Let’s go back to the beginning, shall we? Let’s imagine a world which never forces someone’s subjective reality on to the rest of us or else we’re ‘offending’ them. Or him. Let’s say ‘him’ because he is at the centre of this charade. It’s a world in which people who think their arm doesn’t belong to them, think they’re fat when really they are dangerously under-weight, think they’re disabled when they are non-disabled, think they’re someone who they’re not and think they are in the ‘wrong’ body or their current body doesn’t belong to them – are all people who are supported and the underlying causes of their mistaken beliefs addressed. However, the one thing which does NOT happen, ever, is that the delusions are confirmed by others because, well, because it’s actually dangerous to their well-being and may be dangerous to those around them. And because…it’s simply not true and what good can ever come out of agreeing with someone else’s false reality?

The converse of our imaginary world, where other people’s false reality is not only accepted as universal, but praised and admired, is all being played out before millions on UK Big Brother right now. We’ve left the sensible, logical, reality we’ve just created. We’re back in 2014. We’re in sci fi land where 1 person’s delusions are being encouraged, reinforced and cemented by the show, its producers, presenters and other contestants. I am not convinced that the watching public are going along with it so well, now they are seeing what it actually means up, close and personal, as opposed to ‘don’t be unkind to someone, they have problems’.

The man from the masculinist industry of boxing, who now thinks he’s a woman at the age of 60, is in a state of turmoil. Yet every time he expresses his doubts about whether the answer is to transition, his willing ‘friends’, usually women, say things like “You’re Kellie now. BE you”. And they say these things even when he says such revealing narratives as: “Frank was nasty, you didn’t want to mess with frank. Kellie is lovely, softer, gentler. Frank might come out again”. His speech is littered with stereotypes about what a woman is and what a man is. He quite clearly can’t see any other way out of being the ‘hard-nosed’ unpleasant masculinist caricature he’s played for decades. That doesn’t make you a woman, Frank.

His continuous masculinist behaviour and appearance causes the gay man in the house to keep calling him ‘he’ by accident. “oops she” he says, having only known him the past few days, supposedly, as ‘she’. Frank/Kellie thinks being a woman is about choosing outfits while making statements such as “You don’t want to cross me” and “Frank will come out again” (ie ‘as ‘Kellie’ I am weak, vulnerable and fragile and have to be a maculinist man to be aggressive and nasty’). He has outbursts of anger and viciousness and his lack of female socialisation leads him to tell a woman she ‘looks like shit’ . He so clearly isn’t cutting the mustard to anyone with an ounce of sense. However, they all rally around justifying this fact by saying it’s the ‘hormones he’s taking’. The hormones he’s taking, which he doesn’t need to take because he has no physical illness, is making him ill? Listen to yourselves, people. The facade that men are becoming ‘who they know themselves to be’ when they transition is being questioned by a public who haven’t had “transphobia” rubbed in their noses every two seconds.

When Audley says he’s ‘uncomfortable’ (because he knows what he cannot say – that there is a man in front of him who thinks he’s a woman and he’s not taken in), he is hauled to the diary room for a reprimand. Interestingly, the public rally round him and say it’s ridiculous he’s told what he said was ‘offensive’. Perhaps sense might prevail but, no, Audley goes out of his way to tell Frank how he just needs time to adjust.

During the conversation, Frank/Kellie says “Would you treat me this way if I’d lost a leg?”. Possibly not, but if you THOUGHT you’d lost a leg and hadn’t, it seems much more likely. And that’s the actual parallel situation with this one. And then he says: “It’s like me saying I am not going to get in the bathroom with you because you’re black”. No, it really isn’t. The viewing public don’t think so either. Racism is a material reality; institutions, structures and social attitudes are built on white supremacy where white people (usually men) benefit at the expense of black people (often women). It’s like comparing racism with someone who thinks they’re a dog. An offensive comparison to all those who experience structural racism.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the only problem here is that social attitudes and legislation are backing the mistaken beliefs of people who THINK they are a member of the opposite sex. At the root of those mistaken beliefs is the idea that gender roles are real and there is no alternative but to play them out. Frank/Kellie first played out masculinist stereotypes and, when he realised they left him less than human, he’s now attempting to play out feminine stereotypes. Or is it really that all this ‘I am trapped in the wrong body’ business is just a ruse to make sexual fetishes socially acceptable? Who can say? People can’t perceive that someone would go to such lengths as to be surgically altered unless the problem is ‘real’. Why do people who think their arm doesn’t belong to them go to such lengths as to try and cut it off? Why do women who want to look ‘young’, or like another woman, go to such lengths as having life-risking cosmetic surgery? People are prepared to take all kinds of risks because they are driven by psychological motivation rooted in cultural norms. It’s a subjective reality. It doesn’t mean the rest of us have to buy into it and believe it too. Only in the up-side-down world of transexualism, where, on the whole, it’s a system in which men demand that their rights are seen as more important than anyone’s, does the rest of society feel obliged to collude.

A few days later frank asks if (‘after the operation’) he’ll be a lesbian if he has sex with a woman. His housemates get confused ‘yes’, ‘no’ ‘you’re a woman aren’t you? Yes, you’ll be a lesbian then” Why not ask actual lesbians that question? Here’s my answer. NO. Not on your life, mate, are you, nor will you ever be, operation or not, a lesbian. (I’m willing to bet a lot of money he’ll never have an operation in any case, especially if he’s asking stupid questions that he must know the answer to). Leave lesbians alone. You can’t stop being male. You are who you are but you don’t have to live according to gender role stereotypes. That’s the only choice you have – and you’re not taking it.

“I Name Myself As An Identity That This Oppressive State Refuses To Acknowledge”

“I live in a State that excludes, that is racist, misogynist, hetero-patriarchal. I name myself as an identity that this oppressive State refuses to acknowledge. It does not want the political subject I am to build myself, to be autonomous, to define myself. I am striving to recover my roots and to strengthen my identity, acknowledging the external and internalized oppression, as we in Kaqla say. That is what we are doing, trying to build ourselves as political subjects, with personal leadership as a step to be able to do it at the collective level.”


Read the rest of the article here:



I came across an article in Pink News about a machine to be used by Tesco (link at bottom). It will identify age and gender through facial-recognition scanning techniques. It will then use specific advertising aimed at people within that demographic. There are so many reasons to oppose Tesco already (tax avoidance, big corporation and so on). This is another. However, the focus of this article is the ideological sub-text in the Pink News story about the machine and transactivists.

The article concentrates on (yes you’ve guessed it!) ‘inclusiveness’. It alleges transgendered people will be identified and ‘triggered‘ by this software. “This use of this software is considerably concerning for members of the transgender community, who face the very real potential of being “outed” at the till”, says Tara Hewitt, in the article. (Let’s just ignore the ’transphobic’ (sic) obvious here that, if a machine can spot someone is a man, so can the humans around it). I found a BBC article which talks about the Tesco move. It says: “The length of someone’s hair could be used to work out their gender”. I guess that’s all the long-haired male rockers ‘triggered’ then with such crude indicators. In fact, non-gender conforming people are far more likely to be ‘misgendered’ than ‘feminine‘ gender-conforming males. Those imitating ‘femininity’ are the least likely to be misgendered with the use of such criteria.

The article in Pink News is politically significant. It is not about the news item itself (which is, indeed, concerning) but about the conclusions the transactivist draws. As feminists, we focus on the harm gender does to women. Women are targeted by malestream media so that we will better conform to the ‘feminine’ performances which limit and control us. Instead of joining in with feminist concerns, this transactivist focuses on trans ‘exclusion’ of that stereotyping. Transpeople will be ‘excluded’ from being recognised as the gender they think they are; they will be the only ones this happens to. Once again, transgendered people are the (only) victims in a world where everyone else is perfectly happy with gender conformity. The underlying assumption is that gender is innate and ‘natural’ (even if no one else but the person themselves can see which gender they ‘naturally‘ are, including an inanimate object).

The article does talk about gender stereotypes causing harm – but only in relation to promoting “the concept of the gender binary”. In other words, the concern focuses on the typical queer rhetoric that there are more than two genders. (And oops, the machine won’t recognise this). The article fails to acknowledge that male supremacy is upheld and reinforced by gender. In keeping with queer ideology, it completely bypasses the important feminist message – gender harms, controls, and undermines women; targeted advertising at women adds to the general suffering caused to women by patriarchy. In the photograph in the BBC news story about the machine, we see a man looking at an advert for Sky TV – presumably, because men are the ones with disposable income to spend on toys, while women carry out unpaid domestic work in the home. Adverts reinforce women’s subordinate role. The face-recognition machine will be a new tool for patriarchy to target women and negatively impact on our lives. Meanwhile, the transactivist complains that transwomen will be left out of this because machines don’t lie and men will be identified as men.

<br/><a href="" target="_blank">View Raw Image</a>

The trans ideological agenda is seen so clearly here. And it is blatantly obvious that agenda is the antithesis of the feminist goal of liberating women. It’s all about ’including’ trans within gender roles not about dismantling gender roles themselves. We’re not on the same, ideological, side. Not at all.  The sooner feminists recognise this, the better.

Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are

Guest post

This is a belated thank you note to all the lesbian feminists – older women in particular – who welcomed me with open arms when I decided to become a lesbian.

You helped me discard almost three decades of pretty successful heterosexual training, and released me from the resignation that men or isolation (most likely both, since they go together) were my future.

There were things you could have warned me about the pain the intensity the pain the intensity fucking hell the pain and no they weren’t BDSM relationships but as men don’t compare and therefore provide no reference, you wouldn’t have prepared me anyway.

I haven’t looked back, and now it’s a revelation watching other women as they leave their husbands and boyfriends, and come out as lesbians with the same mixture of excitement, shell-shock and sense of coming home that I had. This wasn’t supposed to be an option for us ‘born-this-way’ ‘heterosexuals’, but we chose it anyway and here we are.

Thank you for letting us know it was possible, and for being patient with our questions and (occasional) resistance while we processed and let the shift take place.

So, in the spirit of paying-it-forward, I will say this to those women who also want to choose lesbianism, or are on the verge of coming out:

It will be the most life-affirming thing you ever do. 

Waiting patiently for you sisters, whenever you’re ready.

Political Lesbian Myth Busting

Guest Post

Political lesbianism is not an ‘identity’, this is queer BS talk. Political lesbianism is a process. A process of understanding the ways in which we, and our sisters, have been personally damaged by the hetero-patriarchy. It is a recognition that, on a personal and political level, we do not have to be intimately involved with a system which is deeply damaging to us and we can love other women in all ways instead of competing with them or mistrusting them.

It is not purely about sexuality (who you are attracted to). Nor is it about ‘appropriating’ the word lesbian while maintaining all outward appearances of being heterosexual and enjoying heterosexual benefits, such as they are. Nor will it, by itself, dismantle patriarchy, though it is a step along the way. Many women have found it easier to be radical activists without the burden of dissonance ringing in their ears. Many women have freed themselves from the clash of being intimately tied to an oppressive system while having a radical, critical analysis about it. Many women have discovered that they can, and should, love women as a direct result of their feminism. Women’s oppression is the only oppression where the oppressed are forced to live intimately with the oppressor. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to understand what is happening politically while we are in such situations. Our political judgement is inevitably clouded because we have to find a way of covering up personal truths in order to continue to live in such a way. It is only when we have broken free of hetero-patriarchal constraints that we can often name our truths under patriarchy.

The resistance to political lesbianism within the current upsurge of online radical feminism; a resistance to understanding and accepting it, is hugely disappointing to those of us who embraced the concept of political lesbianism many years ago. It is particularly disappointing because that resistance and hostility is taking place within a back-drop of new, younger, women discovering the process of political lesbianism IRL. Most women who ‘come out’ via the process of political lesbianism, do so because they meet radical lesbian feminists, or radical feminists, and connect; politically, personally and emotionally. Online political activity rarely, if ever, captures the process of political lesbianism because it is a real, lived, personal experience brought about through consciousness-raising.

Some new, younger women are afraid to ‘come out’ or are convinced by the negativity that their feelings are somehow ‘unreal’. It is crucial for any newly ‘out’ lesbian to feel welcomed and accepted, no questions asked. Unfortunately, there are a vocal cluster of online lesbians who associate with radical feminist theory (I am unclear whether they identify as radical feminists themselves or not) who, without understanding the process of political lesbianism, make accusations of ‘appropriation’. Accompanying this offensive accusation is a suggestion that political lesbianism is ‘just like the trans debate – if I say I am a lesbian I am’. This is not only a nonsensical interpretation of the process of political lesbianism, it also fails to analyse the construction of sexuality from a radical feminist perspective. The underlying assumption is that there is an ‘authentic’ lesbianism and a version which is so unauthentic that it is labelled ‘appropriation’. This completely bypasses the radical feminist analysis that heterosexuality is a major part of our oppression and escaping its colonisation has many benefits for us as individuals and for women as a class.

Some lesbian sceptics ask us why we can’t ‘encourage’ women to become celibate instead; leaving the lesbian landscape to the ‘purist’ lesbian. The very question shows a lack of understanding about the social construction of sexuality. In most societies, channelling sexual desire into a social construction leads to a whole range of other factors dictating how people live their lives. Many heterosexual women become celibate and live their days within heterosexual marriages with all the economic benefits this brings. Being celibate, by itself, is not the counter-patriarchal act ‘coming out’ as a lesbian and living within lesbian cultures and communities is. And, again, the emphasis on celibacy defines all relationships by sexual activity, or lack thereof. The social construction of sexuality is far more complex than that.

Whenever this subject comes up, some older lesbians also get on their soap boxes. They are certain, from their past, that heterosexual women would identify as lesbian but not feel sexually attracted to women. The heterosexual women would do it as some kind of misplaced political allegiance, they say. I am not aware of that definition of ‘political lesbianism’ ever being part of my political discussions. It was not something which I encountered in the past and I wonder if it took place in pockets of the US or whether it took place at all and was merely a misinterpretation of the process of political lesbianism. Who knows? Just as radical feminism cannot get stuck because of myths about it, nor can political lesbianism if it means women are afraid to ‘come out’ because they are not accepted as being ‘real’ lesbians.

The over-emphasis on sexual activity as an essential part of the lesbian experience is concerning. Most heterosexual women have experienced pressure to be sexually active. We have all been conditioned to believe that sexuality is a major part of intimate relationships or else the relationship is not ‘real’. Few very old people, generally, have an active sex life. They have other challenges to deal with. Lesbians are no different but they don’t stop being lesbians. Celibate older people do not get constantly questioned on their sexuality; it is assumed they are heterosexual. Whether sexual attraction is current or not, should not be the definition of what it is to be lesbian. Being a lesbian is a social construction of intimacy, community and cultures. Usually, initially, it takes a sexual expression but it does not always for all time for many lesbians.

Heterosexual women have latched on to online hostility about political lesbianism from some lesbians. They, in turn, have repeated the mantra that the process of political lesbianism is appropriation. Therefore, they say, it is perfectly OK for them to assert that, if the world were a lesbian island, they would remain celibate, thank you very much. In the ‘old days’ lesbians would have challenged such assertions but nowadays lesbians are too busy ‘sexing up’ the concept of lesbianism to do so.

Contemporary conversation about sexuality is not framed within a radical feminist analysis – even though it may be radical feminists exchanging words. The ideological assumptions behind the debate is that sexuality is innate and ‘we were born this way’ sexually. It is the only element of women’s oppression where there is a political acceptance that there is NO ESCAPE.

In fact, sexuality, as a social construction, is far, far more than merely who we are attracted to at any one point in our lives. It is moulded, institutionalised and structured to benefit men, as a class, and oppress women as a class. Women are unpaid slaves in the domestic sphere and that includes in all matters heterosexual. Many contemporary radical feminists have written about the dangers for women of ‘sexual intercourse’ (frequently called ‘PIV’ – penis in vagina) and the pressures women are under to accept this as the only form of sexual activity possible or desirable. Doing so is at the expense of women’s well-being and pleasure. Pornstitution, (pornography, women being bought for sexual purposes), myths surrounding sexual violence, sexual harassment, domestic violence, are all forms of direct and indirect pressure and coercion leading to women being sexualised, de-humanized and being viewed by men as objectified body parts and/or his possession. The more subtle forms of coercion and pressure to be slaves include the ‘myth of the fairy tale princess’, that ‘the right man for you is out there somewhere’ and other assorted well-known indoctrinations which take place as soon as we can understand language. Forced and coerced sexual submission, regardless of her wants and needs, are a cornerstone of the domestic servitude which men demand of women under hetero-patriarchy.

The idea, therefore, that women are not bound to that servitude forever because of their ‘born this way’ sexuality, has been a freeing revelation for many feminists over decades. The idea that sexuality, just like all other aspects of life, can shift and change alongside political realisations, is revolutionary in a world where sexuality is seen as fixed and innate. If we demand that men change their sexual behaviour, how can we possibly deny that we have the potential to change our sexual desires to ones which are more liberating?

There is another myth fairly rife on the internet today. It has gained momentum because of the prolific writing of a small minority of believers. It is the idea that a born-this-way lesbian (or woman who has always chosen lesbianism) is, somehow, free from the shackles of hetero-patriarchy simply because she has avoided pressure to ever having a heterosexual experience. Well, I beg to differ, having had sexual relationships with a few born-this-way non-feminist lesbians. They were as woman-hating and self-hating as anyone else – with the added burden of believing they had no choice but to be lesbians. Someone saying “I don’t want to love you but I can’t help it” isn’t exactly encouraging. They sought to ape many of the tenets typical within heterosexuality; such as someone owes you sex if they are in a relationship with you, whenever you want it. There is a lot more to say about the subject but, ultimately, I do not believe that any woman is free from internalized woman-hatred. Always having felt sexual towards women/girls is not a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card.

I would also like to briefly touch on another myth. The myth is: It is only those who have found lesbianism through political processes, as opposed to pure born-like-it desires, who stray off the golden path and ‘go back to men’. Given the varied backgrounds of the women I have known who have redefined as heterosexual or bisexual, there is no basis for arguing political lesbianism is any more likely to result in further heterosexuality than other routes. In fact, I would argue that it is less likely considering political lesbianism is such a deep-rooted process. Claiming that we should value sexual experience as being more authentic than political thought is highly dubious from a radical feminist perspective.

In summary, I urge lesbians who do not understand political lesbianism to stop misrepresenting it and then arguing against that misrepresentation. This is a phenomena which happens to radical feminists all the time so they should already know how frustrating it is. I also urge heterosexual women to stop using the arguments lesbians have between ourselves to prop up your own political positions. You’re not harmed by being open to political lesbian ideas. In fact, many previously heterosexual women have felt our lives to be enormously enriched by them.


That’s another fine mess you’ve got us in, Patriarchy

Oh my, I’d like to say I’ve seen it all now but I am sure I haven’t. I randomly came across an article which featured two white, blonde, thin, heavily made-up women partners stating they are ‘invisible’ as lesbians (article link at the bottom of the blog post)

They know they are invisible as lesbians, they tell us, because men say “You’re too pretty to be gay”

I have news, sisters. We all get these kind of messages, in different ways – it’s called ‘compulsory heterosexuality’. An institution which pressurizes all women to look and behave in ‘feminine’ ways to please men. If we don’t, we’re punished. If we do, we’re objectified in the way you have been.

The article gives no clues about why, despite being lesbians, they have continued to conform to male ideas about how women should look. I just hope it’s not about seeking male approval while leading lesbian lifestyles.

Their white wedding dresses and their wedding day features in the article, demonstrating they have just substituted a woman for a man. That’s clearly how they want their circumstances to be viewed. They said nothing of political interest other than everyone mistakes them for being heterosexual. In an ever-increasing non-politicised lesbian environment, the attitude that women are merely substitutes for men in intimate lesbian relationships is prevalent. The “equal but different” argument. No links are made between the hetero-patriarchy and women’s oppression. The article encourages us to accept a ‘diverse’ ‘inclusive’ approach where those conforming to ‘feminine’ stereotypes must be specifically welcomed so they don’t feel left out. (The old stereotype that lesbians are ‘hot’ (in male-defined terms) is a long, long running porn theme. Hardly ‘invisible’)

Here’s the thing; what conformists are doing amounts to a take-over of lesbian spaces by patriarchal-compliant lesbians. And, at the same time, they argue that, for them to be known lesbians in the malestream, and in lesbian spaces, is political in and of itself.

The whole argument reminds me of ‘diversity’ training. Remember that? Quite popular in the 1990s and the 00s. It was a way of talking about oppression without anyone feeling at all threatened by it. Instead of, as the nasty radical lesbian feminists did, in the 70s and 80s, raising awareness about structural power, ‘diversity’ training emphasized that everyone is unique, different. These decorative women, in their beautiful gowns, are different to butch dykes. That’s all.

And so, we can glide with them, past the fact that marriage is a heterosexual institution which puts women at an inherent disadvantage because “lesbians do it too”. We can skip along with mascara brushes lamenting that women who embrace ‘femininity’, a tool of oppression for women, get mistaken for being het. Hell, how did that happen?

But it’s ok. So long as we’re ‘inclusive’ and recognise the importance of diversity, ‘feminine’ women are willing to forgive and forget that lesbians who suffer oppression based on non-gender conformity might think them het.

That word ‘inclusive’ is such a dodgy word used within post-modernist/queer contexts. I didn’t notice its potential danger until I started reading it every other damned word in libfem/queer texts. Lesbians who conform, in every way, to femininity complain they are ‘invisible’.

This all-encompassing, inclusive, “we welcome everyone through our doors” approach is growing momentum everywhere. Only radical feminists point out the problem with it. Seems we need to spell out what that problem is – welcoming those who are oppressors into our spaces means that our spaces are eroded, destroyed and distorted. It means that reversals about oppression have a legitimate space within the very political sphere set up to oppose that oppression. It’s a double-whammy for women, many of whom experience multiple oppressions.

I happened to glance at a page for a RTN march for Edinburgh while reading this article. Reclaim the night marches – started by radical lesbian feminists to empower women and to fight back against male sexual violence. The Edinburgh RTN march will, you’ll be reassured to know, be inclusive. The goals state: “Reclaim the Night is an inclusive, community-led event aimed at raising awareness of issues surrounding street & sexual harassment, as well as broader issues of sexual violence. It offers a safe & empowering environment for people of all genders to reclaim the public spaces which are rightfully theirs” (my emphasis). The page had replaced a more political, feminist one which referred to male violence against women. In yet more astonishing reversals, this traditional feminist march, is giving space to men who may well have been abusive on the streets and calling it a “safe & empowering environment”. They have unashamedly and disrespectfully demolished the whole meaning of reclaim the night. What meaning does it even have any more? “People can walk down the streets whatever their gender”? For fuck sake. No women, can’t, not without fearing, and facing, objectification from men or abuse for not conforming to femininity. The Edinburgh RTN march decided to have a whole march without naming the problem. They, no doubt, however, congratulated themselves about their inclusiveness. Inclusiveness. Dangerous, depoliticising word in the hands of queers.

Today’s post-modernist, emphasis on ‘inclusive’, masks real politics and replaces it with pretend politics which re-establishes the status quo. And that’s why I find het-looking women, marrying each other in white dresses problematic.

Next, they’ll be saying they can’t help it, they were born that way.


RTN Edinburgh goals:

Let’s Talk About Lesbophobia


The word is considered a joke by many and is never really taken seriously. Why? Because (a) it concerns women and (b) it concerns women who have no need or desire for men, or their penises. I see a lot of people throw around words like bigot, homophobia, misogyny, and transphobia. Sometimes these words are being used correctly and there is some hatred going on where the words are being used. But most of the time, these words are being used as a silencing tactic to keep some women from speaking critically about things like transgenderism, the patriarchy, rape culture, misogyny, etc. Moreover, lesbophobia is rarely used and when it is, it is never taken seriously. So let’s talk about it for a minute because as much as men (including male transgenders) try to dismiss it and laugh it off, this is a real thing and it is silencing, harming…

View original post 1,318 more words


We are radical lesbian feminists in the UK who are friends and activists in real life.

In the past, lesbians were often at the forefront of political organising, including feminist activism. Now, though radical lesbian feminists still work extremely hard at the forefront, our perspectives are silenced in political spaces. This blog is to counteract our invisibility within the feminist movement, within mixed ‘radical’ left movements, and most urgently, under the Queer LGBT movement.

We recognise that gender is a tool created by Patriarchy to control and subjugate women. We seek to abolish it. We are Queer and Trans critical because these theories seek to reinforce gender, further enshrine it in law. They exist in opposition to gender abolition.

This blog will take a consciousness raising approach, analysing our own life experiences and those of women around us through a feminist lens. When we begin to understand the context of our lived experience and see the parallels and connections, we become politicised.

Some lesbians face multiple oppressions which shape our personal experiences. We are politically critical of individualistic solutions, both within and external to lesbian communities as we know that women’s oppression is institutionalised, built into the structures of society. We are part of a wider movement to dismantle those structures.

Working ethically and with integrity, alongside our political values, is integral to feminist activism. Radical lesbian feminism is, and must be, revolutionary. We have joined that revolution.

We will be blogging regularly. Radical lesbian feminists are invited to contribute to this blog by emailing