriarchal biological deterministic view that subjugates women, and discussing the value of the queer-theoretic lens is crucial to women’s equality.

I guess that though the typo in the abstract was disturbing, more disturbing was the typo in my name—they had listed me as two distinct people—Rosa Lee—Trinity College and Zachary Ulaneski—Trinity College. (Ulaneski was another typo that should have read Klaneski.) Apparently the NWSA, one of the originators of feminist and anti-patriarchal thought, did not have the technological infrastructure to process a transgendered person taking a woman’s name, but who had not yet adjusted hir documentation to reflect this change.

(I refuse to change my name legally until I can have the M removed from my identification. I do not want it replaced with an F, nor do I want my name to be Rosa Lee but with a male sex. I just want it to say nothing at all and let appropriate government agencies that need to know fill in what they think. I still remember going to the Department of Motor Vehicles to register a car, and on the registration forms that they stamp, there is a space for sex and a checkbox for male or female. So I decided to leave it blank. Everything went fine at the window [I was wearing men’s clothing] and as the very kind woman was reviewing the paperwork, the woman exclaimed, Oh, honey! You forgot to put down that you were a man! And before I could say anything, the clerk checked off the box for me, stamped the paperwork, handed me the yellow form. I was on my way.)

I really liked what NWSA inadvertently did to my paperwork. They gave me two-spirit status—they acknowledged that I was both male and female. I have nothing against NWSA. I love the NWSA, and I love women’s studies. The first time I grasped the methodology of queer studies, I realized that I had been utilizing that position since I was a small child. In fact, the entire reason I wrote this work was because my non-traditional gender expression has allowed me some insight into some weaknesses feminists may not have yet recorded, and I strive to help, not hurt, the aims of feminism.

I consider myself a feminist. This work is not anti-feminist. However, it is anti-post-structuralist-feminist. I truly believe that post-structuralist feminism is a direct byproduct of patriarchal society. It is a baby that the patriarchy left on our doorstep by ringing our bell and running away. In fact, the patriarchy has not only already maximized the viability of the tool, but also discovered its limitations.

(Two of the results of the patriarchy’s use of deconstruction this work discusses are the abusively tight laws regarding the use and sale of certain specific psychedelic drugs, and nuclear proliferation. The patriarchy’s taking of deconstruction of reality to its natural limits did two things—[1] it led to our current understandings of quantum mechanics by deconstructing the particles making up our world, and [2] led to stiff penalties for ingesting tryptamine hallucinogens that deconstruct our human consciousness which interprets these particles.)

Do not stop, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

If our primary tool as feminists for interpretation of reality is a byproduct of oppression instead of a response to oppression, then the more we work towards a post-structuralist ethos the more we become what we hate.

The best example to me is a group like Green Day who started as a punk band in the late 80’s. They sung to disenfranchised youth. The lyrics in She (on 1994’s Dookie) read, Are you locked up in a world that’s been planned out for you? Are you feeling like a social tool without a use? Scream at me until my ears bleed/ I’m taking heed in just for you. Ten years later, they have become an internationally-known super-group flying around in private planes with mansions. Can they still sing to disenfranchised youth? I suppose. But now, because of their success, they have become the wealthy adults that they used to hate.

In the same way, I can say with absolute certainty that feminism has been co-opted by the patriarchy and we are becoming what we hate. Mainstream feminism’s downfall occurred right when we saw ourselves in the mirror, when we saw what we looked like to society at large. It happened when, a long time ago, we said—We aren’t shaving our legs and armpits, and we look like dykes, etc. and began to strive for more mainstream acceptance to achieve our desire for social reconstruction. We used to use our bodies as tools to shape society in the image we wanted, but now that’s changed. We sold out. Right there.

That is the exact moment the patriarchy’s members co-opted our movement. They saw our attack, and knew it had merit. So they did the only thing they could—they raised a giant mirror to show us what we looked like. They said from their comfortable homes with televisions and refrigerators and heat, Stop that camping nonsense and come inside and take a shower! We understand that you’re angry about unequal pay and social injustice. We’ll talk about it later. But come back inside for God’s sake—it’s starting to get cold! And like the children in the study of ontology that we are, we lost a bit of our piss and vinegar in exchange for one night in a soft down comforter and some hot cocoa.

While we slept unaware that single night, the patriarchy’s members turned our camp into a crime scene. They photographed everything we had made. They perfected our language and encoded machines with noise-canceling hardware to create an anti-language that could silence our shouts. Knowing our plans, they planted clues in the still of the night they knew we would later find, believing that we had discovered them. We would learn about those tools (that they had already experimented with) and hence they would always know our next move and be just one step ahead. This is the way of the patriarchy.

Feminists have forgotten the strength of our enemy (and yes, we do have an enemy). The patriarchy’s greatest trick is to make us believe that it does not exist. One element of patriarchy—the image of an omnipotent male God—has caused a lot of problems for society at large. The September 11th attacks may have been carried out by religious fanatics, but our own radical Christian right may just as well have spurred them on. Our relentless fight against overseas Communism is what actually helped the flow of massive amounts of heroin and cocaine on to our streets, addiction to which now threatens a generation of children. Whatever the case may be, we know as feminists we are oppressed.

Our biggest weakness is that we refuse to see the correlation, because it would make us more responsible for our own actions. (One of my ideas is to list all of the corporate sponsors of each television show before we watch it, just like the list of ingredients on a package of food.) We are programmed to forget that since commercial advertisers pay for the television we love, the writers are designing dialogue that will bring together large numbers of certain demographic groups together to view those commercials. This is what feminism has forgotten—the television show is the bait to watch the commercials. (This is why the 1984 Supreme Court was so divided on whether or not the use of VCRs constituted fair use of technology and TV, since it allowed the user to fast-forward through the commercials. The decision in Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios was not unanimous—it was 5-4.)

This work argues that the weakness of feminism is its digression from the scientific method and mathematical principles to analyze reality. The first chapter sets up a mathematical proof that proves the model offered by post-structuralist feminism cannot be correct and that gender is not a social construction. The second offers more criticism of the feminist lens, for the purposes of creating stronger feminist action. The third and fourth offer a metaphorical circuit diagram of the patriarchy—what I like to call the patriarchitecture. The fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters speak to our notion of human bodies, and why the extraordinary ones we encounter cause us so much trouble. The last chapter explains how an application of quantum mechanics to our social science will yield different results than those predicted by post-structuralists.

I think that, by nature, the majority of feminists are angry. (If we weren’t, why would we be making all this noise?) Before this book was conceived, a trusted friend and spiritual advisor asked me my motivations for seeking an education focused in women’s studies. I told this woman it was because I was angry at the inequality in society and I wanted to do my best to change it. I’ll never forget what this person asked me next. This woman said, And what would you do if you woke up tomorrow and you weren’t angry? That stopped me dead in my tracks. I said I didn’t know. I was told that once I had grown more spiritually healthy, I would be motivated by happiness, and not by anger.

I am no longer angry. If you get nothing else out of this book, know that you are a beautiful life-force and you are loved by the cosmos. You have absolutely nothing to fear. Your life and the lives of those around you are progressing exactly as they should be. All I’m offering with this book is a different perspective. Go and reconnect yourself with your spirituality. Remember that society is not real, facts can be manipulated, and the only real truth lies in your own heart. Love yourself and everyone else.

Your sister,

Rosa Lee

 (1)

An Inelegant Proof

The main purpose of this work is to illustrate the diversification of the control wielded by the existing patriarchal structure affecting every thought in the consciousness of every individual regardless of sex and gender that governs our decision-making from the most basic of chemical levels. The patriarchy deliberately planted the philosophical seeds of post-structuralist feminism (PSF)1 to distract feminists from reality’s true nature, duping them into farming an intellectual landscape they believed was their own for nothing more than the future profit of patriarchal feudal overlords. Transgendered individuals are the proof—they alone have the power to not only poison