I’ve hid this quite well, but it only seems fair to communicate a bias that I have. I’m a walking, talking stereotype. I admit that I hate men. I couldn’t understand why men would behave as horribly as they did, for as many centuries as they did. At one point, I jumped the shark and swam in the deep end of the cynicism that is female supremacy. Men became so disgusting and grotesque that I could barely stand to look at them, hear about them, or be near them.
It reminds me of the time that I once thought all parents were inherently evil just for having children; I was completely cynical about the possibility for any parent to not fuck up their kids.
These types of attitudes are strangely therapeutic if you have complex trauma, since they act as a defense mechanism against the psychological pain, but they have no basis in the reality that is this universe. At some point I had to start writing and reconcile my feelings and values, and develop practical solutions. That meant recognizing that, although these attitudes have provided psychic armor against male violence and lesbophobia, they don’t offer practical, material, actionable solutions to the oppression I and other women face. I’m also not comfortable with becoming an oppressor.
But through studying trauma therapy many years ago, I already knew the potential of the oppressed to become the oppressor, of the abused to become the abuser. The key lies in the abused’s denial of the abuser’s humanity, since recognizing that fact presents a truth about the complexity of humanity that is so unbearable, we would rather ignore it.
Part of being a transhumanist anarchist means recognizing that we are all of the same atoms, and those atoms are atoms of the stars. Our brains are semi-self-aware super computers with sensory inputs — not terribly different from computers. Computers, meanwhile, are at about the same level of intelligence as insects — in fact, scientists have already created mecha-bees to aid bee colonies in crisis. Even if I am convinced for a second by self-labeled radical lesbians that the Y chromosome is some kind of self-replicating virus, that male arms are literally rape-arms and penises are literally torture devices, confirming all that is wrong is male, I yet recognize that we are also the same in many respects: we bleed the same blood.
[SPOILER ALERT] As implied in the previous post involving the fictional Female Singularians (go read that post) — which is partly my own dark heart and partly a satire about the worst aspects of queer and trans-eugenics-politics (in case anyone didn’t get that) — their pure misandry presented a conflict with their own anarchist praxis, a hypocrisy with which they were apparently comfortable. Is that fascism? Is that “national” anarchism? Whatever it is, the reader should ask themselves:
If the Female Singularians were hierarchical towards men, even when those men had never raped a woman, it would seem that this guaranteed the birth of female supremacy. They had to have decided that men were genetically (inherently) predisposed to rape, but not only that. As contrasted by the Neo-Radical Feminists, who simply augmented men into better beings through either genetic engineering or social engineering depending on whatever proved to be more effective (I’ll leave it to the reader to decide), the Female Singularians worked to eradicate men on sight, even if it was as nonviolently as possible.
It would seem that Female Singularians and the Neo-Radical Feminists ultimately have conflicting goals. Would this drive them to war over protecting men?
More crucially, how could the Female Singularians not have sown the seeds for the eradication of their own anarchist equality among each other? Starting for example, with the new converts. If those male-converts stayed, would they not be treated as inferior to the women born women? Their past lives and the recentness of their past lives as men could make them suspect and more gross by comparison. The whole thing is tenuous enough, since what if the converted-men could simply conspire to change sex back to male? Would the Female Singularians have to create another layer of hierarchy among themselves just to ensure that no male-convert traitor gets their way — and how much repression would it take to maintain this? How could they keep up their crusade, if by winning they would potentially have a problem of dealing with a majority of male-converts, rendering the Female Singularians an elite minority and state dictatorship? If the Female Singularians allow male-converts to return to their original sex, their mission would surely fail, and they should arguably give up.
And wouldn’t these Female Singularians become so traumatized by their forced sex conversion that they suffer mental illnesses, moral panics, and power addictions that ruin their relationships with even their closest women-born sisters? How could they psychologically handle it? Coupled with a propensity towards naivete about female human nature, some of them would wind up shocked at the betrayal of their own sisters. I doubt their “anarchist” society would last. They might as well become Neo-Radical Feminists instead!
If lesbianism replaced heteronormativity in the Female Singularity world, would the straight women simply remain celibate? Would straight women even want to join an all-women land, particularly permanently? Is lesbianism a choice in that society, or a requirement? In my fictional Female Separatist world, the Female Singularians would have to find some way of rationalizing heterosexual women’s desires, since it produces cognitive dissonance to see superior beings loving inferior beings. What is wrong with them? They would think.
In the real world, many radical lesbian texts rely upon sexuality as a social construction which can be deconstructed and changed if you will it; this allows for lesbians to view all women as potentially available: a comforting thought in the short run, but a disappointment in the long run. While it is true that many lesbians and bisexual women stay in the closet, and while critiques of the sexologists that framed our discourse are necessary, being gay is never a choice. It’s a blessing that hurts, in our current society at least. This is why the fantasy of lesbianism being a form of enlightenment is so alluring. It goes against everything we were ever told about ourselves as lesbians, both before and after we realized our lesbianism.
There is a dark side to belief that lesbianism is a choice. It allows people to moralize those choices, and present the choice to be lesbian as something that makes you either superior or inferior, since morality is all about deciding whether to treat people as less than human or more than human. I don’t know why the choice of whom you sleep with is moralized, but many, many other things that are perceived as choices will and do obtain a moral element. Who you ally yourself with will determine the outcome of that, and to me, my lesbianism is simply not on the table for discussion.
Many of the adherents to “lesbianism is a choice” deny awareness that they were ever lesbian before coming out, insisting they were some form of heterosexual (whenever I say heterosexual, I also refer to bisexual). For myself, when I fully accepted I was a lesbian, I also realized that nothing about me had changed at all. I was the same person I’d always been. Far be it from me to read people’s minds, but thinking that coming out as a lesbian is some great transformative experience seems like a trick of the mind. On the other hand, coming out as a lesbian is an experience on its own — a horrible, messy, confused, lonely, agonizing experience, and a time of processing the past with fresh eyes. But at no time do I think it is an experience akin to metamorphosis: it’s more like putting on glasses for the first time or seeing your reflection in the mirror for the first time. You were the same person since the day you were born. There was no need to perform you; you simply were you, all along, waiting to be discovered. Instead, I think Radical Feminism — which many lesbians seem to adore — deserves credit for radical transformation of women’s sexual desires, and I do believe that it can help women overcome internalized lesbophobia just as much as internalized misogyny.
Anyway, it seems inevitable that hierarchies would be formed within the female separatist groups if they gave in to the notion of female superiority, which would be necessary to justify the forced conversions of men into women. These forced conversions would pave the way for further forced conversions, such as heterosexual women into lesbians.
The other problem with the Female Singularians would be their singular focus. Why men only? It is strange that white people, straight people, abled people, and so on, also did not reach the chopping block so clearly as men did. Why would their struggles be primary by any objective standards? It would seem out of place not to mention racism at least. And how then would they even organize effectively, if their own members were constantly running afoul of not ticking all the right boxes? Why wouldn’t the Female Singularians not also be sowing the seeds for rivaling singularities, like Black Singularians who could be just as justified? The Female Singularians will reap their own destruction.
Of course, the other kinder, gentler alternative would be for those Female Singularians to give up imperialist attempts to conquer the universe and just stick with their own kind. They could follow the example of the simple female separatists who simply wanted to be around women and especially other lesbians. Maybe this trend would encourage women to reproduce through non-male means anyway, encouraged by a desire to belong and maybe suspicious of the outcome of male children — so, some amount of cynicism or man-hate is okay, as long as it doesn’t become institutionalized. Even separatism and pride (lesbian nationalism) doesn’t in of itself lead to tyranny, fancy that.
Anyway, please remember that this is all fiction I’m writing about.
I’m still a man-hater sometimes. But I understand that the reason it exists, is to provide a strong counterbalance against the woman-hating part of me which I internalized by living as a woman in this woman-hating world. I practice internal anarchy just as much as I practice anarchism as a philosophy, so as long as this part of me doesn’t run the show, then she’s one helpful member of my colorful personal pantheon of perspectives.