Andrew Sullivan, the Thinking Gay Man’s Milo Yiannopoulos, Spews Praise of TERFs

I always knew Andy was kind of a stick up the ass right wing POS but I didn’t realize how much of a bigot the lad actually is.

Time for a new acronym for nasty right wing gay men who are anti-trans bigots

From New York Magazine:

The Nature of Sex

By Andrew Sullivan
Feb. 1, 2019

It might be a sign of the end-times, or simply a function of our currently scrambled politics, but earlier this week, four feminist activists — three from a self-described radical feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front — appeared on a panel at the Heritage Foundation. Together they argued that sex was fundamentally biological, and not socially constructed, and that there is a difference between women and trans women that needs to be respected. For this, they were given a rousing round of applause by the Trump supporters, religious-right members, natural law theorists, and conservative intellectuals who comprised much of the crowd. If you think I’ve just discovered an extremely potent strain of weed and am hallucinating, check out the video of the event.

I’ve no doubt that many will see these women as anti-trans bigots, or appeasers of homophobes and transphobes, or simply deranged publicity seekers. (The moderator, Ryan Anderson, said they were speaking at Heritage because no similar liberal or leftist institution would give them space or time to make their case.) And it’s true that trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs, as they are known, are one minority that is actively not tolerated by the LGBTQ establishment, and often demonized by the gay community. It’s also true that they can be inflammatory, offensive, and obsessive. But what interests me is their underlying argument, which deserves to be thought through, regardless of our political allegiances, sexual identities, or tribal attachments. Because it’s an argument that seems to me to contain a seed of truth. Hence, I suspect, the intensity of the urge to suppress it.

The title of the Heritage panel conversation — “The Inequality of the Equality Act” — refers to the main legislative goal for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ lobbbying group in the US. The proposed Equality Act — a federal nondiscrimination bill that has been introduced multiple times over the years in various formulations — would add “gender identity” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rendering that class protected by anti-discrimination laws, just as sex is. The TERF argument is that viewing “gender identity” as interchangeable with sex, and abolishing clear biological distinctions between men and women, is actually a threat to lesbian identity and even existence — because it calls into question who is actually a woman, and includes in that category human beings who have been or are biologically male, and remain attracted to women. How can lesbianism be redefined as having sex with someone who has a penis, they argue, without undermining the concept of lesbianism as a whole? “Lesbians are female homosexuals, women who love women,” one of the speakers, Julia Beck, wrote last December, “but our spaces, resources and communities are on the verge of extinction.”

If this sounds like a massive overreach, consider the fact that the proposed Equality Act — with 201 co-sponsors in the last Congress — isn’t simply a ban on discriminating against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodations (an idea with a lot of support in the American public). It includes and rests upon a critical redefinition of what is known as “sex.” We usually think of this as simply male or female, on biological grounds (as opposed to a more cultural notion of gender). But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

If you really feel the urge to read the rest of Andy’s bullshit it can be found at:

5 Responses to “Andrew Sullivan, the Thinking Gay Man’s Milo Yiannopoulos, Spews Praise of TERFs”

  1. edith pilkington Says:

    Sari Reisner insists that congenital sex differences are so pronounced that only those who were assigned male at birth have paraurethral glands.

    Reisner’s pure armchair philosopher’s speculation:

    “Epidemiologically, prostate cancer cannot occur among people assigned a female sex at birth given the anatomical absence of a prostate . . .”
    See Reisner’s “Using a Two-Step Method to Measure Transgender Identity . . . ”

    From an actual case studies of a female assigned, and others, of prostate/Skene’s gland development:

    ““these glands resemble strongly the male prostate glands before puberty. They remain immature throughout life from the fetal period up to advanced age obviously because of a lack of an androgenic stimulus. Before puberty periurethral glands strongly resemble the “male” prostate, the periurethral glands of both sexes at birth”.

    It is well known that women and people w/ PCOS are much more likely to have well developed Skene’s glands as a result of relatively large amounts of circulating androgens. Those w/ CAH can and have developed actual prostates, so can those assigned female who were born with CAIS.

    Prostate cancer incidence in the male population is 11%. In those who are post transsexual females, it is almost unheard of – .04%. If you read the news, prostate exams for men are not recommended anymore but on just about every LGBTQ and trans page they are strongly advised for post transsexual females. Why? Reisner’s reality challenged reasoning is used as justification for outing post transsexual females by Lambda, Williams, and the Fenway in medical settings. Why?

    The beliefs these people have in immutable sex dimorphism is as ignorantly dangerous as any other fundamentalist religious fanatic’s. Yet, that is exactly what is driving LGBTQ public policy where people rejecting sex assignments are concerned.

    Sari gets around – Sari’s at the T H Chan School of Public Health at Harvard. Reisner is one of the most prominent voices influencing others with his ignorant assertions, which are as inspired as Sullivan’s. Those strongly influenced by the Sullivan/Reisner static sex dichotomy hypothesis include the Williams Institute, the Fenway Institute and Lambda Legal. They’re all on the same page as Sullivan and most of the aforementioned organizations are dominated by gay men, and the ones that are not are just as obsessed with defining their sexual orientation the way Sullivan does.

    I don’t see much of a difference in physicality between Sullivan and Diego Sanchez, or Leonard Sax, who ham handedly critiqued Ann Fausto-Sterling’s Sexing the Body, for that matter. It’s a guy thing, I guess. There is no way I’ve ever been able to relate to people like these, regardless of “sex assigned at birth”.

    • Suzan Says:

      I am less interested in arguing the fine points of the rationale of bigots than I am in beating the fuck out of them because there are scumbag bigots. Sort of the same way the only good Nazi is a dead one, only I’m not sure even death serves as redemption for being a Nazi scumbag.

      Arguing and refuting their bigotry is like mud wrestling a pig. You wind up covered with pig shit and the pig enjoys it.

  2. edith pilkington Says:

    Fighting Nazis it is always made much more difficult when the “Resistance” joins along side them and jumps onto the same pig pile, especially when you’re at the bottom of it all.

    Bon chance! with all that. I wish I could just say good-bye.

  3. Tina Says:

    Bigots are bigots, Nazi’s are Nazi’s no matter what they call themselves. Being antisemitic is not, in any way, “progressive”. That totalitarian, anti-freedom urge is alive and well in both the left and right.. I’m happy I’m going to be 80 soon (April) — these folks, all of them, just want to recreate the past, one they know nothing about. I don’t care what they call themselves, who they think they are, they know very little and do not want to believe those who were there “way back when”.

    • edith pilkington Says:


      I knew Andrew Sullivan had a reputation as a conservative, that’s all. I am not drawn to Andrew Sullivan at all, so I hardly know anything about him.

      I couldn’t understand why you and Suzan were so focused on Nazis in this thread. I naively wrote something last night about my personal situation and the distance between me and those kinds of people but before I posted I thought I had better sleep on it. I sensed I might be missing something. So, I Googled “Andrew Sullivan antisemite”. I had no idea of the controversies swirling around him in that regard.

      Sorry, at the bottom of what I wrote, I said “I have no truck w/ Nazis.” I don’t. I don’t have any truck with Andrew Sullivan, Dan Savage, John Avarosis, Justin Raimondo or any of those people, either. They’re a different species as far as I’m concerned – they’re men, all of them, regardless of their sexual orientation, and whether they have a trans history or not. I’ve always reacted to these kinds of masculine gay males, or men with trans histories, for that matter, the same way I do straight males. I’ve always been intimidated by them. I really believe it’s biological.

      In this particular case what Sullivan has to say isn’t too much different than what Walter Bockting has to say, if you read closely enough. That is the point I was trying to get across. Sullivan may be inclined towards bigotry but how does one explain WPATH or Sari Reisner, who was one of the contributors to the publication “Trans Bodies Trans Self”? They all hawk the “you are your sex assigned at birth but we will respect and affirm your ‘gender identity'” meme. It’s the same meme Sullivan uses in this piece, and the same one Az Hakim, another very masculine gay male, and a very handsome one, uses. I don’t know if you remember him and his Emperor’s New Clothes.

      I don’t know about you but my “sex assigned at birth” is definitely NOT who I am. When I go in for a simple urinary tract infection and encounter a physician trained at the Fenway who wants to turn a simple infection into a complicated one that simple fact becomes a very complicated one. When there are fields in my medical records that out me and give people the wrong impression about my body and my particular medical needs, it’s a huge problem, especially when everyone in the office has access to that information for no reason at all other than to put a virtual pink triangle on my sleeve as a warning to the whole staff.

      The ramifications of what Sullivan wrote in this piece have nothing to do with anything Sullivan has written about the Middle East or Israel but everything to do with the current LGBTQ approach to homogenizing a very widely diverse group, most of whom have nothing to do with one another, into an asexual 3rd gender bin to be identified as their sex assigned at birth.

      I often miss the point. I can be very unhip. I’m not sure who’s missing the point in this case, however. I won’t erase what I wrote last night. It’s just below this paragraph. It’s only a vignette. I have always lived among my neighbors as one of the neighbors, not as someone different.

      I live in a house between two houses, each where rabbis live. The one on the north side of us moved in last fall. He has said he was asked to speak at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh where the shootings occurred not too long before it happened.

      On Fridays, before sundown, the Hasidic men from the Merkos – Chabad House, a couple blocks away, sometime come through the neighborhood looking for people to make up a minyan, men I think. They always walk past me, never giving a second look.

      A very close friend of a certain someone very close to me is the son of a rabbi who was located in Plymouth, Ma., last I knew. His maternal grandfather was a German soldier in WWII. If you only knew the rest of the story. It’s too personal for a venue like this.

      If you and Suzan are ever in Providence, give me a ring, Tina. I’d love to show you around.

      In spite of my English sounding name I’m very Irish. Sullivan . . . what’s in a name? My father was named after the doctor who delivered him. He was #6 of 7. My Irish grandparents must have run out of names by the time he came along. What’s in a name?

      I don’t care where you come from, only how you treat me. I’ve lived where I live since 1978. My children went to preschool at the local JCC for free. There’s a reason for that. I’ve no truck with Nazis.

      Regardless, words will never do.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: