Sheila Jeffreys

{{gender}}
'''Sheila Jeffreys''' {{lived|1948}} is an [[England|English]] [[Political lesbianism|lesbian]] [[radical feminism|radical feminist]] (more specifically, [[trans-exclusionary radical feminism|TERF]]) activist and former academic. She is well-known for her virulent [[transphobia]], namely her belief that being [[transgender]] is a "[[human rights]] violation."

== Transphobia ==
<!-- This quote requires elaboration. How is this a conspiracy theory rather than whataboutism? -->
She believes that transgender people are part of a [[conspiracy theory|government plot]] to oppress women, with similarities to the actions of [[Iran]]ian mullahs:

{{cquote|Can I just say something about fundamentalism. It is important that, in Iran – and this is a connection I have with Alison here, because we're making connections today – in Iran [[transgender]]ism is totally approved, it's enforced by the state. Huge numbers of men are having transgender surgery and they're getting it on the state because homosexuals are executed. So, what I think is very fascinating is that there's a connection between the very jolly [[Tony Blair|Blair]] government and their Gender Recognition Act and Iran. They love transgenderism because it does help to get rid of this serious problem of homosexuality and it enforces gender. Right? So we do need to be fighting, I think, transgenderism as a state 'project' in terms of [[gender]].|||Sheila Jeffreys<ref name=witchywoo>[http://witchy-woo.blogspot.com.au/2006/05/talks-given-at-andrea-dworkin.html Comments at Andrea Dworkin Commemorative Conference, Oxford.] witchy-woo.blogspot.com.au, 7 April 2006.</ref>}}

At the same conference, she [[horseshoe theory|expressed support]] for ultra-[[conservative]] [[British]] politician [[Norman Tebbit]]'s views on the Gender Recognition Act (which gave transgender people legal recognition under British law):

{{cquote|Now one of the things I find puzzling about it is that, when I look at the [[House of Lords]] debate on this legislation, those I agree with most are the radical right. Particularly the person I find that I agree with most, in here, and I'm not sure he will be pleased to find this, is Norman Tebbitt. Now, Norman Tebbitt is not having any of it, right, so in response to the Gender Recognition Act, he says, he gives a very good definition of gender as [[social construct|socially constructed]] and says, in your act you've got it confused, right, it should say sex and you've got gender. And Lord Filkin, for the government, who is putting this legislation through, says that sex and gender are the same thing and anyway, what does it matter? Right, isn't that extraordinary? Tebbitt then accuses him of linguistic relativism. Which I love. [laughter] Couldn't have put it better myself. Tebbitt also says that the savage mutilation of transgenderism, we would say if it was taking place in other cultures apart from the culture of Britain, was a harmful cultural practice, and how come we're not recognising that in the British Isles. So he makes all of these arguments from the radical right, which is quite embarrassing to me, but I have to say, so called progressive and left people are not recognising the human rights violations of transgenderism or how crazy the legislation is. The legislation makes us engage in a folie à everybody, right? Everybody now has to go mad in order to understand or respond to this legislation.|||Sheila Jeffreys<ref>[http://www.feminist-reprise.org/docs/jeffreys.htm Sheila Jeffreys speaks on beauty practices and misogyny] at the Andrea Dworkin Commemorative Conference, April 7, 2006.</ref>}}

The contradictions don't stop there:
{{cquote|Sheila Jeffreys spoke at the [[Andrea Dworkin]] Commemorative Conference. While she credited Dworkin as being her inspiration and spoke at length about Dworkin's pioneering book, ''Woman Hating'', she also denigrated the bodies of trans women and asserted trans medical care to be unnecessary. During her entire presentation, Jeffreys never once noted that — in the very book Jeffreys cited as being the inspiration for her activism — Dworkin advocated that trans people be given free access to trans medical care or that Dworkin viewed gender identity research as being subversive to patriarchy.|||Cristan Williams, ''Transgender Studies Quarterly''<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Williams |first=Cristan |date=2016 |title=Radical Inclusion: Recounting the Trans Inclusive History of Radical Feminism |url=https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-abstract/3/1-2/254/91781/Radical-InclusionRecounting-the-Trans-Inclusive |journal=TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly |volume=3 |issue=1-2 |pages=254–258 |doi=10.1215/23289252-3334463 |issn=2328-9252}}</ref>}}

== Biphobia ==

In ''Bisexual politics: A superior form of feminism?'', Jeffreys falls back on the [[stereotype]] that [[bisexual]]s are incapable of forming long-lasting, loving relationships. She presents a [[biphobia|biphobic]] manifesto meant to incriminate the entire bisexual movement as [[anti-feminism|antifeminist]] and male-identified, describing bisexuality as "a way not to identify as lesbian or gay."<ref group=note> Worth noting that the boundary between bisexuality and lesbianism [[Bi/pan lesbian exclusionism|is not always so clear-cut.]]</ref> This is because the "loss of [[privilege]] involved in identifying as lesbian [is] significant and likely to encourage women to […] avoid such a definition."<ref>Sheila Jeffreys, [http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2005-16853-001 Bisexual politics: A superior form of feminism?] Women's Studies International Forum, 22(3), 273-285.</ref> She essentially accuses bisexuals of wanting to lead [[heteronormativity|heteronormative]] lives while enjoying the side benefits of [[queer]] sex or communities. She thinks bisexuals (along with trans and queer-identified people) are a political danger to lesbians.

==Views on bodily autonomy==

Jeffreys' 2005 book ''Beauty and Misogyny'' makes her seem militant and puritan. She sees all non-radfem women as mindless drones who passively accept a male-dominated culture. Why do they shave their legs? Why do they wear makeup or wear skirts or carry a purse? Well, because the male-dominated society makes them do it. She ascribes every activity a woman does—from putting on lipstick to wearing high heels—to the male-dominated culture that makes women do all these things purely for male sexual gratification, whether they realize it or not. Piercing your ears, navel, or getting a tattoo are forms of self-mutilation encouraged by the male-dominated beauty industry to make money and get women to look the way men want women to look.<ref>Sheila Jeffreys, [http://www.brown.uk.com/selfinjury/jeffreys.pdf 'Body Art' and Social Status: Cutting, Tattooing and Piercing from a Feminist Perspective.] Feminism & Psychology, Vol. 10(4):409–429.</ref> Jeffreys thinks women who have piercings or tattoos are being forced to have them by the male piercer/tattooist, in the same way as she thinks trans people only have surgery because they're forced to by the government.<ref name=witchywoo /> She doesn't try to substantiate the claims of anyone being forced to change their bodies with any concrete evidence.

==See also==
*[[Janice Raymond]]
*[[Germaine Greer]]
*[[Radical feminism]]
*[[Cathy Brennan]]
==External links==
*[https://www.sheilajeffreys.com/ Official site]
==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jeffreys, Sheila}}

[[Category:British people]]
[[Category:LGBTQ people]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Internalized discrimination]]
[[Category:Sexism]]
[[Category:SWERFs]]
[[Category:TERFs]]

Categories: British people, LGBTQ people, Living people, Internalized discrimination, Sexism, SWERFs, TERFs