I was born into the cultural ferment that began in America in the Fall of 1967. The Student Movement was turning towards Marxist-Leninist insurrection. The liberal Civil Rights movement had given way to the armed revolutionary message of Huey Newton and Oakland’s Black Panther Party. And, in New York City, the early Women’s Liberation Movement was reinterpreting Marx and Engels’ analysis of the bourgeoisie and proletariat into the Patriarchy Theory of male as the oppressor class and female as the oppressed class. The New York Women’s Liberation Movement adopted Black Liberation’s Consciousness Raising (CR) as their primary means of organizing. CR-groups are sort of a cross between the Gestalt encounter groups that were mushrooming across California and Mao’s 1930s, ‘Bitterness Speaking’ method of empowering Chinese peasant women to organize against and depose the corrupt patriarchs who had traditionally ruled chinese villages. This form of early Radical Feminism has been called CR-Feminism, and it came up with the slogan ‘The Personal is The Political’ which meant that every aspect of your life and relationships is subject to feminist analysis. CR-Group Feminism hit my household in a big way around 1977, when my three year older sister and my mother converted to feminism. I converted to male feminist identity, which partly meant that I learned to hate myself for being male and to feel superior to other males who did not share my self hatred.
Male Feminism was my creed for decades, until 2009 when I began a personal journey of gender exploration. My gender identity first destabilized in a series of encounter groups up in a California, hippie hotsprings which had begun life as as a Gestalt encounter group commune in the early seventies. These groups eventually led me to question my own male identity and to take on a series of gender-variant identities, culminating in a new identity as a transgender lesbian and radical feminist. I lived for a year in queer women’s separatist space and avoided all contact with ‘cisgender’ straight males. Looking back, I see my trans-lesbian identity as a both continuation and a radicalization of my earlier Male Feminist identity.
One point of continuity between my Male Feminist and Trans-Feminist identities was my dedication to revolutionary cultural change. I was raised to think of myself as growing up in a very barbaric time and place. I became ‘political’ around 1978 in Salt Lake City, Utah. I grew up in a Mormon theocracy, during the Reagan Revolution. I clung to atheism and feminism to give me self worth in a society where I was seen as ‘lesser.’ I learned to be prejudiced against men and I wanted to destroy the patriarchal society. I wanted the whole theocracy to come tumbling down, in a kind of millenarian, feminist-secularist apocalypse. Similarly, when I transitioned gender, I embraced programs of radical social reconstruction. I first explored a transsexual, lesbian feminism that became popular after Oakland’s Julia Serano published ‘The Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity’ in 2007. I held a transsexual identity for three, very artistically active, but brutal months. In this identity, I extended my earlier hatred of men to include my own male body. The feelings of anger and oppression were the similar but I interpreted them through the lens of my body image. My mindset was remarkably similar. It was a bourgeois, sense of victimhood that Nietzsche correctly analyzed as ressentiment or ‘slave morality,’ an identification with your own marginalization and ‘wounded attachment’ to the oppressor who you dream of destroying.
My childhood male feminism, was limited by my male identification, I did not see myself as ‘the revolutionary subject,’ in contrast to my later transsexual feminism. Back in Utah, my Mormon oppressors fought for traditional gender roles, the girls played with dolls and the boys played sports. I embraced radical feminist ideas of gender as socially constructed in order to feel ok about myself. At home, I was socialized by my mother and sister not to be a ‘typical’ boy. This become part of my identity toolkit, a boy who was not like other boys. The problem with this is that it is not a positive identity. I was still a boy, but a boy who failed all tests of masculinity. I identified with what I was not and I was depoliticized. Fast forward 30 years to Bay Area, and I am myself experiencing oppression first hand as a trans* person. This experience of fighting against my own oppression was radically different from the depoliticized position of being a non-conforming male. I myself became the marxist ‘Revolutionary Subject,’ rather than simply being a self-hating male. This brought about a period of intense artistic creativity and political activism. For me the Personal had also become the Political. Now the Male oppressor was catcalling me on the street and I was no longer safe walking alone when dressing how I wanted to dress. My revolutionary consciousness was intensified when I learned that transwoman-hating lesbian feminists ruled the roost in Bay Area radical feminism, and they were willing to resort to violence to keep control. This experience of the hypocrisy of other feminist activists burned away my residual guilt. Basically, in the end I learned to revalue myself with my own mix of gender-variance and maleness, which was a radical break from my childhood prejudices and internalized hatreds.
The continuity in this gender journey comes from the radical nature of the dream, the vision of millennial transformation, which I have never lost. The difference is how I learned to recognize and act on my own oppression, rather than feeling shame and guilt for the actions of others.

Hey guys, its been a long time since I wrote a personal post. I have been spending my time on twitter since I got involved with #Occupy Oakland. It is a powerful tool for journalism, but in the end it has not gotten the word out better than blogging. So, here I am again I made this personal video, it’s 7 minutes and ‘not boring’.

Aside  —  Posted: February 23, 2012 in 2011

Please follow http://twitter.com/thepostgendrist for my sex, gender, queer tweeting, and http://twitter.com/jaspergregory for my Social Movement history tweeting.

Through Occupy I have come to believe that Martin Luther King & Gandhi pioneered the social tactics which change societies. I have critiqued the Rage Feminism of Daly, Dworkin and Jeffries as well as Transsexual Rage and Transfeminist Rage of Julia Serano’s The Whipping Girl. Now I see that these rage movements have a lineage stretching back to Malcolm X and Black Rage. This is important, because the Black Rage movement was a dialectical reaction to Martin Luther King and the ‘Love Thy Neighbor’, and Radical Hope tactics that the Black Freedom struggle used to great effects. The Spiritual, Radical, Non Violent Direct Action is therefore a blueprint for the destimatization of Male Femininity, Autogynephilia, and other male genders. It is also a way to form alliances with Radically, Nonviolent feminist, and racial justice activists. The video is about 10 minutes long and I highly recommend that you watch it for a very fresh view of MLK and even the nature of Social Activism in America

in this video I talk about MLK’s ‘rebirth’ as a Zen Buddhist Awakening, Radical Love and Understanding as Freedom Tactic.
I am ‘Tickled Pink’ about the vid. I have been struggling to Find a Authentic Video Blog Voice for the #occupy movement. Threw last 6 away
#Occupy Martin Luther King’s tactics of Radical Love: Occupy The Dream MLK day Jan 16th #ows http://twitter.com/jaspergregory

*I believe that The Occupy Movement is in danger of adopting Groupthink instead of Democracy. We have seen this movie over and over since the 1960’s and we no how it ends. If you have attended an Occupy Decision Making Council (General Assembly) then every word in this essay will be familiar to you. Freeman’s essay covers a period when consensus-based Radical Feminist groups purged their movement of Butch Lesbian and Male-To-Female Transsexuals. Consensus does not lead to reason. It leads to Groupthink.

The Tyranny of Stuctureless.  (Freeman, 1970)


Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness — and that is not the nature of a human group.

This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an “objective” news story, “value-free” social science, or a “free” economy. A “laissez faire” group is about as realistic as a “laissez faire” society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of “structurelessness” does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly “laissez faire” philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women’s movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.


For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized. This is not to say that formalization of a structure of a group will destroy the informal structure. It usually doesn’t. But it does hinder the informal structure from having predominant control and make available some means of attacking it if the people involved are not at least responsible to the needs of the group at large. “Structurelessness” is organizationally impossible. We cannot decide whether to have a structured or structureless group, only whether or not to have a formally structured one. Therefore the word will not he used any longer except to refer to the idea it represents. Unstructured will refer to those groups which have not been deliberately structured in a particular manner. Structured will refer to those which have. A Structured group always has formal structure, and may also have an informal, or covert, structure. It is this informal structure, particularly in Unstructured groups, which forms the basis for elites.


*Occupy Wall Street is the biggest chance we have had to change society in half a century. Please let’s learn from history. Radical Feminists, Situationists, Autonomists, and Squatters all adopted the horizontal consensus model that is being used by Occupy Wall Street. It was a disaster. Consensus models bring Orwellian NewSpeak. It is not to late to institute transparent democratic structures. Please read this plea from someone who has seen this before.

via I cite: The Tyranny of Consensus –Mark Read.

The Tyranny of Consensus –Mark Read

The occupiers have inherited and adopted a decision-making process that has come down from earlier left movements and is lauded as the most democratic form of decision making. Of courser those who wish to see a more democratic society naturally gravitate to what has been billed as the most democratic way to make decisions.  Consensus is what the radical left has responded with, for generations.  Those of us that have worked within a consensus process model should know better by now, and we do a disservice to younger activists by allowing the myth of consensus-as-always-most-democratic to persist.  We were told that the trade off was less efficiency for more democracy, and this simply is not borne out by experience, and most of my long-term comrades have come to recognize this.  The only place where I believe that consensus process is genuinely more democratic than a majoritarian aka voting process is within a close and closed community of collaborators/co-habitants that have practiced the process for years.  In virtually every other instance it yields less democratic decisions and processes, not more.  The consensus process, when applied to large heterogenous groups such as the one at #occupywallst, yields hierarchies at least as persistent and pernicious as other forms of decision making, probably more. I, and many others, would argue that voting yields more truly democratic outcomes, if practiced responsibly and ethically ie requiring 75% majorities and allowing ample time for discussion.  In the current context the consensus process favors those that feel comfortable addressing crowds, and feel entitled enough to argue endlessly for their point of view. This does not describe most people, and these traits are most prevalent in people that come from privilege, particularly educational privilege.  I hate to coin a Nixonian term, but the “silent majority” are those that don’t feel such confidence.  For most people voting on something is the best way to ensure that they have a say in the outcome.  The very idea that a marginalized, or even just shy person should be expected to feel confident enough to participate in an alien and confusing process, much less powerful enough to block a consensus decision is just plain ridiculous.  So, in practice, the very people that are intended to be emboldened and empowered by a consensus process, are in fact marginalized and silenced.  They cede the floor to the loud and the confident and the certain.  That is not what democracy looks like. The other problem that many of us know all too well is the creation of “invisible heirarchies.”  These come about in large measure due to the cumbersome nature of the decision making process.  Consensus process simply does not scale well, and it becomes so inefficient that groups of people begin to take decisions on their own, because they are essentially forced into that position. This leads to problems of accountability, accusations of betrayal, etc… And for what?  A decision making model that falsely claims to be more democratic than voting? Many of us from earlier movements are very familiar with these problems, and yet too many of us uncritically jump on the bandwagon of consensus.  Without some hard headed honesty about this, the fetishization of consensus will damage any efforts to build a more powerful, broad and diverse movement.