That you start with a generalisation is problematic. That you double down with absolutism this tone deaf is scary as hell. And you add this definitive statement almost as a corrective to the comparative nuance of the previous sentence, immediately undermining any subtlety, any room for greater understanding.

I’m a trans woman. When I came out I was sexually assaulted by a cisgender woman, telling me I should get used to it if I ‘want’ to be a woman.

That’s levels of privilege and misogyny your article doesn’t even hint at. The fact that I was, at the time, physically entirely male, made not an ounce of difference. I’ve been in an emotionally abusive relationship with another woman since (and trust me, us lesbians are just as capable of being hateful and violent as any other demographic). And my first marriage, which predated my coming out by more than two decades featured abuse which hinged on power she leveraged very well, none of it physical.

Your blanket assertion damages both men and women and would impede any progress we might make. Us women have always been massively the more numerous victims but we don’t do our cause any good in asserting women to be incapable of certain things. We have to have truth in what we aim for or we’re destined to fail.

Allowing for nuance does NOT IMHO undermine our insistence of zero tolerance of gendered and sexual violence. A red line needn’t mean black and white on either side.

Capricious by name, steadfast by nature. Trans femme dyke. Smutsmith. Provocateur. Witch. Poet. Slut. Idiot. Kicking names and taking ass.

Capricious by name, steadfast by nature. Trans femme dyke. Smutsmith. Provocateur. Witch. Poet. Slut. Idiot. Kicking names and taking ass.