While I'd moved away from integrating DGR's unique strengths into my own life - I felt totally unwilling to spend my life as an underground militant - I still identify with their ideas more than any analysis and strategy I've come across. After I stopped feeling like I needed to personally defend the ideas (like I did in my Lawrentian columns last year) I stopped being too star-struck and invited Lierre Keith to speak at Lawrence. I had just read The Vegetarian Myth and was very excited about her in particular: her ideas fit in perfectly with my new ideas about perennial polyculture farming and its role in DGR's campaign, and she addresses a lot of the mistakes I've critiqued Derrick for on this blog (all of which I discuss in the review linked above).
I was very disappointed, then, when Lierre's planned appearance turned into a controversial clusterfuck. Her statements about trans people were brought to the attention of many people in activist circles at Lawrence. I was totally taken off guard. Since my interests ran heavily into environmental history, I never read any of the sources Derrick cited about feminism. This was an unfortunate lapse in my political self-education. The congruency of all forms of oppression, hierarchy, and violence is such a central principle of DGR that I took it for granted that "we" opposed all of them, even those that may be obscure, like that experienced by trans people. I was quite disappointed to learn that this was not the case, and honestly completely baffled. These two sentiments have only grown since.
After some deliberation, Greenfire decided to ask Lierre not to come a day before her flight was scheduled to leave. We decided that hosting her in our name, putting her in a position of authority, and inviting her into campus spaces would be a hurtful gesture to the trans members of our community, whom we love and respect.
I suppose it's understandable that DGR was upset by this decision. However, the vitriol and vigor of their response took me off guard. I was initially curious. I took it for granted that I'd made the right choice, since the support in Greenfire and other activist groups, people I love and trust, was essentially unanimous. I also knew that, as a person with cis privilege, I couldn't presume to know what Lierre's presence would have felt like for trans members of our community, and I had to listen to them when they told me. But I also trusted DGR's authors and members to be insightful thinkers and compassionate activists. The discrepancy and confusion inspired me to look further into the issue, and I read several books and articles recommended by a Gender Studies professor at Lawrence. This post is essentially the culmination of that investigation.
In discussions on the facebook post, DGR advocates made it immediately clear that they were neither interested in a reasonable dialogue with people they recently took for allies nor prepared to have a civil conversation about it. They made absurd illogical extensions by way of insult - saying that our decision was "silencing women," that we asked Lierre not to come because she was a feminist, that we were part of the "anti-feminist community" along with 'men's rights activists,' that we were interested in obscuring and perpetuating the violence done to women. They have also demonstrated a scary degree of ideological purism - the whole group has essentially closed ranks and stated that this is the official position of DGR, that there is no room for debate (or trans people interested in being treated respectfully) in DGR, and that anyone who disagrees on this particular issue (in their mind, who disagrees about their interpretation of the ontology of gender) is their enemy.
For a long time, this put me off from engaging any of them in a discussion. I have trepidations about posting this here, even though I'm not sure I'll do anything to make anyone know it's here, because I don't want to experience that whole shitstorm again. However, more recent articles make so many of the same points that I found in the trans literature that it suggests they're intellectually close enough to be reachable. Many of them have expressed a naive bafflement about how the radical feminist analysis is "transphobic" - "no one made comments calling for violence or used slurs against trans folk. No one said they should be denied human rights." The implied question there is a fair one, if you're interested in listening to the answer.
Advancing the notion that gender is a social construct is not inherently offensive (which is to say, radical feminists could choose not to be offensive, and the fact that they don't is itself offensive). As long as you're prepared to acknowledge that these social constructions are deeply internalized and don't treat the internalized gender of cis people as more natural than that of trans people, there's no cause for complaint - if that were the case, then DGR would be right to claim that they "merely disagree" with trans ally feminists. There are a couple of clear ways that this isn't the case, however.
DGR's radical feminism is rooted in a historical tradition rich in active attacks and slander against trans people. Janice Raymond pegged transsexuals as metaphorical rapists:
Radical feminists like the DGR activists arrogantly assume that their analysis of gender is the only way to understand, critique, and undermine patriarchal violence against women. Under that assumption, buying into their ideology is a prerequisite to effective action on behalf of women, so it is a moral imperative to defend and propagate it. The very existence of trans people throws a wrench into the ideology. As I pointed out above, trans and radical feminism are not fundamentally incompatible, but integrating trans perspectives into their belief system would require an intellectual adjustment and a slight disavowal of some beloved historical icons in their movement.
Instead of making those adjustments, radical feminists have chosen the road of "traditional" marriage advocates, climate change deniers, and creationists: carefully cultivated ignorance, science denial, and opposition to the extension of equal rights. Having read a few good trans books (Julia Serano's "Whipping Girl" is by far the best, I found) with an open and respectful mind, the blatant misrepresentations and misunderstandings of trans people's experiences throughout the radfem literature jump out like sore thumbs. Radfem writers consistently claim that trans feminists treat gender as a choice -
Radfems claim late-transitioning trans people as evidence that gender is not an internal, unchanging element of a person's identity. It's a misinterpretation to claim this as evidence of choice, however. Subconscious sex could change over time without any conscious decision about the matter. More commonly, based on Serano's experience, it seems that some trans people struggle to find the gender expression and identity terminology that suits them best. In such cases, nothing about the subconscious sex has changed. As with many homosexuals, late transitioning trans people may simply have remained "in the closet" until they found a supportive community, financial security, and the personal courage to move forward.
In denying the existence of what Serano terms "subconscious sex," radical feminists prevent themselves from grasping what being transgender means. Watching them fumble with these concepts is sort of entertaining. In radfem analysis, man and woman gender and masculinity and femininity are essentially the same thing, so they conflate a female subconscious sex (ie, identifying as a woman) with "identifying with" (ie, feeling an affinity to) femininity. Trans writers like Feinberg and Serano make it eminently clear that masculinity and femininity are not the same as subconscious sex and they covary independently of each other. Trans women don't transition in order to "appropriate oppression," to be objectified by men, or to behave in stereotypically feminine ways. Most trans women don't appreciate objectification and sexualization, and many reject stereotypically feminine behaviors and appearances for many of the same reasons a radical feminist might. Men who are interested only in wearing makeup and high heels are cross dressers, not transsexuals.
The thing that's really offensive and harmful about the DGR analysis, however, is that they in fact do advocate against trans rights. In a turn of phrase eerily similar to Christian bigots claiming that allowing gays to marry will destroy marriage, Elizabeth Hungerford claimed that "the legal reforms being enacted on behalf of trans* people are anything but respectful of women's needs - they deliberately override and disregard them." This echoes a familiar refrain: trans activists are anti-feminists, their rights are in opposition to women's rights, and violence against women grows in proportion to the respect and quality of life trans people receive. The trans rights movement is essentially advocating for full legal protection of the human rights of everyone, regardless of gender expression. Insofar as DGR doesn't fully support that agenda, they are saying trans people should be denied their human rights. Hungerford actually went so far as to write a letter to the UN Commission on the Status of Women asking them not to recognize trans people as such.
Because they see their particular interpretation of gender as the crux of feminist activism, radical feminists create a false dichotomy between liberal trans feminists and radical "trans-critical" feminists (in this paragraph I'm using radical in the sense Lierre explains in her liberal v. radical discussion, as opposed to the use tied to radical feminism itself). Delilah Campbell explores this dichotomy at length. She focuses on the liberal "identity politics" aspect of the trans movement, and the arrogance of the radfem position leads her to conflate trans feminism and liberalism:
It baffles me that DGR's otherwise intelligent and insightful thinkers can believe trans feminism and radical feminism are inherently incompatible. I can only see this as an example of intellectual inertia, rigidity, and ideological groupthink. To me, the solutions are several and obvious.
Humans are born expressing huge variability on a number of traits associated with sex and grow to express hugely varied and evolving combinations of personality inclinations. Our culture imposes gender norms and forces body and mind to conform with its standardized gender binary. As radical feminists rightly point out, this is a hierarchical model in our deeply misogynistic culture. Our culture takes individuals with various combinations of traits and forces them to embody, internalize, and reenact one of two specific combinations of traits: boys with boy parts, boy hormones, boy gender performance, and male privilege, and the opposite for girls. Women suffer in this system by design - they are its intended lower class. Women's place on the bottom end of the hierarchy is embodied in numerous material institutions - gendered division of labor, rape culture, and economic discrimination, among many others.
As the system uses violence to impose its gender norms, it targets most those who are least normative - trans people. (As Hungerford rightly points out, society oppresses transsexuals and other strongly non-normative individuals in the same ways, insofar as it can't tell them apart). Trans people are a sort of underclass, the "untouchables" of the gender hierarchy. They are so severely discriminated against that many can't even find their way into the bottom rung occupied by women. Trans women are particularly oppressed, since they face both the violence that enforces gender normativity and the violence directed systemically at women. The solution proposed by radical feminists still applies: dismantle the gender hierarchy. Stop it from cookie-cuttering away individual variation and stop it from creating material oppression based on gender class.
There! Not so hard, is it? It's radical, it's materialist, it treats gender as a social construct (though I find this answer simplistic personally and prefer Fausto-Sterling's body-culture interactive model), it is "a politically [useful] analysis [. . . that] illuminates the mechanics of gendered oppression," and it respects trans people and the oppression they experience.
(Parenthetically, the discussion of neuroscience brought in by Campbell is a red herring. It makes no difference whether the inclinations to different social constructs of gender are born hardwired into our brains or whether they develop over time through habitual repetition in a complex interaction with environmental cues we can't hope to understand. In both cases, the process of gender internalization happens to cis and transgender individuals in fundamentally the same way, and the gender identity produced in each case has the same ontology and the same validity.)
Theoretically, DGR is defined by its commitment to effective action against environmental destruction and oppression. It is a rapid response to an emergency, willing to make some sacrifices if necessary to achieve its overall goals. Practically, DGR occupies a place on the ideas market where extremism, ideological purity, and stubbornness for their own sake win converts and sell books. As this controversy has evolved, it's become clear that the two are at odds in a way that's tearing the movement apart, derailing its momentum, and severing ties with most of its plausible allies. Aric McBay reports leaving DGR after Lierre, Derrick, and other members refused to adopt a trans inclusive policy. Many others, including a large portion of DGR Portland's membership, have followed his lead. Lawrence is not the only venue to cancel DGR speakers - several anarchist libraries have done the same, including the Flying Brick and Bluestockings - and there is currently an active campaign trying to get every venue on Rachel Ivey's (one of DGR's most aggressive on the topic) speaking tour to cancel her event - so far they're up to 3 of 6.
For the sake of this one irrelevant, anachronistic, and uninformed belief, the DGR leaders are preparing to sacrifice the only radical environmental campaign with a commitment to effective militant action. That they aren't willing to make the intellectual leap that so many of the allies they presumably respect (like Aric) have made raises the question: how much do they really care?
Sources:
Campbell, Delilah. "Who owns gender?"
http://dgrnewsservice.org/2013/05/12/delilah-campbell-who-owns-gender/
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. (2000). Sexing the body, gender politics and the construction of sexuality. Basic Books.
Hungerford, Elizabeth. "A feminist critique of 'cisgender'"
http://liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/a-feminist-critique-of-cisgender/
Hungerford, Elizabeth. "2012 Letter to the UN on the Status of Women"
http://sexnotgender.com/gender-identity-legislation-and-the-erosion-of-sex-based-legal-protections-for-females/2012-submission-to-the-un-commission-on-the-status-of-women-the-legal-category-of-sex-and-understanding-the-status-of-women/
Keith, L. (2009). The vegetarian myth, food, justice, and sustainability. PM Press.
Kranz, Adam. "Why Lierre Keith is not speaking at Lawrence" https://www.facebook.com/notes/greenfire/why-lierre-keith-is-not-speaking-at-lawrence/10151564752024605
McBay, Aric. "DGR and Transphobia"
http://www.aricmcbay.org/2013/05/14/dgr-and-transphobia/
Scofield, Be. "How Derrick Jensen's Deep Green Resistance supports transphobia"
http://www.decolonizingyoga.com/how-derrick-jensens-deep-green-resistance-supports-transphobia/
Serano, Julia. (2007). Whipping girl, a transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity. Berkeley: Seal Pr.
Stanford Encylcopedia of Philosophy, Feminist Perspectives on Trans Issues http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-trans/
Stryker, Susan. "My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage"
http://www.annelawrence.com/mywords.html
"Vanillaxlight." "Lierre Keith is blatantly transphobic"
http://vanillaxlight.tumblr.com/post/3748949864/lierre-keith-is-blatantly-transphobic
I was very disappointed, then, when Lierre's planned appearance turned into a controversial clusterfuck. Her statements about trans people were brought to the attention of many people in activist circles at Lawrence. I was totally taken off guard. Since my interests ran heavily into environmental history, I never read any of the sources Derrick cited about feminism. This was an unfortunate lapse in my political self-education. The congruency of all forms of oppression, hierarchy, and violence is such a central principle of DGR that I took it for granted that "we" opposed all of them, even those that may be obscure, like that experienced by trans people. I was quite disappointed to learn that this was not the case, and honestly completely baffled. These two sentiments have only grown since.
After some deliberation, Greenfire decided to ask Lierre not to come a day before her flight was scheduled to leave. We decided that hosting her in our name, putting her in a position of authority, and inviting her into campus spaces would be a hurtful gesture to the trans members of our community, whom we love and respect.
I suppose it's understandable that DGR was upset by this decision. However, the vitriol and vigor of their response took me off guard. I was initially curious. I took it for granted that I'd made the right choice, since the support in Greenfire and other activist groups, people I love and trust, was essentially unanimous. I also knew that, as a person with cis privilege, I couldn't presume to know what Lierre's presence would have felt like for trans members of our community, and I had to listen to them when they told me. But I also trusted DGR's authors and members to be insightful thinkers and compassionate activists. The discrepancy and confusion inspired me to look further into the issue, and I read several books and articles recommended by a Gender Studies professor at Lawrence. This post is essentially the culmination of that investigation.
In discussions on the facebook post, DGR advocates made it immediately clear that they were neither interested in a reasonable dialogue with people they recently took for allies nor prepared to have a civil conversation about it. They made absurd illogical extensions by way of insult - saying that our decision was "silencing women," that we asked Lierre not to come because she was a feminist, that we were part of the "anti-feminist community" along with 'men's rights activists,' that we were interested in obscuring and perpetuating the violence done to women. They have also demonstrated a scary degree of ideological purism - the whole group has essentially closed ranks and stated that this is the official position of DGR, that there is no room for debate (or trans people interested in being treated respectfully) in DGR, and that anyone who disagrees on this particular issue (in their mind, who disagrees about their interpretation of the ontology of gender) is their enemy.
For a long time, this put me off from engaging any of them in a discussion. I have trepidations about posting this here, even though I'm not sure I'll do anything to make anyone know it's here, because I don't want to experience that whole shitstorm again. However, more recent articles make so many of the same points that I found in the trans literature that it suggests they're intellectually close enough to be reachable. Many of them have expressed a naive bafflement about how the radical feminist analysis is "transphobic" - "no one made comments calling for violence or used slurs against trans folk. No one said they should be denied human rights." The implied question there is a fair one, if you're interested in listening to the answer.
Advancing the notion that gender is a social construct is not inherently offensive (which is to say, radical feminists could choose not to be offensive, and the fact that they don't is itself offensive). As long as you're prepared to acknowledge that these social constructions are deeply internalized and don't treat the internalized gender of cis people as more natural than that of trans people, there's no cause for complaint - if that were the case, then DGR would be right to claim that they "merely disagree" with trans ally feminists. There are a couple of clear ways that this isn't the case, however.
DGR's radical feminism is rooted in a historical tradition rich in active attacks and slander against trans people. Janice Raymond pegged transsexuals as metaphorical rapists:
"All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves. However, the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist violates women's sexuality and spirit, as well. Rape, although it is usually done by force, can also be accomplished by deception"Other radical feminists claim that "'trans' is a myth and cult", that trans women are "simply men, trying to steal our [lesbians'] identity and culture." The assertion that trans women are some sort of undercover agent of the patriarchy, trying to infiltrate the women's bathroom to take the last shred of safety from women is absurd, but it's also dangerous. The defensive reaction it provokes puts trans women between the bigotry and oppression of society at large and the rejection and vilification of the people they naturally turn to for help and support - feminist activists - into a place where they are accepted by no one. Filisa Vistima committed suicide in part because of the hatred of transsexuals expressed in her Lesbian community.
Radical feminists like the DGR activists arrogantly assume that their analysis of gender is the only way to understand, critique, and undermine patriarchal violence against women. Under that assumption, buying into their ideology is a prerequisite to effective action on behalf of women, so it is a moral imperative to defend and propagate it. The very existence of trans people throws a wrench into the ideology. As I pointed out above, trans and radical feminism are not fundamentally incompatible, but integrating trans perspectives into their belief system would require an intellectual adjustment and a slight disavowal of some beloved historical icons in their movement.
Instead of making those adjustments, radical feminists have chosen the road of "traditional" marriage advocates, climate change deniers, and creationists: carefully cultivated ignorance, science denial, and opposition to the extension of equal rights. Having read a few good trans books (Julia Serano's "Whipping Girl" is by far the best, I found) with an open and respectful mind, the blatant misrepresentations and misunderstandings of trans people's experiences throughout the radfem literature jump out like sore thumbs. Radfem writers consistently claim that trans feminists treat gender as a choice -
"Eliminating gender assignments, by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation"- while the trans literature I read makes quite the opposite claim. The gender-normative pressures of our culture (which radical feminists are quite familiar with) make tragically many trans youth wish they could just choose not to be trans.
Radfems claim late-transitioning trans people as evidence that gender is not an internal, unchanging element of a person's identity. It's a misinterpretation to claim this as evidence of choice, however. Subconscious sex could change over time without any conscious decision about the matter. More commonly, based on Serano's experience, it seems that some trans people struggle to find the gender expression and identity terminology that suits them best. In such cases, nothing about the subconscious sex has changed. As with many homosexuals, late transitioning trans people may simply have remained "in the closet" until they found a supportive community, financial security, and the personal courage to move forward.
In denying the existence of what Serano terms "subconscious sex," radical feminists prevent themselves from grasping what being transgender means. Watching them fumble with these concepts is sort of entertaining. In radfem analysis, man and woman gender and masculinity and femininity are essentially the same thing, so they conflate a female subconscious sex (ie, identifying as a woman) with "identifying with" (ie, feeling an affinity to) femininity. Trans writers like Feinberg and Serano make it eminently clear that masculinity and femininity are not the same as subconscious sex and they covary independently of each other. Trans women don't transition in order to "appropriate oppression," to be objectified by men, or to behave in stereotypically feminine ways. Most trans women don't appreciate objectification and sexualization, and many reject stereotypically feminine behaviors and appearances for many of the same reasons a radical feminist might. Men who are interested only in wearing makeup and high heels are cross dressers, not transsexuals.
The thing that's really offensive and harmful about the DGR analysis, however, is that they in fact do advocate against trans rights. In a turn of phrase eerily similar to Christian bigots claiming that allowing gays to marry will destroy marriage, Elizabeth Hungerford claimed that "the legal reforms being enacted on behalf of trans* people are anything but respectful of women's needs - they deliberately override and disregard them." This echoes a familiar refrain: trans activists are anti-feminists, their rights are in opposition to women's rights, and violence against women grows in proportion to the respect and quality of life trans people receive. The trans rights movement is essentially advocating for full legal protection of the human rights of everyone, regardless of gender expression. Insofar as DGR doesn't fully support that agenda, they are saying trans people should be denied their human rights. Hungerford actually went so far as to write a letter to the UN Commission on the Status of Women asking them not to recognize trans people as such.
Because they see their particular interpretation of gender as the crux of feminist activism, radical feminists create a false dichotomy between liberal trans feminists and radical "trans-critical" feminists (in this paragraph I'm using radical in the sense Lierre explains in her liberal v. radical discussion, as opposed to the use tied to radical feminism itself). Delilah Campbell explores this dichotomy at length. She focuses on the liberal "identity politics" aspect of the trans movement, and the arrogance of the radfem position leads her to conflate trans feminism and liberalism:
Radical feminists, then, would actually agree with the trans activists who say that gender is not just a superficial veneer which is easily stripped away. But they don’t agree that if something is ‘deep’ then it cannot be socially constructed, but must instead be attributed to innate biological characteristics. For feminists, the effects of lived social experience are not trivial, and you cannot transcend them by an individual act of will. Rather you have to change the nature of social experience through collective political action to change society.As a radical largely trained in political thought by Derrick Jensen, I'm all for radical critiques of liberal action and analysis. Insofar as trans activists have made such tactical and analytical mistakes, it may be helpful to offer a radical critique. But Campbell errs in assuming that trans inclusivity is incompatible with such an analysis. The appropriate alternative to liberal trans feminism is radical trans feminism, not radical trans-critical feminism.
It baffles me that DGR's otherwise intelligent and insightful thinkers can believe trans feminism and radical feminism are inherently incompatible. I can only see this as an example of intellectual inertia, rigidity, and ideological groupthink. To me, the solutions are several and obvious.
Humans are born expressing huge variability on a number of traits associated with sex and grow to express hugely varied and evolving combinations of personality inclinations. Our culture imposes gender norms and forces body and mind to conform with its standardized gender binary. As radical feminists rightly point out, this is a hierarchical model in our deeply misogynistic culture. Our culture takes individuals with various combinations of traits and forces them to embody, internalize, and reenact one of two specific combinations of traits: boys with boy parts, boy hormones, boy gender performance, and male privilege, and the opposite for girls. Women suffer in this system by design - they are its intended lower class. Women's place on the bottom end of the hierarchy is embodied in numerous material institutions - gendered division of labor, rape culture, and economic discrimination, among many others.
As the system uses violence to impose its gender norms, it targets most those who are least normative - trans people. (As Hungerford rightly points out, society oppresses transsexuals and other strongly non-normative individuals in the same ways, insofar as it can't tell them apart). Trans people are a sort of underclass, the "untouchables" of the gender hierarchy. They are so severely discriminated against that many can't even find their way into the bottom rung occupied by women. Trans women are particularly oppressed, since they face both the violence that enforces gender normativity and the violence directed systemically at women. The solution proposed by radical feminists still applies: dismantle the gender hierarchy. Stop it from cookie-cuttering away individual variation and stop it from creating material oppression based on gender class.
There! Not so hard, is it? It's radical, it's materialist, it treats gender as a social construct (though I find this answer simplistic personally and prefer Fausto-Sterling's body-culture interactive model), it is "a politically [useful] analysis [. . . that] illuminates the mechanics of gendered oppression," and it respects trans people and the oppression they experience.
(Parenthetically, the discussion of neuroscience brought in by Campbell is a red herring. It makes no difference whether the inclinations to different social constructs of gender are born hardwired into our brains or whether they develop over time through habitual repetition in a complex interaction with environmental cues we can't hope to understand. In both cases, the process of gender internalization happens to cis and transgender individuals in fundamentally the same way, and the gender identity produced in each case has the same ontology and the same validity.)
Theoretically, DGR is defined by its commitment to effective action against environmental destruction and oppression. It is a rapid response to an emergency, willing to make some sacrifices if necessary to achieve its overall goals. Practically, DGR occupies a place on the ideas market where extremism, ideological purity, and stubbornness for their own sake win converts and sell books. As this controversy has evolved, it's become clear that the two are at odds in a way that's tearing the movement apart, derailing its momentum, and severing ties with most of its plausible allies. Aric McBay reports leaving DGR after Lierre, Derrick, and other members refused to adopt a trans inclusive policy. Many others, including a large portion of DGR Portland's membership, have followed his lead. Lawrence is not the only venue to cancel DGR speakers - several anarchist libraries have done the same, including the Flying Brick and Bluestockings - and there is currently an active campaign trying to get every venue on Rachel Ivey's (one of DGR's most aggressive on the topic) speaking tour to cancel her event - so far they're up to 3 of 6.
For the sake of this one irrelevant, anachronistic, and uninformed belief, the DGR leaders are preparing to sacrifice the only radical environmental campaign with a commitment to effective militant action. That they aren't willing to make the intellectual leap that so many of the allies they presumably respect (like Aric) have made raises the question: how much do they really care?
Sources:
Campbell, Delilah. "Who owns gender?"
http://dgrnewsservice.org/2013/05/12/delilah-campbell-who-owns-gender/
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. (2000). Sexing the body, gender politics and the construction of sexuality. Basic Books.
Hungerford, Elizabeth. "A feminist critique of 'cisgender'"
http://liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/a-feminist-critique-of-cisgender/
Hungerford, Elizabeth. "2012 Letter to the UN on the Status of Women"
http://sexnotgender.com/gender-identity-legislation-and-the-erosion-of-sex-based-legal-protections-for-females/2012-submission-to-the-un-commission-on-the-status-of-women-the-legal-category-of-sex-and-understanding-the-status-of-women/
Keith, L. (2009). The vegetarian myth, food, justice, and sustainability. PM Press.
Kranz, Adam. "Why Lierre Keith is not speaking at Lawrence" https://www.facebook.com/notes/greenfire/why-lierre-keith-is-not-speaking-at-lawrence/10151564752024605
McBay, Aric. "DGR and Transphobia"
http://www.aricmcbay.org/2013/05/14/dgr-and-transphobia/
Scofield, Be. "How Derrick Jensen's Deep Green Resistance supports transphobia"
http://www.decolonizingyoga.com/how-derrick-jensens-deep-green-resistance-supports-transphobia/
Serano, Julia. (2007). Whipping girl, a transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity. Berkeley: Seal Pr.
Stanford Encylcopedia of Philosophy, Feminist Perspectives on Trans Issues http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-trans/
Stryker, Susan. "My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage"
http://www.annelawrence.com/mywords.html
"Vanillaxlight." "Lierre Keith is blatantly transphobic"
http://vanillaxlight.tumblr.com/post/3748949864/lierre-keith-is-blatantly-transphobic
