Sheila Jeffreys Officially Confirms That She Is a Straightbian

An alert reader (thanks!) spotted this hilarious attempted smack-down of Dirt by “Academic Straightbian SusieSheila Jeffreys, and sent us this comedic screencap taken from Sheila’s latest treatise, “The Lesbian Revolution: Lesbian Feminism in the UK 1970-1990” (2018):
Sheila J Dirt
After nearly choking to death laughing our Lesbian asses off, we decided to do a post about how good old Sheila mistakenly thinks she is so clever, but, in fact, she simply and  naively PROVES the very points we made about her and her Straightbian cohorts.
Okay, so let’s break down Sheila’s sad attempt at dissing Dirt:

1). Sheila claims that Dirt is “no feminist“; apparently mistaking that snarky quip for an insult. Well, no shit, Sherlock; Dirt has never claimed to be a radical feminist. In fact, Dirt is proud NOT to be a radical feminist, because she is not a fan of delusional drivel. (And ditto with Mrs. Dirt, by the way). Duh.

2). Sheila, while purporting to be a “
feminist” herself, seemingly willfully “
forgets” to cite Mrs. Dirt as the equal (Lesbian relationships are like that hun-equal) co-author of the entire Unstraightening Lesbian series. As a Academic Straightbian Susie herself, Sheila clearly should be familiar with the rules of citation; after all, she is quite well known for infamously citing herself at every opportunity. Her intentional lack of citation shows that her “
feminist” principles apparently do not include the fact that a Lesbian partner/wife/co-author as being worthy of recognition — which is actually not very feminist after all, now is it? Think about it.

3). Poor Sheila apparently lacks reading comprehension skills and/or even the most basic of accurate reporting skills. Neither Dirt nor I have EVER said that “women who have ever related sexually to men can never become lesbians.” In fact, we have both written about “Later-In-Life Lesbians“. What we have said is that NOBODY can “become a Lesbian. You either are born a Lesbian, or you are not one at all. Some Lesbians may initially attempt to please their families/society/church/etc. by marrying a man, then later come out as a Lesbian. But guess what? THEY WERE LESBIAN ALL ALONG, EINSTEIN. You know who isn’t a Lesbian, and never will be, though, Sheila et al.? A HETEROSEXUAL female who chooses (for whatever reason) to partner with another female, that’s who. For approximately the millionth time: Behavior does NOT equal orientation. Geez, Sheila. Do try to keep up, dear.

4). Sheila writes, “She (Dirt) says that I am not and have never been a lesbian because I was once heterosexual; rather, I am a ‘straightbian'”. Um, yeah, exactly. BINGO! Ding ding ding, Sheila wins a prize! Yes, that is exactly what we are saying, Sheila: IF YOU ARE A HETEROSEXUAL, sweetie, YOU ARE NOT A FREAKING LESBIAN. You are one or you are the other; you can never be both, nor can you switch back and forth. Sheila states clearly here in this passage that she was, in fact, born a HETEROSEXUAL. Ergo, Sheila is NOT A LESBIAN (nor is any other Straightbian), nor has she ever been, nor will she ever be. Which, of course, is the entire point of the Unstraightening Lesbian series.

5). Sheila goes on to babble some bullshit about butchness, then culminates her blather with this “
brilliant”(NOT!) thought: “This jockeying for position and for authenticity, for the status of ‘real ones’, creates bitter divisions between lesbians. It also creates a barrier to heterosexual women choosing to become lesbians.” First of all, we aren’t jockeying for “position” — but: we are saying that the plethora of NON-Lesbians (AKA Straightbians), like Shoddy Sheila herself, who have found fame and fortune while arrogantly speaking for Lesbians are wrong and harmful to real Lesbians in a myriad of ways. Secondly, standing up for Lesbian truth and authenticity does not “create bitter divisions between lesbians” — instead, it creates bitter divisions between real Lesbians and charlatan Straightbians. (Good riddance too. Bye, bye, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, ladies). Finally, YES: We do, in fact, strive to create a barrier to heterosexual women who falsely claim that they “
choose to be Lesbians“. Why? Well, let’s all just THINK about it — we have confidence that even the dullest knife in the drawer is capable of seeing the irony in Sheila’s statement. Yes, IF SOMEONE IS HETEROSEXUAL, SHE IS NOT A LESBIAN. Sheila freely admits in this passage that she and her cohorts are, in fact, HETEROSEXUAL…which makes Sheila and The Straightbians — wait for it, wait for it — NOT FUCKING LESBIANS. FFS.

6). Neither Dirt nor I have ever said that females can’t/shouldn’t make a choice to partner with other females. Shit, we watch the ID Channel! So if Het women wanna hook up with a STRAIGHTBIAN, be careful, STRAIGHTBIANS dont feature large on Deadly Women for nothing! Oh wait, where was I? Oh yeah! Of course, we recognize that everybody has a right to live their lives any way they see fit. So, go for it, straight chickadees, and do whatever you want…but just know that you are wrong, unethical, and immoral if you call yourself a “Lesbian”.

7). Thanks, Sheila, for publicly admitting what we have been saying all along: that you and others in our Unstraightening Lesbian series are, in fact, HETEROSEXUALS. Being a Lesbian is not a choice, dear, and it’s terribly privileged and arrogant for you and others to claim that it is. Publishing idiotic drivel like the quote above simply reinforces the clueless, twisted, entitled egocentrism of Straightbians: especially the self-proclaimed “lesbian experts” who are neither Lesbians nor experts.

8). Kindly take your radical feminist malarkey and shove it way, way far up your…well, you know.

Dirt & Mrs. Dirt
Image 45
You still are, Sheila. You always will be hun.

Comments

  1. Heterosexual women *choosing* to become lesbian?

    Even if we say that you can be a lesbian, despite having had a confused sex life. It doesn't follow that you just *choose*. It's soo middle-class academia ex post rationalization.

    I wonder what's most dishonest, to force yourself to have sex with women in order to score "autencity"-points or actually be a lesbian but claim that you choosed?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Replying to myself.

    Then of course working for social change requires that you can spend the time and have some clout. Not raising a family could free time for that. But on the other hand not raising children, no matter the cause, excludes you from various circles. You can't sit on a playground and just shoot the breeze with other parents. You don't meet other parents at the kindergarten or school. And so on.

    Of course there will always be an elite. A group of people who petition for something may do so for decades, because they are addressing the wrong persons. But a person with connections could theoretically solve the problem in a few days.

    But saying that lesbianism was the X factor for social change for women is overselling it. I think I'm gonna buy this book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was that a point to these comments? Neither myself nor my wife found one. Please explain.

      Dirt

      Delete
    2. I maybe was thinking out loud. And I'm swedish so I have a different perspective. (There's kindergartens and maternity leaves here. And some people claim that lesbians played key roles in getting there. Idunno.)

      First, social change doesn't come free. Often it needs hard work. So if you don't raise children you have more spare time to devote to the cause. But on the other hand, you have no automatic connections to social circles that could support you. So we can't really say that having no children at all is bad or good for the cause for kindergartens or maternity leaves.

      Yeah, neither kindergartens nor maternity leaves is mentioned in the description. And one could say that it's not an issue at all for most lesbians. Therefore it has nothing to do with lesbians and a lesbian working for that cause is "only" a mensch. (But why not?)

      Anyway, now I see something really ominous in the description, it starts out nice enough:

      "The book shows that lesbian feminists were founders of feminist institutions such as resources for women survivors of men’s violence, including refuges and rape crisis centres, and that they were central to campaigns against this violence."

      But then it takes a turn for the worse:

      "They also created a profound and challenging analysis of sexuality which has disappeared from the historical record. They analysed heterosexuality as a political institution, arguing that lesbianism was a political choice for feminists and, indeed, a form of resistance in itself."

      Not that I actually believe that they managed to "convert" any substantial numbers. But the harm done here is if a het woman has to go underground in a sanctuary because the police don't care and the punishment is lax, if any. But they would more or less explicitly say that she's a bad person if she would prefer to settle the issue with a divorce and a hefty punisment, rather than "convert".

      And yes, "theatre groups, bands, art and poetry" are important per se and can be important in a movement for insipration and recreation. But if most of the energy is spent on that, it's just self-gratification.

      And on the other hand, where's the books about gay men qua gay men being the driving force in a movement that wasn't about gay mens interests? Except regarding better treatment of hiv/aids-patients where everyone was better of in the end, not just gay men. Yes, you could not write a book on the history on entertainment omitting the gay men. But that doesn't mean that the gay men in Hollywood had an inner circle and so on.

      So my conclusions are the same as yours. Academia and middle-class sometimes leads to cheap rationalizations.

      Peace out!

      Delete

Post a Comment