Carnival of Feminists No 59
Welcome to the Carnival of Feminists, which begins with an apology, for the hiatus since the last, which was due to my disappearing under a deluge of work, from which I’m slowly extracting myself.
So there’s more than a month of nominations here, and I decided the best thing to do was to collect them, to allow a new host a managable run.
And the next host will be Unmana’s words, on July 9. She kindly came asking if I needed hosts. You can use the nomination form to send links to her, or email her at unmana AT gmail DOT com.
(But I still need more hosts – if you’re interested, whether a “veteran” feminist blogger, or a “newbie”, or somewhere in between, please drop me a line, natalieben AT gmail DOT com.)
So, to a veritable cornucopia of feminists posts – and how to organise them? Well I’ve decided to do something different this time – to test the effects of serendipity. What’s below is, more or less, the order in which the nominations arrived; which might produce some interesting juxtapositions…
(Although I have by and large eliminated multiples from the same blog, in the interest of not allowing “swamping”. I’ve chosen the first one from each blog – following on the theme of allowing Lady Luck to do her stuff.)
To begin let’s be cheerful with Tali, who concludes, in an exploration of decades of women and motorcycles, that Ladies Prefer Vespa .
Moving into more serious territory, on Feminist Philosophers, Jender looks at a yet another rule for breastfeeding mothers. You have to wonder how the human race survived before the job of expert in childhood was invented.
Madeleine Begun Kane presents her own inimitable style view of Hillary and Obama, after the race was won.
Ann Bartow recovers some feminist history with a clip from an interview of Margaret Sanger on 9/21/57.
And a reminder that for some American women, not much has changed: Holly Ord presents
Getting even more subversive, you can meet The Female Sex Agent posted at Agent of Desire, which is “all about claiming back female sexuality for women sick of objectification.”
Nine Deuce concludes that The First Amendment is only sort of cool.
Cruella find that there’s Trouble in Comedy-Land.
Womanist Musings presents East Vs. West – The Feminist Divide.
Cara gets angry about claims of Faulty Feminist Introspection .
As is Lindabeth, about the fact that Sexualized Ads Become “Obscene” When Guys are the Objects.
Pete sees how Western misogyny translated to China in the Gold Diggers of 1936 .
Louisefeminista brings us back to the present with a The “Matriarch of Interracial Marriage” and Other Groundbreaking Female Plaintiffs; that’s about Mildred Loving, who made history in 1967 with a lawsuit that led the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.
The intersection of racism and sexism is also explored by Deborah in Where did I learn my racism? and there’s a response by Anjum.
Getting more, dare I say it, postmodern, you can play Spot the Harry Enfield fan, while Fannie is also concerned about looks and what WNBA players are told about them.
Concerned with looking rather than looks, PodBlack looks at >Ashes To Ashes – Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Tart.
Marcella Chester considers Why Rape Survivors Go Online.
Womanist Musings presents href="http://www.womanist-musings.com/2008/05/stuck-in-middle.html">Stuck In The Middle, again considering the race/gender intersection.
Fiona Young-Brown concludes that yes, pregnant women have sex, and even enjoy it. So?
And in a possible related issue, Sarah McClellan-Brandt considersthe name change issue
At Miss Andrea’s, there’s a deconsruction of transgenderism. (Link de-activated, see comment below.)
And that concludes this rather unusual carnival. I promise that we’ll now get back on regular track. And remember – if you want to host, the email’s natalieben AT gmail DOT com.



[...] by Jack Stephens on June 24, 2008 The latest Carnival of Feminists is up at Philobiblon: Welcome to the Carnival of Feminists, which begins with an apology, for the hiatus since the last, [...]
Pingback by Carnival of Feminists No. 59 « The Blog and the Bullet — June 25, 2008 @ 12:46 am
[...] latest Carnival of Feminists is up at Philobiblon: Welcome to the Carnival of Feminists, which begins with an apology, for the hiatus since the last, [...]
Pingback by Carnival of Feminists No. 59 « The Mustard Seed — June 25, 2008 @ 12:47 am
Thanks for doing this, and for the link to our posts
Comment by Julie Fairey — June 25, 2008 @ 4:35 am
Thanks for hosting, Natalie! Late or not, I appreciate the effort putting it together.
Comment by Aerik — June 25, 2008 @ 5:58 am
[...] Margaret Sanger 25 06 2008 Ann Bartow at Feminist Law Professors has posted an interesting interview with Margaret Sanger (Hat tip to Philobiblon). [...]
Pingback by Margaret Sanger « The Scary Door — June 25, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
Thanks for all the great links!
Comment by professor what if — June 25, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
[...] Carnival of Feminists June 25, 2008 Filed under: events — jj @ 3:57 pm It’s here. Congratulations to Jender for the post of hers that was chosen! [...]
Pingback by The 59th Carnival of Feminists « Feminist Philosophers — June 25, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Can’t believe you linked “deconsruction of transgenderism”. That’s terrible.
Comment by Moody — June 25, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Why did you include “Deconstruction of Transgenderism”? It’s hateful.
Comment by angela — June 25, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
I second the comments on ‘Deconstruction of Transgenderism’. Although I wouldn’t exclude anyone just for having a ‘wrong’ opinion, it’s actually pretty hateful, and I should imagine, indicative to trans folk that they’re not welcome to feminism.
Plus she has a post further down saying that transwomen shouldn’t be allowed to talk about their own experience because they’re not objective enough / too emotionally disturbed.
Comment by Zenobia — June 25, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Not to be Echo-Man or anything, but, well, yeah… That’s a pretty horrifying article.
Comment by Mike — June 25, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
Yeah, got to agree that the transgender article is hateful. It’s not even a real dscussion about the issues transgendering raises for feminism (which people may or may not agree with), but an outright attack on a group of people.
Comment by Feminist Avatar — June 25, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
[...] who is really fucking pissed off that there’s a link to a transphobic piece of bullshit in the latest Carnival of Feminists, can [...]
Pingback by On Feminism and Transphobia : The Curvature — June 25, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
Echoing those who feel Miss Andrea’s divisive, hateful rantings don’t really belong.
Comment by Veronica — June 25, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
As a former CoF host and general fan of the carnival and this website, I have to say I’m dismayed at the inclusion of that piece as well. I’m going on the speculation/sincere hope that perhaps the host here didn’t read all the nominated pieces before including them. Thing is, though…”deconstructing transgenderism,” you know, the author of that piece is not transgendered, first of all, and no, honestly, it’s…Look: would you include a piece by a straight person called “deconstructing homosexuality?” Because that’s pretty much what this is.
Besides which, the piece is not only overtly hateful, it’s damn near incoherent.
Comment by belledame222 — June 25, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
I couldn’t quite believe that antitrans article either, even with the I-just-got-up factor. I think that rather than just talk about it here, maybe some of us should go on over to Miss Andrea’s place and tell her we are seeing thru it, and explain in detail how. No need to get abusive or anything like that–just say we’re sick of bigotry. It’s what I would have done if this computer hadn’t got fractious about accessing that site.
Comment by Angiportus — June 25, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
This question comes up over and over, and I see no way for it to be resolved.
It is the position of many radical feminists and a stated goal to irradicate the culturally conditioned concept of gender.
It is the position of many transpersons that gender is biological.
Neither of these positions are “hateful”, they are simply differences of opinion.
Comment by thebewilderness — June 25, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
Okay bewilderness — I don’t know how you identify in terms of gender/sex. Is it as male, female, something else? Regardless, you’re wrong. You’re not actually what you claim to be, and your claims are a direct insult to me. I don’t care how you feel about it. In fact, the more you claim to know your own identity, the more you prove to me that you are a sexual predator who hates women and are claiming said identity solely for the purpose of intentionally pissing me off and making me feel uncomfortable. How dare you?
Now: if I actually meant all/any of that, you mean to say that it wouldn’t feel hateful to you? If it wouldn’t, I haven’t got the slightest clue what else to say.
Comment by Cara — June 25, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
bewilderness: it is the position of many gay people that sexuality is biologically innate. It’s not a belief I particularly happen to share or care about. I still don’t want some straight person spouting ignorant crap about me and mine, particularly when she’s doing it, as mAndrea has done her excretions, to demonstrate that homosexuality/transexuality is harmful to The Family/women/whoever it is that’s supposed to be in danger from other people living or -trying- to live their own goddam lives. and the fact that it keeps coming up over and over again does not in fact mean that the “sides” are equally weighted, any more than the “debate” over gay marriage is equally valid whether coming from straight people who aren’t affected either way (except in their fevered imaginations) or from gay people who actually are -directly impacted- by this.
or, for that matter, whether segregation/”miscegenation” is a “States’ Rights” thing.
It’s really. not. that. complicated.
You want to witter about how TERRIBLE porn and lipstick is all day, fine. You want to complain that no one appreciates your special kind of special feminism and everyone else is just an impostor, fine. Back it up, fine. This shit? Not in my feminism. As for whether it’s tolerated in the CoF, that’s up to its founder and host(s). All I can do is tell you where I stand. This is it.
Comment by belledame222 — June 26, 2008 @ 12:14 am
You can identify as anything you want, and so can I. I do not pretend that the culture does not affect how we identify everything and anything, including ourselves.
You are welcome to feel whatever you like. You are not, however, welcome to demand that what you feel trumps what anyone else thinks or feels.
In answer to your question, no, just stupid. People have been telling me that sort of silly stuff all my life. It is a weak ass basis for an argument.
If you cannot engage the argument, calling it hateful becomes a mindless dismissal.
Comment by thebewilderness — June 26, 2008 @ 12:17 am
and by the way, the reason I make the homosexuality comparison over and over again is because I hear exactly, but EXACTLY this kind of oh-but-we’re-not-bigots-*really* handwaving from the religious right, in so many words, right after some fuckwit has written yet another bashbashbash but “oh, but I just pity the poor things” (mAndrea has actually written this wrt transfolk, elsewhere). Just a difference of opinion. Can be discussed by reasonable people blah blah.
No.
If you can understandhow this doesn’t fly wrt lesbianism–and any feminist in this day and age damn well ought to be–you ought to be able to make the very small leap to grokking this as well.
If you can’t do either, well. Again. Not my feminism. And if “radical” feminism is really that different–you know what, work it out among yourselves. You even have a “Carnival of Radical Feminists,” run by the queen herself. Use that, if you must. This is bullshit, though. Really. Bullshit.
Comment by belledame222 — June 26, 2008 @ 12:20 am
You are not, however, welcome to demand that what you feel trumps what anyone else thinks or feels.>>
Again: bigotry 101, can hear that from any nice polite “we just don’t want them in our church or in our institutions” preacher any day of the week. I’ll even go find you some quotes. Red herring. Feel and think whatever you want. Just don’t expect not to be called on it. And damn right I’m going to call it “hateful.” Don’t like it? Well, gee, it’s how I FEEL.
Comment by belledame222 — June 26, 2008 @ 12:21 am
And by the way, bewilderness, if she were -only- arguing that transgenderism wasn’t innately biological, a) she’d have plenty of actual transpeople (with whom she bothers to actually engage like an actual three-D person, how often? or any of you?) who agreed b) you might or might not still be getting “hateful.”
-This- is what people are calling “hateful,” bwd:
“It is impossible to argue that transgenderism holds no negative repercussions for real women, yet most feminists are blatantly refusing to even consider the existence of these negatives.”
“Real women,” see. And herein also the author commits the logical fallacy of “burden of proof.” Actual concrete fucking negative repercussions, dear. Not “how many patriarchies can dance on the head of a pin.”
and then, elsewhere, on another blog, this hit and run by the same author:
“If somebody wants to prove that transgenderism is a valid medical condition, then they need to prove that it is not a fetish. Amazingly enough, this can’t be done either — not using any form of logic, anyway. If after 20 plus years of asking for proof, and the transfolk still can’t develope a logical argument, then a reasonable person starts to ask why.
Claiming that something is phobic can only be valid after the criticisms are actually addressed, and proven to be wrong. Asking the trans community to prove their assertions instead of just whining about their feelings is not a lot to ask. So prove it!”
***
“Prove to me you have a right to exist. Your feelings don’t matter. Even though it’s your life and not mine. ‘Real women’ are hurt by your existence.”
I repeat: fuck off.
Comment by belledame222 — June 26, 2008 @ 12:28 am
Was there an argument in there somewhere?
This certainly demonstrates why that particular difference of opinion will not be resolved.
Thank you for your courtesy.
Comment by thebewilderness — June 26, 2008 @ 12:38 am
Yeah, I’d say it’s plain out hateful.
And with regards to this:
“If somebody wants to prove that transgenderism is a valid medical condition, then they need to prove that it is not a fetish. Amazingly enough, this can’t be done either — not using any form of logic, anyway.”
Fetish: (noun) any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.
And yes, of course, the term is clouded by over and misuse often, but that is the definition. People have shoe fetishes, or fetishes for certain body parts. They may have a leather fetish, or a thing for medical-like settings…that is “fetish”.
The feeling that one was born in or with the wrong physical body, in totality, right on down to the genitals, is not, by definition, a fetish. The fact that transgender people feel biologically, mentally, and emotionally that the bodies they are born with do not match who they are is not an erotic response or fixation, it is not a fornication thing, so once again, by default and definition, not a fetish. I, even as a cis-gender person (with fetishes), am logical enough to figure that out.
A fetish, also, is not REQUIRED for a person to be aroused. And all of this has nothing to do with being trans.
She’s free to try and prove otherwise.
Comment by RenegadeEvolution — June 26, 2008 @ 12:41 am
Oh, btw, in the interest of backing one’s shit up lest one be accused of “lying” or “slander,” wrt this:
“but “oh, but I just pity the poor things” (mAndrea has actually written this wrt transfolk, elsewhere)”
the actual quote:
http://bastantealready.blogspot.com/2008/06/r-word-part-four.html
“If I ever get around to it, I have a few more posts coming about why transgenderism doesn’t make any sense and is actually harmful to real women *as an ideology*. The transgendered folks themselves I actually feel sorry for, believe it or not.”
Mighty white of her.
This was, by the way, in the course of, well, you may want to read the whole post and comment thread. Next bit after that:
“About the word “retard”. It used to have a clinical definition meaning someone within a specific IQ range, as did the terms imbicile, moron, and idiot. Someone who can’t identify (or solve) basic logic problems would qualify under that catagory.
Yes, I’m making fun of certain feminists when I use that term, and no, I don’t care. I don’t care because regardless how tactful I have tried to be in the past a certain type of person will always prefer to change the focus of the discussion so as to avoid addressing the criticism.
…Did I answer all your questions? Oh, since disabled people really are disabled, there is no insult to them. It’s only insulting if they prefer to think they’re not disabled.”
***
Real charmer all round, innit? Let’s give the lady a hand. Clap, clap.
but, you know, -logical-.
Comment by belledame222 — June 26, 2008 @ 12:44 am
oh yeah, and while we’re on the subject of “hateful,” bwd, let’s not forget the comments section of that -logical,- not at all -hateful- post(s). Like this one from “part one:”
(thanks, drakyn http://drakyn.blogspot.com/2008/06/appleseeds.html)
someone called KA:
“”It’s the rape and total control over a synthetic female body, giving him and any other man he includes full access to treating women the way they both love to fetishize treating women. They then strengthen the conditioned response to female parts with their misogynist sex.That’s why you see so many misogynists patronizing MtF prostitutes, and MtF prostitutes happy to do it. Sexist men look out for each other and will cooperate to control women’s bodies in any novel way they can think of.”
***
I’m sorry; what exactly was the “argument” you wanted in response to this? Nice, logical, come let us reason together -argument-? Like, on debate team, was it?
Comment by belledame222 — June 26, 2008 @ 1:16 am
Philo, sorry to spam up your comments thread, and you may not be around at the moment, but really would appreciate it if you address this: it’s important.
Comment by belledame222 — June 26, 2008 @ 1:22 am
thebewilderness,
This is not a neutral, “both sides have equal weight” argument. On the one hand, you have people who are trying to live their lives the best they can. On the other hand, you have people questioning trans personhood, trans’ right to live their own lives, their ability to make decisions for themselves, their rationality, their sanity, their legitimacy.
As Belle quotes above, KA is advocating that trans women willingly make themselves available as prostitutes and rape victims so men can use female bodies as they wish. This isn’t a rational, logical argument, this is hatred given language. And should anyone even consider saying “Andrea can’t be held responsible for what her commenters say, Andrea’s response to KA’s post is:
I, too, hope that people carry KA’s ideas to other blogs – not because I think it’ll convince anyone, but because this kind of disgusting filth should see the light of day. Because people should see how low bigots will go to justify their irrational and illogical hatred.
Andrea’s posts are full-on hate speech. You are defending full-on hate speech – but I’m not surprised, since you like to dabble in the anti-trans hate speech yourself.
Comment by Lisa Harney — June 26, 2008 @ 1:34 am
Natalie, I’ve loved working with you in the past. But, that last piece is utter bigoted garbage. How on earth did it make it in here?!?!
Comment by whatsername — June 26, 2008 @ 5:28 am
Dear all,
I have now deactivated that link, as you’ll see from the post.
I read it quickly when I posted it and I now see inaccurately, as a satire about the extremes of femininity practiced in some communities, but on closer reading and looking at other posts on the site I agree that it isn’t appropriate for the carnival.
I haven’t removed it altogether since that would be trying to rewrite history, so anyone who wants to see what this discussion about could I am sure find it through Google et al.
Comment by Natalie Bennett — June 26, 2008 @ 7:52 am
Thank you, Natalie.
Comment by Lisa Harney — June 26, 2008 @ 8:00 am
Natalie, with all due respect, I’ve got to add my voice to the chorus; the final link is sick, hateful, and ugly.
When posts like that are included in a general-purpose feminist carnival, trans women and men, and their allies, are going to be made to feel like feminism doesn’t include us. I think that’s a mistake, for a carnival that wishes to be inclusive.
Comment by Ampersand — June 26, 2008 @ 8:23 am
Whoops! Sorry about that — I cross-posted with Natalie.
Thanks, Natalie.
Comment by Ampersand — June 26, 2008 @ 8:24 am
I read it quickly when I posted it and I now see inaccurately, as a satire about the extremes of femininity practiced in some communities, but on closer reading and looking at other posts on the site I agree that it isn’t appropriate for the carnival.
I appreciate your taking the link down, Natalie, but–
“some communities”? Which communities, pray tell, are those? And if you saw this piece as a satire poking fun at “some communities” in an acceptable way, are those stereotypes you feel are grounded enough to be amusing? That is, what sympathies do you have with the piece and its view of “some communities” that convinced you it was acceptable?
Comment by little light — June 26, 2008 @ 8:34 am
I read it quickly when I posted it and I now see inaccurately, as a satire about the extremes of femininity practiced in some communities, but on closer reading and looking at other posts on the site I agree that it isn’t appropriate for the carnival.
Because the transmisogyny was REALLY subtle, right? No way a quick reading could pick up on it.
Okaaaay…
Thanks for responding to the firestorm of protest, if not the _actual_ hate speech.
Comment by lyssa — June 26, 2008 @ 8:48 am
Thank you, Natalie.
Comment by Veronica — June 26, 2008 @ 10:18 am
I’m kind of puzzled, actually, that the article was presented here as ‘a deconstruction of transgenderism’, the first paragraph of the post promises a deconstruction of the ‘Orwellian double think of the transgender crowd’ (arf!). How is this even superficially an analysis of ridiculous amounts of femininity in ‘certain circles’? As Little Light says, what do you mean by ‘certain circles’?
How can anyone even take seriously a post that claims that ‘transgenderism’ is ‘an ideology’, rather than a bunch of people trying to survive?
Also, I don’t want to take issue with the inclusion of the Margaret Sanger interview, exactly, because it has historical import, but there should be some links to some context provided, like her quote about Aborigenes and some links to her other work, where she talks about how poverty, prostitution, crime, etc. are the result of allowing ‘the feeble-minded’ in ‘the thickly-populated negro districts’ to reproduce. I mean, she was a eugenicist, and her feminism only ever applied to a certain class of women.
Just mentioning that because this carnival looks very unwelcoming to both trans folk and women of colour, or so it would seem to me, and I don’t want to be part of any club that implicitly excludes those groups.
Comment by Zenobia — June 26, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
What little light and others said. At first quick glance I assumed you meant you thought mAndrea was a self-parody, which, I could understand, although without any explaining words…yeah. But, “extremes of femininity?” (I read that as “feminism” for a second). Um… not understanding this. And, yeah, which communities…?
that said, the removal helps, appreciate. But, yeah, still troubled here.
Comment by belledame222 — June 26, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Not to pile on and all, but “some communities”? I’m interested to hear an explanation for how one managed to read that post as anything but blatant hate speech.
It’s nice that it was taken down, but it’s not so much as even an apology for selecting the thing in a carnival of *feminists* to begin with.
Comment by Rebecca — June 26, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
“How can anyone even take seriously a post that claims that ‘transgenderism’ is ‘an ideology’, rather than a bunch of people trying to survive?”
Yes. This. Like I say at my spot, I don’t want to pile on our hostess here, as she’s absolutely done the right thing in taking this down.
But I really do think that sometimes, there’s a strain within feminism that reduces people’s lives to “ideology,” and I always find it alarming. How did we get from feminisms designed to make women’s lives freer, healthier, and happier, to “deconstructing” other women’s “ideologies” SO OFTEN? Why is this even apparently of value?
Comment by Trin — June 26, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
and yeah, again, I keep coming back to this: if transgenderism is an “ideology,” then so is homosexuality. As a cis queer person who’s heard the latter argument invoked by right wingers -way- too often, this shit hits way too close to home. And I want to know, from feminists, lesbians included: exactly how it is that you justify “being transgendered is an ideology/sickness/trend” when these are EXACTLY the arguments, but EXACTLY, used by homophobes (who, by the way, are also inevitably Terribly Offended by being called -homophobes-, because they’re not -afraid- and they’re not -bad people- and how dare we label them something they don’t believe they are, o irony irony), all the time.
Comment by belledame222 — June 26, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Thank you for delinking the article. However, that does not change the fact that this episode has been hurtful to many trans people and people of color (Margaret Sanger) and their allies, and personally hurtful to me as a trans woman. Every time something like this happens, the separation between feminism and myself gets a bit wider. Maybe that is what you want.
Note to future hosts of CoF: I respectfully request that you do not link any of my writings to future editions of CoF. I will not be a part of a forum that has hurt so many people this way.
Comment by GallingGalla — June 26, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Natalie, thank you.
Comment by Amber — June 26, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
Not to pile on and all, but “some communities”? I’m interested to hear an explanation for how one managed to read that post as anything but blatant hate speech.
Putting togehter a carnival is a lot of work (i’ve hosted two), you read things quickly, you want to get in as much as possible and represent as many voices as possible. You don’t always read things closely. Natalie did the right thing by taking down the post. Let’s not dissect her every word now.
Comment by Amber — June 26, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Amber,
You don’t have to read that piece closely to recognize it as hate speech. You barely have to skim it. And it was not linked as a “satire,” now was it?
Still, as a trans woman of color, I’m grateful to have you here to tell me what should and should not concern me in one of the significant voices of a movement that purports to give a damn about me.
I know it’s awfully hard work and all, but it seems to me that if your hard work doesn’t manage to filter out baldfaced, seething, unadulterated bigotry, then maybe it deserves a little questioning. You don’t knife someone in the gut and say, “Sorry, officer, it’s just really hard work to pay attention to where other people are,” and not expect a raised eyebrow.
Comment by little light — June 26, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Yeah, I’ve hosted the carnival before, too. It’s hard work. That’s not the issue here.
I mean, yeah, I -am- cutting Natalie slack; that’s why I didn’t just flame her and huff off. And why everyone here is saying “Thank you” or at least appreciating/acknowledging that yes, she took it down. But I said I’m still bothered by her response, and I mean it. If she’d said something more like I was hoping, i.e. sorry guys, I just included whatever was in the submission box this time as I was swamped, don’t know how this didn’t set off my red flags but it didn’t, I’ll have to think about that, anyway, really sorry, won’t happen again–wouldn’t even have said that much. But it’s not just “you fucked up and can never ever make it better;” her explanation opens up more questions, I’m afraid.
So far, -one- person said she no longer wishes to be associated with the CoF at all, a trans woman. I’m not jumping on that bandwagon at the moment precisely because of Natalie’s track record, but you know what, it’s her prerogative to do so, GG’s, and it’s not my place to tell her to cut the nice cis lady some slack, she’s trying really hard. It’s just…not.
Comment by belledame222 — June 26, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
I think a post by Natalie “deconstructing” her little hate speech promotion “whoopsie” would be completely appropriate.
Inquiring minds want to know…
And besides, she may learn something about trans women in the process…
Comment by lyssa — June 26, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
I feel like an idiot. It was late last night, and I missed the “extremes of femininity” comment too. Just what exactly is that supposed to mean?
Several months ago, Megan Julca posted a video response to a woman on YouTube who had posted a fairly long rant about how trans women are too feminine…and she tried to pass her video off as a satire about extremes of femininity in some communities as well.
Even if mAndrea’s post was such a satire, it would still be wrong and transphobic, and inappropriate for a feminist carnival. In this case, for propagating a stereotype about trans women (that we take femininity to extremes) that’s used against us, to harm us, to police our behavior.
Trans lives are not ideological points. Trans lives are not metaphors. Trans lives are lived by living, breathing human beings who have to put up with constant judgemental crap on a regular – often daily – basis.
Comment by Lisa Harney — June 27, 2008 @ 1:36 am
Excellent words, Lisa Harney. I salute you, and everybody else’s efforts in getting the link pulled. I commented before even scrolling through the carnival, I can only wish I had come back and commented earlier.
Comment by Aerik — June 27, 2008 @ 6:08 am
[...] Carnival of Feminists no. 59 Carnival of Feminists no. 59 is up at Philobiblon. [...]
Pingback by Carnival of Feminists no. 59 « don’t ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me? — June 27, 2008 @ 8:12 am
However, that does not change the fact that this episode has been hurtful to many trans people and people of color (Margaret Sanger) and their allies
Thanks, I thought it was just me!
Really, I personally don’t want to swamp Natalie with too many complaints, I’m sure those things were included because they are a part of feminism (unfortunately), rather than because Natalie endorses them. I think she’s a good blogger and usually quite conscientious, so I’m not banging my fist down and cancelling my subscription or anything.
Still, I think a response, re the Miss Andrea post, might be appropriate.
Comment by Zenobia — June 27, 2008 @ 9:13 am
“If transgenderism is an ideology then so is homosexuality”
Well neither is an ideology. But it is correct that both are constructs.
Transgenderism is a construct because it posits that the (constructed by patriarchy) gender categories ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are real. Which is why I object to the politics of transgenderism. Please note – I do not believe that people should not have gender reassignment if they wish, or that people who identify as transgendered/transsexual should be discriminated against on this basis. I just believe that you cannot say that move from one (fictional) gender category to another without making the idea of gender – which underpins patriarchy – more real, and thus prolonging patriarchy.
‘Homosexuality’ is a construct because it is the belief that someone who prefers people of the same (constructed under a patriarchal gender binary system) sex as them as a sexual partner is somehow intrinsically different from someone who is ‘heterosexual’ (prefers people of the opposite sex as sexual partners). However becuase patriarchy deems that only ‘heterosexual’ relationships are possible (heteronormativity)’homosexuality’ does not reify the gender binary but challenges it. I think it would be perfectly possible for someone who is not ‘homosexual’ to deconstruct homosexuality. It’s an analysis of patriarchy, not an account of what it feels like to be gay/lesbian.
It is interesting that, exactly as MAndrea predicted, no one has addressed the point she is making, but has resorted to ad hominem attacks.
Comment by polly styrene — June 27, 2008 @ 9:18 am
But since the link has been removed how is anyone meant to know what Mandrea actually said? Nothing like critiquing something you’ve not read eh folks?
Comment by polly styrene — June 27, 2008 @ 9:35 am
Transgender may refer to something like that… But I would hazard a guess that most trans people aren’t identifying with the gender but with the sex; in which case, your point, such as it is, becomes moot.
Classic special pleading. How surprising!
Comment by Mike — June 27, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Oh and can someone please point me to the actual bit where Mandrea is “propagating a stereotype about trans women (that we take femininity to extremes) that’s used against us, to harm us, to police our behavior”
And by pointing me to it I mean quote the actual words where she says this. Because if you can’t quote it, it isn’t there.
Comment by polly styrene — June 27, 2008 @ 10:12 am
polly styrene:
For a full explanation of how illogical mAndrea’s ideas about transgenderism are, you can read my blog analysis,m which is refreshingly free from ad hominem attacks (well, save one brief moment of slipping into a parody of mAndrea’s own writing style).
As I point out there, gender is a multi-layered phenomenon, and the “fictional” part is the association of particular behavioural characteristics with particular physical characteristics. Those transgendered folks who are interested in the behavioural characteristics generally only go as far as adopting the display characteristics of the opposite gender, and don’t do anything about the physical characteristics, except insofar as these are helpful to “display”. Transsexual people, on the other hand, tend to be less worried about the behavioural or display characteristics, and only want the physical characteristics to match an underlying sense of their true physical self. Inasmuch as transsexual folks conform to gendered patriarchy norms, it is because they are as indoctrinated as anyone else in this society into those ideals. Thus, far from upholding the patriarchy, TG and TS tend to erode the strict association of “social” elements of gender with the physical designations of “man” and “woman”. Although it may be argued that transvestites and crossdressers tend to present an ideal of femininity that is rooted in the Patriarchy, the fact that they DON’T feel the need to have surgery to change their genitalia, kind of suggests that they’re saying that those things are independent of physical gender characteristics, no?
Comment by SnowdropExplodes — June 27, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Mike if most trans people are identifying not with the gender but the sex explain this:
In the Uk you can undergo ‘gender reassignement’. This process involves changing your birth certificate. So if it initially read ‘boy’ it now reads ‘girl’ and vice versa.
If people only want to change their biological “sex” (in itself a construct) – which involves swopping one set of genitals for another, why bother changing what your birth certificate says? Why bother changing your name? That is not changing your ’sex’ it is changing your ‘gender’. No one ever swopped their penis for a vagina but was happy to continue to be a ‘man’. They want to be a ‘woman’.
I gather by the phrase ’special pleading’ that you can’t think of an argument to refute my point on homosexuality then. Nice try, but no cigar.
Comment by polly styrene — June 27, 2008 @ 10:26 am
Right. Because unless she said those actual words, she couldn’t possibly have meant that.
So if I call you an obese rugmuncher, I didn’t call you a fat lesbian. Because, you know, unless the actual words are there, it isn’t there. Because implication just does not exist.
Right?
Comment by Mike — June 27, 2008 @ 10:30 am
LOGIC: UR DOIN IT RONG. Because trans* people still suffer discrimination and oppression (often from people like you!) based on their sexual reassignment. It’s the sexual equivalent of a dreidl; a survival mechanism in a world which hates you.
Actually, Polly (nice nick, by the way – white, toxic and extremely lightweight describes you to a T), that was pointing out your logical fallacy: that you engaged in special pleading. Go and look it up.
Comment by Mike — June 27, 2008 @ 10:38 am
Snowdrop explodes – I refer you to the answer above. If transsexual people only want to change their ’sex’ and not their ‘gender’ why bother assuming a new name which pertains to the new gender. Eh?
I am (by most defnitions) ‘transgendered’. IE I do not behave in accordance with ‘feminine’ behaviour. Occasionally, if dressed in baggy clothing, I am mistaken for a ‘man’. Except I don’t think gender exists. So I can’t be. I cannot be trans gendered because gender does not exist. You cannot transition something which does not exist.
You cannot erode the concept of ‘gender’ by saying you are a ‘woman in a man’s body’ or a ‘man in a woman’s body’. You only make these concepts more real. Because you have to believe that there is such a thing as a man and a woman in the first place, to believe that you CAN be a ‘man’ in a ‘woman’s’ body or vice versa.
Patriarchy defines the class ‘man’ and ‘woman’ very tightly. See my blog for an explanation of how this is done. What happens if a person who is born ‘male’ becomes ‘female’ is not that gender is challenged. Gender is reified. Because it reinforces the belief that a ‘woman’ is someone who has a vagina, clitoris etc, instead of a penis, testes etc, and that people with a vagina are always “women”. You don’t get to decide what gender you are – it’s decided for you.
All that happens if you behave in a way that opposes gender norms (I do this myself every day), is that you get shit from patriarchy. Patriarchy does not throw up it’s hands and collapse. The only way to challenge the patriarchal system of gender is to expose it for the fiction it is. The ideas of transgenderism and transsexuality reify gender, they do not challenge it. Not the people – the ideas.
Comment by polly styrene — June 27, 2008 @ 10:41 am
Still no argument then Nick? With what I actually said? Oh dear – Just an (extremely bizarre) attack on my assumed name – it’s a punk singer, look it up. And look up ad hominem while you’re at it.
No the ’survival mechanism’ argument doesn’t cut it, sorry. I am not saying that individual trans people don’t have the right to behave in any way they want to. What I am saying is that the concept of ‘transsexuality’ is about being a ‘woman’ trapped in a ‘man’s’ body. This reifies gender. No two ways about it. And something that reifies gender prolongs patriarchy.
My life would be a lot easier if I looked traditionally ‘feminine’ and pretended I was ‘heterosexual’. But I’m not prepared to do that. Because I’m not prepared to conform to a norm that patriarchy wants me to. Unfortunately the vast majority of ‘trans’ people get shit in society because they are still perceived to be ‘trans’. So the so called “survival mechanism” doesn’t help them either. In fact it makes things worse, because most people who change sex are doomed to a life of pretence and fearing discovery. No fun about that.
Comment by polly styrene — June 27, 2008 @ 10:50 am
No Mike, I mean point me to the actual words from where you inferred M Andrea’s meaning. You know, cut and paste them, put them in quotation marks. The fact that you haven’t done this leads to me think you can’t.
And call me an obese mugruncher if you want. It’s the internetz. For all you know I could be a thin heterosexual male.
Comment by polly styrene — June 27, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Whoops I meant Mike, not nick.
Comment by polly styrene — June 27, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Oh and if being a ‘woman’ is not important why do so many trans activists blah on about how it is ‘transphobic’ to have a female assigned at birth only space eh? Answer me that?
Comment by polly styrene — June 27, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Sadly folks the necessity of a real life (plus the fact that I’m actually at work) means I must leave this thread here, fun though it is. Maybe Mike will come back with an actual argument (clue Mike – it does not consist of repeating the words special pleading ad infinitum or attacking people’s names, but addressing the actual points they have actually made with an actual counterpoint), who knows. Meanwhile remember kids – gender isn’t real….
Comment by polly styrene — June 27, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
” homosexuality’ does not reify the gender binary but challenges it.”
Oh Jesus fuck. I’m not even going to attempt to address the head-up-ass contortions it would take to unpack how one reaches that conclusion: why the FUCK do you care? No, seriously? You know, not everyone wants to live their damn lives as a CHALLENGE TO THE SYSTEM or whatever the hell it is? The point of challenging the system is that the system doesn’t work for everyone, not for its own sake, for fuck’s sake.
I mean, Jesus, so, what, even assuming that argument made any damn sense at all, now in order to -not- be a gratuitous asshole to one’s trans fellow travellers, they have to prove they win the Radical Sweepstakes? Fuck that noise. Listen, in a world where -anyone- runs the risk of falling between legal cracks, getting beaten up or killed for not conforming to heteronormativity (and if you think traditionally feminine-presenting trans women don’t get all of those things -simply for being trans- on TOP of the usual misogyny any woman gets, you really need to think again), I am not playing this fucked up Queen For A Day bullshit, and I do not understand why other people who -ought- to understand what this game is all about play it as well.
and you know what? Eventually, the goal is that -none of us- run those risks, -can- live happily ever after, don’t have to be automatically politicized -simply because of this-. The goal is not to win the most points for Most Oppressedest Of All, Forever And Ever, Amen, And If You Upstarts Think You’re Taking That Dubious Prize Away From Us, You’re Crazy. At least, not in -my- universe it isn’t.
Comment by belledame222 — June 27, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
“What I am saying is that the concept of ‘transsexuality’ is about being a ‘woman’ trapped in a ‘man’s’ body. This reifies gender.”
Funny, I can recall a number of very recent conversations with actual trans people in which they were pretty damn emphatic that in fact for -them- it means no such thing, but christ jesus forbid we actually talk -to- trans people instead of -about- them.
also, by the way, you do realize that a lot of people are trans AND queer, BOTH? And also genderqueer as well? Do the terms “trannyfag” or “trannydyke” mean anything to you? Butch and tomboy trannydykes and flamingly femme, even cross dressing trannyfags, even? (Yes, Some Of My Dear Friends Are). O no wait, let me guess, that’s not sufficiently -radical- either, they should just be hetero people then, never mind how they actually feel, that’s much more transgressive; and of course, who gives a shit what actually makes them happy, or just how much -easier- it is for them to transition -and- be gay rather than just smile and go along with whatever it is someone who isn’t actually in their skin thinks they’re supposed to be and do and feel. Whoever it is, and whatever it is THIS time.
Because, I mean! I can’t possibly extend myself to understand anyone -else’s- shit! I’ve suffered too! More than ANYONE, really! And if I can’t be happy, NO ONE GETS TO BE HAPPY GODDAMIT.
christ.
Comment by belledame222 — June 27, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
“the necessity of a real life”
…oh, classic. Right, then, sorry to have wasted my time responding to you, Polly. p.s. fuck off.
Just call me Memorex, then, same as all these other -imaginary constructs- you and your pals are so eager to -deconstruct-; imagine them, pretending to be actual people.
Comment by belledame222 — June 27, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
“In fact it makes things worse, because most people who change sex are doomed to a life of pretence and fearing discovery. No fun about that.”
DOOMED! DOOOOOOMED, I SAY!
Yes, Polly, much in the same way that lesbians are doomed to a twilight existence of–oh, sorry, we’re -not- in an Ann Bannon pulp? Fuck me.
Right, and of course, such measures as insisting that “people who change sex” do not belong in women only spaces, thereby closing off one of the few places a trans feminist woman (lesbian, too, yep, they exist) might feel safe, because fuck knows traditional mens’ spaces are GREAT for trans women, that doesn’t -contribute- to “a life of pretence and fearing discovery.” I mean, Sandy Stone, right? It was her fault for hiding herself like that from Olivia Records, and the “real women” had a perfect right to out her and insist she be fired. But that’s not MAKING the “tragic narrative,” heavens, no; it’s, what, their own fault, for being so, uhhhmmm, well, what is it now? Inherently fucked up? Falsely conscioused? Male?
And of course, this sounds -nothing- like the whole,
“Well! Studies show that homosexuals are 90% more likely to be alcoholic, promiscuous, and suicidal! Therefore, naturally we should feel sorry for the poor dears, but it’s -clear- that there’s something -wrong- with them. It’s not OUR fault. Not at ALL. NO.”
did I mention the part about “fuck off?”
I mean, seriously, you’re a butch lesbian; what does it take for the penny to drop? Seriously, what?
Comment by belledame222 — June 27, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
-calming slightly-
I mean, if it were -only- here the argument about whether or not “cis” is appropriate for a non-gender-normative non-transitioning woman, as I take it you are, Polly, I get it, really: yeah, that’s not a perfect fit, perhaps, at least not “cisgender;” fine.
But I mean: you talk as though the only options were being like you, or being some Renee Richards-like straight trans woman who fits all the conventional feminine norms.
a) the system is set up in a way that encourages trans folk to fit traditional gender and sexuality norms, even now, although less than it used to be, as I understand it; still, a -lot- of trans people don’t fit it, never have, and in fact talk quite a bit about trying to navigate all those hoops and still live the life they want to live. Not trivial. Try listening sometime.
b) Even if a given trans woman -does- end up looking and acting conventionally straight and feminine, so the fuck what? Why does this automatically exclude her from the radical tea party? Do you”deconstruct,” pathologize, turn away from the door -non- trans women who’re traditionally feminine, straight, married, etc? Because, funny, for all the claims of “oh, we scrutinize and criticize EVERYONE this way” (and maybe -you- do, Polly, which I am sure would make you a great hit at parties, really), I haven’t noticed a lot of that from “radical” circles, Polly. Not so’s makes nearly as much as an impact as “the trans issue,” anyway. *koffHeartkoff*.
And, gee, I wonder why that is. Is it because the taint of biological malehood trumps everything, really? Is that what;s driving missives like mAndrea’s here?
Or -maybe- is it because, garsh, trans people are -already- discriminated against in the greater society and, well, gee, so much easier to just go with the flow, neh? Everybody knows. Let them get their own space. Poor things. Something wrong with them. But what does it have to do with us? Let’s -examine- these creatures, but not listen to what they actually have to say for -themselves-, which is not at all -objectifying,- no, precious. ; and certainly, we can’t let them come in the front door, as though they BELONGED here or anything. I mean! They’re not -women.- Not REAL women. That’s SPECIAL, and we can’t share. Not that there’s any =privilege- in being a REAL woman, which is why we’re defending it to the death.
“Right.”
Comment by belledame222 — June 27, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
“If people only want to change their biological “sex” (in itself a construct) – which involves swopping one set of genitals for another, why bother changing what your birth certificate says? Why bother changing your name?”
Polly, you can’t really be this dense, can you?
No, okay, try this: get rid of all your government issued identification, and then try getting on a plane, getting legally hitched, moving from one country to another, getting a job that isn’t under the table (yeah, gee K.A. whosis, I -wonder- why so many trans women are prostitutes; it must be because they LOVE it so much! unlike real women, who -never- do, even if they say they choose it, well, anyway), getting a driver’s license, going to school, or, well, just a shitload of other things.
Yeah, gender may be a construct, and so is sex, even; and so is the fucking government in many ways; but guess what! Most of us who don’t dwell in theory land fulltime still have to adhere to the Construct’s standards in order to, what’s that constructed concept, “eat.”
Comment by belledame222 — June 27, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Polly,
What I was saying was in response to Natalie’s comment, hence quoting Natalie’s words.
I’m not going to engage your arguments. As far as I’m concerned, you – like mAndrea – are arguing in bad faith, and are being willfully and deliberately obtuse. You’re shifting the goalposts as well, trying to force anyone who’ll play your game to agree to a position they may not hold just so you can shoot down the straw trans people.
Perhaps people here aren’t aware of your normal mode of engagement when it comes to trans people.
Comment by Lisa Harney — June 27, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
Okay, Polly, let’s look at this:
Oh and if being a ‘woman’ is not important why do so many trans activists blah on about how it is ‘transphobic’ to have a female assigned at birth only space eh? Answer me that?
By the same token: If being a ‘woman’ is not important, why have woman-only spaces at all?
You say “survival mechanism” doesn’t work as an argument. Okay, but in that case, tell me this: do you know how you get to have GRS and undergo gender reassignment in the UK? I do. You have to spend 2 years living in the “acquired gender”, as defined by patriarchal medical authorities, and you have to convince those same authorities that you are genuinely “a woman in a man’s body” or vice versa. Now, how do you think you do that, except by conforming as far as possible with patriarchal norms of the opposite sex? You’re welcome to write as much as you like about transfolk issues, but please do your research first and make sure you know what you’re talking about.
Then you talk about how being changed from “boy” to “girl” on the birth certificate “proves” that it’s about gender and not sex. Well, again, it’s about being accepted as who you feel you are. Your counter-example of yourself fails, because when it comes to entering a female-only space, I bet you’d be terribly upset if you were denied access because you look like a man: and I wonder how you’d seek to disprove the allegation that you are a man, in that situation? (For example, would you try pulling out your driving licence or other photo-id, which in turn will be dependent on the status of your birth certificate? or maybe you’d just strip off and show them your bits? but if gender isn’t real, then how would any of that prove anything?)
As Belledame points out, not everyone can afford to live their lives challenging the system. In particular, a trans-person is, by their very existence, seen as a challenge to patriarchal norms, that’s why they face a much greater risk of violence, discrimination, abuse and harassment in society, whether or not they identify as “man” or “woman” (and regardless of birth-diagnosis of sex), and whether or not they live full-time in their “acquired gender”. You say, “All that happens if you behave in a way that opposes gender norms (I do this myself every day), is that you get shit from patriarchy.” Now, I refer you back to my post in which I dissected mAndrea’s “arguments”, and to the title of the report whose results I quoted: it’s called, “Engendered Penalties:
Transgender and Transsexual
People’s Experiences of
Inequality and Discrimination”. Are you not in the least bit concerned that transgendered folk might be getting shit from the patriarchy for the same reason you are, and that this might negate your premise?
The fact is, having legal recognition of the change of sex and gender, is a very important legal protection in employment, access to healthcare and other essentials of life.
Take a look around you next time you’re walking through town, and ask yourself how many of the women you see are “reifying gender” by “choosing to be female”! How many of them adopt typically feminine modes of dress, behaviour, speaking? I don’t know, maybe Margaret should call herself Mark just to shake up the patriarchy a little bit more, hmm? If you’re not going to berate every woman who fails to shun completely the display signals of her gender, then why should you hold transfolk to a different standard?
Comment by SnowdropExplodes — June 27, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
Let me get this right.
If we transition because we don’t like the gender we were assigned we are reifying gender roles. If we transition because the little map in our heads says we should have a different set of genitals we are also reifying gender roles. If we are genderqueer or bigender we don’t exist.
If we change our legal documents its because its obviously about gender and not sex and therefore we are lieing liars who lie. Trans*folks are only trans* because we don’t want to be feminine/gay men or masculine/gay women.
Is that about right Polly?
I mean, I already know that as that trannyfag Belle mentioned I don’t exist. So I should just let you tell me who and what I am and why I do those things I do.
Please, enlighten me as to what I should do to challenge gender since being myself, a fem gay man with a vag, just isn’t cutting it!
Comment by drakyn — June 27, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
…Hey, Polly, since I apparently don’t exist as I know myself, it follows that if I write what I think of your and your pals ‘theories’ about myself and my life, no one will actually see my post, right? Y’know, because I don’t exist?
In that case Polly, when some indivuals create and endorse deliberately ignorant, vile, ~incredibly~ foolish ‘theories’ in attempts to hold groups they don’t like to much a higher, impossible standard that they don’t hold themsevles to just so they can say “Ha! You Fail! And you Suck, too!”, based on no evidence whatsoever, I feel perfectly free to tell you that I think you and the rest of those charmingly ignorant individuals are transphobic assholes for making our lives ~Harder~. But it’s alright, because I don’t exist, so this post can’t possibly upset you with its disagreement of your ‘thought out opinions’.
Comment by A.W. — June 27, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
“But since the link has been removed how is anyone meant to know what Mandrea actually said?”
You put your fingers together and google. Not that hard innit.
Comment by belledame222 — June 27, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
“not everyone can afford to live their lives challenging the system.”
Not everyone can afford to, AND not everyone wants to; and you know what, that’s their prerogative. One doesn’t have the right to demand a particular class of people only exist as a kind of walking epater le bourgeois/battering ram to the Patriarchy/whatever the fuck it is this week. Sometimes, people just want to work, live, love, go to the goddam toilet, without EVERYTHING being a goddam struggle all the time. And at -minimum- would appreciate, if you can’t help them battle the eight kazillion other people and forces blithely preventing them from so doing, on account of you’ve got your own shit and can’t be bovvered with Other Peoples’ Problems, at least not CONTRIBUTING to their problem. Is it really that hard to understand? Polly? Bewilderness? mAndrea? Bueller?
Comment by belledame222 — June 27, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Woman/man are take offs on the biological designations female/male, used for people exclusively to differentiate us from other animals…and oddly enough, differences between men and woman, male and female, they do exist in physical, biological form. And yep, sure enough, gender roles and stereotypes came forth from them, and it’s great to challenge them…but here in the really real world, they do exist, and so long as most people believe “man” & “woman” exist, they do.
In fact, I suspect a great many people are happy that definitions such as “man” and “woman”…not necessarily masculine and feminine, but “man” and “woman”. Yet sometimes, the biological just doesn’t match the way it should. I mean, say, for instance, a person would feel better about themselves and more comfortable with…oh, a short haircut? Or braces? Or wearing the color blue? Maybe learning Latin or something? Is this some great threat needs such dissection? Hey, short hair reinforces gender stereotypes after all…but why is someone’s haircut anyone else’s business, and up for discussion and evisceration by…what? Cis women? People who don’t believe in Man & Woman? The Pope? The Patriarchy? Whoever? If transpeople feel a reason, that in and of itself is enough, and they are still PEOPLE. Like everyone else. Maybe in the world where you have, oddly enough, a real job, there is no gender, but for the rest of the world? It’s still staring in our faces. You know, all those OTHER people.
Comment by RenegadeEvolution — June 27, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Oh yeah, can anyone prove that gender isn’t real? I’m not talking about gender roles; I’m sure we all agree that being a boy doesn’t mean you must like trucks or that being a girl means you must like babies.
I’m talking about an internal sense of identity. Can you prove that there is none, or that everyone who says they have an internal sense of gender (again, not gender roles) are lying/deceived?
What about subconcious sex–the idea that a person has internal sense of sex that may or may not coincide with their actual sexual characteristics–can you prove there isn’t one?
Plenty of trans* and non-trans* folk say they have an internal sense of gender or sex. There are some studies that look promising that may prove that there is, at least, an internal sense of sex.
Prove to me, Polly, thebewilderness, mAndrea, or whoever, that this is not true. Don’t just tell me I’m lying or deceiving myself when I know I should have male primary and secondary sexual characteristics; show, not tell.
Comment by drakyn — June 27, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
I just love how subjective reality isn’t valid when talking about -one’s own experience,- and what one wishes to do with -one’s own body/presentation-; no, it must all be defended with LOGIC. As in, it is -logical-, formally speaking, to throw at someone else, “yeah, well, -prove- to me that your existence and experience is valid!” and not fallacy #34 as found on the back of the Bigot-O’s cereal box.
Comment by belledame222 — June 27, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
…when in reality, the burden of proof is on the person who made the proposition that (other people) transitioning from one gender to another is “bad for ‘real’ women.” As in, I, a so-called ‘real’ woman, (for example) am somehow injured by the existence of one of the trans women here, or the fact that they might even (gasp) call themselves female, share my “women-only space.” Prove it. Defend your case. So far, not seeing it.
And while we’re at it, if someone could explain to me how gay marriage/rights harms straight people, as in, some -actual- straight marriage(s)/people, that would be peachy.
Comment by belledame222 — June 27, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
Wow… I go and pay some attention to my real life and the whole thread goes hugemongous. Damn it, now I have to read this whole damn comment thread.
Comment by Mike — June 28, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Watch out, Polly, you are making way too much sense. Expect to be attacked, trashed and stalked from here on out.
Comment by Julia — June 28, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Yes, that’s exactly why people are reacting to her the way we are.
“YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!”
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
–Carl Sagan
Comment by belledame222 — June 28, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
Just like David Icke!
Comment by Mike — June 28, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
m Andrea here.
Some of you folks in this thread are too much! LOL
What is with this Belledame person? Please, calm down. Shouting and repetition is not an argument, you should know that by now.
Let’s take a breath and remember a few things, shall we?
Claiming something is “phobic” becomes valid only after the criticisms have been addressed and proven to be wrong.
But some insist that we shouldn’t address any criticisms, some claim that we should accept opinion as fact.
That isn’t honest, fair, or logical. And you know it. That attitude would not be acceptable for any other subject under discussion, and it’s not acceptable for this one.
For all the claims of “hatred” directed my way, not one single person has been able to explain why transgenderism is not a fetish.
After 30 years of asking for an explaination and never getting a logical response, a reasonable person would rightly assume that there isn’t one.
You do realize that when an argument sits unchallenged and unrefuted, after a certain period of time it becomes automatically vindicated, right?
Anyone is welcome to prove invalid anything I have said in my posts — come on over to my blog, you’re more than welcome, really!! LOL
Comment by m Andrea — June 29, 2008 @ 5:15 am
Plenty of us have explained, in more threads than anyone can count, what being trans* feels like, the diversity, etc. hells, I even answered your “prove it’s not a fetish” thing over on Lisa’s blog. It’s not my fault if you decided not to read it.
And SnowdropExplodes and Ren answered your “logic” in their own posts, Snow’s is even linked to on this very thread!
Comment by drakyn — June 29, 2008 @ 5:45 am
And I for one am grateful to Belle for her comments and her care, shes a real ally imo. *gives props to Belle*
Comment by drakyn — June 29, 2008 @ 5:51 am
m Andrea,
When you choose to make an argument to address, and consider backing it up with something resembling evidence, empirical data, or a connection to the real people you’re talking about, I’m sure there will be plenty of us willing to dignify your incoherent rantings with a response.
You want to talk about honest, fair, or logical, you might actually consider engaging with, listening to, or interacting with some of the people you’re telling to justify their existence on your terms and while you’re hurling abusive invective at them. Telling people what your vile and insulting “explanations” for their lives are, and then telling them that if they disagree with you, they’re delusional or lying–if that’s the “asking for an explanation” you’ve been doing for thirty years, it’s no surprise you haven’t gotten an answer that satisfies you.
The argument that the moon is made of malevolent cheese has been sitting there unchallenged and unrefuted for a while now, too. Because sensible people have known better than to think that the guy on the streetcorner shouting that it’s so isn’t really worth the time and energy to argue with.
Run along and play. It’s tiresome engaging in a battle of wits with someone who’s come in unarmed.
Comment by little light — June 29, 2008 @ 7:09 am
What little light and Drakyn said.
What Ren Ev and SnowDropExplodes said.
What Jack Goff said.
What Belledame said.
What I’ve said.
It’s all out there. I’ll also repeat what I said on my blog: “You do not want your arguments examined according to logical standards.” I mean it – you’re not arguing logically. Your conclusion requires that the reader accept your premise as true. You do not prove the premise to be true, you simply beg the question over and over again.
Your silly standard that “I must refute every single thing you say before I can call your arguments phobic” is also false. I only need to demonstrate that one of your arguments is phobic to prove you’re phobic.
Since I can cherry pick this one pretty easily – your enthusiastic agreement with KA that trans women are enthusiastic participants in prostitution for the sake of colluding with sexist men to provide them with female bodies to abuse. That’s an extremely bigoted – extremely misogynist – view of trans women, and one you cheerfully and enthusiastically endorse.
You’re transphobic.
Comment by Lisa Harney — June 29, 2008 @ 8:25 am
As for your whole “transgenderism is a fetish” thing – why is it on any trans person to disprove your canard? Shouldn’t you need to prove through actual logic (not argument by assertion) that there’s a reasonable basis for judging transgenderism (or transsexualism) to be a fetish?
And that doesn’t even get into the fact that you’re also trying to stigmatize the idea of having a fetish in a first place, that a fetish is a less legitimate part of a person’s makeup.
You’re not arguing in good faith. You’re setting out to discredit and attack trans people, but you’re also ignoring everything that’s ever said to you in response – only to later, triumphantly, falsely declare that no one can answer your questions.
No human being owes you answers to the kinds of questions you ask. No one is required to justify their existence in the face of hateful bigotry.
Comment by Lisa Harney — June 29, 2008 @ 9:44 am
not one single person has been able to explain why transgenderism is not a fetish
Argh.
I mean, anyone who calls herself ‘feminist’, argues that certain classes of women shouldn’t be allowed to talk about their own experience, goes into a thread and tells them what they are and how they feel about stuff, claims to be gender-variant or genderless while (1) calling herself Miss Andrea and (2) being completely unaware of her cisgendered privilege, has been arguing the same things for 30 years, and uses such expressions as ‘Orwellian doublethink’ and does little diagrammes with puzzle pieces to prove, er, something or other… you know, why argue?
No, Andrea, gender dysphoria isn’t a fetish. I mean, Jesus motherfucking christ. And, as Lisa says, jumping up and down ignoring what people are saying while going ‘I’m smarter than all of you, look at me, I’m arguing!’ does not constitute a watertight argument.
Comment by Zenobia — June 29, 2008 @ 11:49 am
No, Andrea, gender dysphoria isn’t a fetish. I mean, Jesus motherfucking christ.
By which I mean, you just don’t ask people to prove to you that their gender or sexual orientation ‘isn’t a fetish’, particularly if you think you’re some kind of feminist. Although, as far as I’m concerned, you’re like ten times more patriarchal than any patriarch I’ve ever met, with your idea of ‘arguing’ and the way you treat other women, you’ve pretty much got the biggest strap-on I’ve ever seen.
Comment by Zenobia — June 29, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Hmm… Having read the thread after my absence, I don’t think I’ll be replying to Polly, as it might be too disruptive to things as they stand. I may blog about it elsewhere, though.
Comment by Mike — June 29, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
What is with this Belledame person, mAndrea, is that she is tired of bigots spouting off about people who happen to include her friends and loved ones, as well as reminding her way too much of the particular kind of bigots who make -her own life- more difficult because they are too lazy to bother trying to -not- be bigots. She is particularly tired of said bigots apparently being taken seriously enough by serious people (hi, Natalie, is that all you have to say?) to let some of the most jaw-droppingly asinine and -hateful- bloviations slide right by as “feminist theory.”
Most of all she is tired of trying to engage rampant assholes like you in good faith when it’s blatantly obvious that you are neither willing nor capable of doing any such thing yourself. (Your crap at Kim’s was equally charming; the “retards” of the world all thank you for your selfless concern).
But really, mAndrea, I thought you of all people would understand: aren’t you against tear-stained faces and whining and “impatient” with stupidity? Funny, I feel EXACTLY the same way. Except, well, do not ask for whom the stupid/Halp Halp I’m Bein Oppressed Bell tolls, mAndrea, it tolls for thee. Your post was read; it did not go over well; you are welcome to tell yourself it’s because you’re just too damn -radical- for the likes of us, but you can do it somewhere else. You’re not wanted. Deal.
Comment by belledame222 — June 29, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
>>Although, as far as I’m concerned, you’re like ten times more patriarchal than any patriarch I’ve ever met, with your idea of ‘arguing’ and the way you treat other women, you’ve pretty much got the biggest strap-on I’ve ever seen.>>
Zenobia ftw. even if it does suck to taint a perfectly good strap-on by association that way…
Comment by belledame222 — June 29, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
and: Do not tell me to calm down, asshole. Blame my wandering womb or my delicate femme nature if you like, but I’m good and angry at you, along with a number of other people here (i.e. the -actual trans people- that you STILL don’t acknowledge directly) and that is a perfectly -rational- response to your provocations.
Frankly, the only reason I’d have for agreeing I’m giving too much emotional energy to this is because -you- are, well, as Mike suggests, rather David Ickean. And if you hadn’t been Carnivalized here, (well, and the random potshots/trolls you drop at pals of mine), I’d probably still be mostly cheerfully ignoring you, spiced with the occasional light mockage, as you deserve.
“Attention, attention must be paid,” I guess. How’s it feel, mAndrea? Enjoying your fifteen minutes of quasi-relevance, are you?
Comment by belledame222 — June 29, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
(little light also for the win)
and yeah, that’s the “burden of proof” fallacy exemplified.
“Prove to me that you aren’t a flesh-eating macaca! Well?! WELL??!”
“I’m not a macaca, and actually I’m a vegan.”
“Can you -prove- you’re not a macaca?”
“This is a macaca: ___
This is me: ___
Do you have a problem with macacas or something, btw? p.s. what the hell is wrong with you?”
“You still haven’t proved you aren’t a macaca, and typically now you’re resorting to insults. Anyone? Anyone??”
“…You know, I think I left the kettle on.”
“You see?! You see?? –Hey, where are you going?
Come back here! I’ll bite your legs off!…”
Comment by belledame222 — June 29, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
There is almost an entire generation of folks who were raised to believe that if any one criticises them, and subsequently that criticism hurts their feelings, then the criticism must be wrong.
I’m sorry, I truly am, but whoever explained injustice to you in that way left out a very important step. Having hurt feelings is not why some thing is wrong. A thing is wrong because it invalidates a right to which you are entitled. Your hurt feelings are a consequence of that right being disrepected; your hurt feelings are not proof that a right exists.
So in order to claim that anyone should care overly much about your hurt feelings, it it necessary to prove that a right to which you are entitled has been invalidated or disrepected.
And we have zero evidence that fetishists are entitled to widespread public support, especially given that it so closely resembles a form of mental illness.
And in order to prove that it is not a mental illness, someone needs to prove that transgenderism is not a fetish. The ultimate positive form of that would be to say that someone needs to prove that gender is real. You say that it can’t be done, and you would be correct. It is possible, however, to prove using logic that gender is a made-up social construct — which invalidates the entire transgenderism argument.
People keep saying that I’m not listening, but I HAVE heard the cries of the transfolk, you just don’t like the response.
Belledame, no one ever likes the person who topples a sacred cow, or brings bad news. The messenger is usually shot, I believe, and afterwards everyone pretends that they weren’t among the flat-earthers.
Comment by m Andrea — June 29, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
You really need to learn that you don’t prove anything by asserting it’s true. You keep using words like logic and prove, yet you are doing neither. (and SnowDropExplodes linked his post that proves your lack of logic)
I have proven that all trans*ism isn’t a fetish. A fetish is sexual (and therefore, tied to feelings) and I’ve proven that me being a guy is not based in my sexual feelings.
“So don’t dare dismiss my gender as a construct, drag or a performance, because my gender is a work of non-fiction.”–The ever-wonderful Julia Serano, read the whole piece, she says it better than I could.
Comment by drakyn — June 29, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
In order to prove or disprove a negative, one simply inverts it to it’s positive form.
Sometimes it takes a little parsing out to find that positive form. In the case of “prove it’s not a fetish” we could say “prove it is a fetish” but that isn’t what we’re after. We want to either prove or disprove the validity of transgenderism.
And so we simply look to see what the basic tenets of transgenderism might be. They claim that the reason transgenderism is a valid medical condition is because not only are male and female brains structurally different, but that in addition specific genetalia are required to express that different brain structure.
Their logic is inherently flawed, as no brain of either sex (if significant differences in brain structure even exist) would ever require a specific genitalia to “express” itself.
I’m sorry, you can of course do whatever you want with your own body, as long as you’re not hurting yourself or others; but to insist that the transgendered are entitled to public validation or legal protection (beyond what is already given to all humans) BASED ON FLAWED LOGIC is unreasonable.
We might as well say that that paraplegics are unable to express their internal character because they too are trapped in the “wrong” body. One does not need a specific body in order to expess one’s character.
I know someone who is schizophrenic. While he is entitled to respect and dignity, I refuse to believe his delusions are real. That does neither of us any good.
Comment by m Andrea — June 29, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
We don’t have to change our bodies to express our internal character.
In the case of many transsexuals, myself included, our brain expects a certain set of genitals and when those are not there it causes a great deal of pain and discomfort.
It has nothing to do with hammers or vacuums or sexual intercourse/feelings.
To assume otherwise is based on flawed logic.
Comment by drakyn — June 29, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
And fetishes are about sexual feelings. To tell me that my feelings surrounding being trans* are not permissible as evidence against trans*ism being a fetish is really flawed logic.
Comment by drakyn — June 29, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Go back under your bridge, mAndrea.
And no, no response I have to you from here on out is going to be anything other than the flames you so richly deserve. Further contributing to the dignity and well being of no one. Host?
Comment by belledame222 — June 29, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
Oh, and mAndrea? You really have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about, with the psychobabble. (Or anything else, really, but still, it’s beginning to grate). I’m happy to provide you with an armchair diagnosis of your very own, though. Sadly, the DSM still has no entry for “bone-crushingly stupid and horrible troll,” but with any luck, this will be rectified one day.
Comment by belledame222 — June 29, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
We want to either prove or disprove the validity of transgenderism
Repeatedly stating asinine assumptions that have no basis in reality is not the same thing as building an argument that proves or disproves something.
Logic: ur doin it rong
Comment by J.Goff — June 29, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
[...] Carnival of Feminists No 59 is at Natalie Bennett’s blog, Philobiblon. [...]
Pingback by Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Comments on various posts — June 30, 2008 @ 7:44 am
And so we simply look to see what the basic tenets of transgenderism might be.
But transgenderism doesn’t have tenets. It’s a personal situation, not an ideology.
And can you even talk without waving that gigantic strap-on penis?
Comment by Zenobia — June 30, 2008 @ 9:11 am
And we have zero evidence that fetishists are entitled to widespread public support, especially given that it so closely resembles a form of mental illness.
And in order to prove that it is not a mental illness, someone needs to prove that transgenderism is not a fetish. The ultimate positive form of that would be to say that someone needs to prove that gender is real. You say that it can’t be done, and you would be correct. It is possible, however, to prove using logic that gender is a made-up social construct — which invalidates the entire transgenderism argument.
I know someone who is schizophrenic. While he is entitled to respect and dignity, I refuse to believe his delusions are real. That does neither of us any good.
MAndrea: I know the label of “troll” gets thrown around rather lightly these days, but are you engaged in some sort of competition to see how many marginalised groups of people you can insult, belittle and/or piss off? If your transphobic, anti-feminist, ableist bullshit to this point wasn’t enough, your comments about mental illness are right off.
I have schizophrenia. If I found out that someone I knew was using me as “the schizophrenic friend” as you’ve done to this person (people? When you used this person in this fashion on your own blog they were fedmale) I’d be hurt and the friendship would be over. I don’t care how highly you prize the “logic” you seem to think you’re using, persons with mental illness are not props for you to back up your bigotry, and our lives are not there for you make catty insults.
Furthermore, if either of these schizophrenic people exist, I really hope they’re never in a position where they have to rely on you for support or help. Hatefulness aside, you’ve got absolutely no idea how the illness works… and that doesn’t seem to stop you acting like an expert on any given topic.
Comment by hexy — June 30, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
“I know the label of “troll” gets thrown around rather lightly these days, but are you engaged in some sort of competition to see how many marginalised groups of people you can insult, belittle and/or piss off?”
srsly.
Comment by belledame222 — June 30, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
And so we simply look to see what the basic tenets of transgenderism might be. They claim that the reason transgenderism is a valid medical condition is because not only are male and female brains structurally different, but that in addition specific genetalia are required to express that different brain structure.
…Different brain structures? Can anyone else in thread provide the real-world counterpart to this, or is it just whole cloth? I know of one old cadaver brain study. I know that some transpeople argue that transsexuality must have some as-yet-undetermined biological basis, because it’s a powerful need that doesn’t seem to have much to do with prevailing social pressure. And I’ve heard many people say that men and women think differently. That’s all I can think of.
Comment by piny — June 30, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
And can you even talk without waving that gigantic strap-on penis?
I’m amazed she can even type with that monster-sized thing in the way.
Comment by DaisyDeadhead — June 30, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
m Andrea,
Why do we have to prove that transgenderism isn’t a fetish? Where’s the logical argument that establishes that the most reasonable explanation for transgenderism is fetishism?
That doesn’t make any sense. Someone comes up to you and says (I’m paraphrasing some of Drakyn’s posts and comments; I hope he doesn’t mind) “You know, I’m a boy. I get perplexed at my body structure. I forget I have breasts. I’m a guy.” and you say “Ah, the only possible explanation for that is sexual.”
Um, why? Where is there anything at all to suggest anything sexual about that sense of one’s own body? Where does the argument come from? Who formulated it? What are its premises, and which logical moves get you from those premises to that conclusion?
For all that you like logic, all I’ve seen you “argue” so far is that if trans people are not lying, then gender is “real.” Since gender is not “real,” trans people are lying.
Which, sure, fun with modus tollens, u can haz it.
But you’re introducing the premise that gender is not “real.” And this requires further justification than you offer.
The justification you *do* offer is that gender is a social construct. Okay, but the thing is, it does not follow from that that gender is not “real.” Lots of things that are socially constructed are real. Race. Gender. Disability (as opposed to impairment).
So we have to ask: what does “real” mean in this argument? You seem to be using “real” to mean “not socially constructed”, but why would it mean this? Surely if social constructs are “not real” in a way that actually affects people’s daily lives, feminism isn’t necessary. Gender is, after all, not “real.”
Wait, gender affects how women are treated? That matters? Well, then, it seems we can and sometimes should be invested in the “not real.” In which case, “that’s silly because it’s ‘not real’ is inconsistent when applied to transgendered people’s desire to change their body and their social gender.
And all that doesn’t even touch “fetish,” because you haven’t actually argued anywhere that transgenderism or transsexualism is one.
Comment by Trin — July 1, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Um, folks? Can we quit with the strap-on comments? Saying she’s male-identified because we don’t like her ego is just the same crap she’s pulling on us of a different stripe.
And I *really* don’t like reading about how I have sex as a way to mock someone behaving cruelly and stupidly. So cut it out.
Comment by Trin — July 1, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
[...] Carnival of Feminists No 59 – Philobiblon (Natalie Bennett) [...]
Pingback by Take it to the bridge « bird of paradox — July 1, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
I have been asked to explain why I have allowed this thread to run. As I said on another post where this discussion. I think that censorship on the web, such as closing a thread, is counterproductive – making the attackers feel as though they have “won”, have driven the opposition from the field. I trust readers to be able to judge people for themselves from what they’ve said.
Comment by Natalie Bennett — July 1, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
Well, yes, that’s one thing; still, I have to say, between the original inclusion, the explanation that came after the removal and the silence after that, I’m…not surprised that some people are coming away with the impression that, well, they’re not safe or welcome here, let’s put it that way. I’d be feeling pretty betrayed myself, if this were, oh, I don’t know, a more all-inclusive liberal/prog carnival, let’s say, and someone who included a jaw-droppingly misogynist screed was included and then the response by the (male) host, even with a removal, was as, well, noncomittal, frankly?
You know, I don’t want to do the Spanish Inquisition routine wrt the “excess of femininity” comment either, but you know, it’s…an overall message, okay, whether you’re intending to send one or not. FYI.
Comment by belledame222 — July 2, 2008 @ 4:24 am
…And to be clear, that message being, not “I agree with mAndrea or endorse what she’s saying”–I think we’re pretty clear that you do not; but this?
“In the End, we will remember
not the words of our enemies,
but the silence of our friends.”
–Martin Luther King
…feels relevant. Not for the first time, in the feminist blogosphere, in a number of contexts, and undoubtedly not for the last. Still, it’s disappointing, to say the least.
just notin’.
Comment by belledame222 — July 2, 2008 @ 4:28 am
[...] words of Martin Luther King, quoted by Belledame in the comments to the Carnival of Feminists No 59 fiasco [...]
Pingback by Quote of the day « bird of paradox — July 2, 2008 @ 8:16 am
mAndrea:
They claim that the reason transgenderism is a valid medical condition is because not only are male and female brains structurally different, but that in addition specific genetalia are required to express that different brain structure.
Their logic is inherently flawed, as no brain of either sex (if significant differences in brain structure even exist) would ever require a specific genitalia to “express” itself.
Let us try a thought experiment.
Suppose a child is born with only one arm, but the brain has all the wiring in it designed to operate a two-armed body. Can you imagine what that would feel like? Or suppose the child had four arms, instead of two arms and two legs, but the brain is set up to operate the usual complement of limbs? Do you see how that would result in disorientating and conflicting signals in the body? Do you see how that might cause emotional and cognitive issues?
Now, I don’t know if such medical occurences have ever happened, but the mental and personal experience of transsexuality that has been explained to me by those who have gender dysphoria, is clearly analogous.
So, let us suppose for the moment that a medical operation exists that can reconstruct the limbs that are “missing” and enable the person to function much more easily in their body. Would you then claim that it is pandering to a “delusion” to seek to make that corrective surgery?
You write, “We might as well say that that paraplegics are unable to express their internal character because they too are trapped in the “wrong” body.”
Well, I have two things with this: firstly, you may have noticed that in my analogy I never once spoke about “internal character”. In fact, I don’t think I ever used that phrase once in my refutation of your arguments or in my own explanation of what transsexualism is. Crossdressers and/or transvestites might be considered to be “expressing their inner character“, but such people in general do not feel any need to make any modification to their genitalia to do so. Transsexual folks, on the other hand, who do desire surgery, do so because they wish to allign their body with their own perception of identity.
Secondly, if we have a medical procedure that can cure a paraplegic, would we not wish to offer to all those who feel they need it? Some differently-abled folks prefer to identify themselves by their difference (thus, some members of the Deaf community, when offered an operation to restore their hearing, prefer to reject that offer), so maybe not every paraplegic would want to be “cured” in that way – but surely we have the duty to offer it if we can? Well, with gender dysphoria, we can operate to render the genitalia into a form that causes less “discomfort”, so again, do we not have a moral duty to do so?
And furthermore, once a paraplegic can walk again, we have a moral obligation to accept them as they present to the world, and not treat them as “disabled”. You say, “…to insist that the transgendered are entitled to public validation or legal protection (beyond what is already given to all humans) … is unreasonable.” Well, the UN Declaration of Human Rights declares “All [human beings] are born free and equal, in dignity and rights.” It also states, “All [human beings] have the right to life, liberty and freedom from fear or violence.” [the original text uses the male nouns, I have corrected for this!] Well, that rather seems to require that a transsexual person be accepted, validated by society, and protected in law, in hir acquired gender. To do otherwise is to deny hir human dignity, and is to deny hir right to freedom from fear or violence, and that is (to my mind) a valid definition of transphobia.
Now, it is irrelevant to any of this whether transsexuality is caused by physical brain differences, or if it’s something to do with the brain-software – or even if it’s something that is produced by “nurture” (although how that would work, I don’t know, since the transsexual folks I know realised their internal sex identity by the age of 5).
mAndrea, you claim to use logic, but the thing with logic is that it is extremely susceptible to the old information processing statement of “GIGO”, or “Garbage in, garbage out”. You have a complete lack of understanding of what transgenderism and transsexuality are, so all the logic in the world will not lead you to valid conclusions.
Comment by SnowdropExplodes — July 5, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Um, folks? Can we quit with the strap-on comments? Saying she’s male-identified because we don’t like her ego is just the same crap she’s pulling on us of a different stripe.
And I *really* don’t like reading about how I have sex as a way to mock someone behaving cruelly and stupidly. So cut it out.
Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but I was trying to tell her that she’s having a go at trans folk for being overly gendered when she’s just as gendered as anyone here. She calls herself ‘Miss Andrea’ and is incredibly phallic in her use of language – she’s about as binary as you can get in terms of gender, it’s like she’s strapped a big wang and a gaping rubber vag to her forehead all at once and producing sparks by rubbing the two together. Nothing wrong with that, except if you’re arguing that you’ve been liberated from all that gender nonsense.
Comment by Zenobia — July 7, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
And could we not confuse harmless immature sniping with constructive mockery? Because I thought I was perpetrating a perfectly fine example of the former, and don’t care to have it confused with the latter.
Comment by Zenobia — July 7, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
[...] Susie Bright’s hosted the carnival here this time. Unfortunately, as with a recent 59th Carnival of Feminists, one of the included links indulges in some trans bashing: Formerly Pat Califia, he (then she) has [...]
Pingback by Oh, not the Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy « Questioning Transphobia — September 21, 2008 @ 12:24 am