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 Anti-Choice Oklahoma .

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 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.


1 2 3
  • Pingback: Carnival of Feminists No. 59 « The Blog and the Bullet

  • Pingback: Carnival of Feminists No. 59 « The Mustard Seed

  • June 25, 2008 - 4:35 am | Permalink

    Thanks for doing this, and for the link to our posts 🙂

  • June 25, 2008 - 5:58 am | Permalink

    Thanks for hosting, Natalie! Late or not, I appreciate the effort putting it together.

  • Pingback: Margaret Sanger « The Scary Door

  • June 25, 2008 - 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for all the great links!

  • Pingback: The 59th Carnival of Feminists « Feminist Philosophers

  • Moody
    June 25, 2008 - 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Can’t believe you linked “deconsruction of transgenderism”. That’s terrible.

  • angela
    June 25, 2008 - 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Why did you include “Deconstruction of Transgenderism”? It’s hateful.

  • Zenobia
    June 25, 2008 - 5:24 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • June 25, 2008 - 5:39 pm | Permalink

    Not to be Echo-Man or anything, but, well, yeah… That’s a pretty horrifying article.

  • June 25, 2008 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • Pingback: On Feminism and Transphobia : The Curvature

  • June 25, 2008 - 7:39 pm | Permalink

    Echoing those who feel Miss Andrea’s divisive, hateful rantings don’t really belong.

  • June 25, 2008 - 10:40 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • Angiportus
    June 25, 2008 - 11:05 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • thebewilderness
    June 25, 2008 - 11:28 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • June 25, 2008 - 11:35 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 12:14 am | Permalink

    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.

  • thebewilderness
    June 26, 2008 - 12:17 am | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 12:20 am | Permalink

    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.


    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 12:21 am | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 12:28 am | Permalink

    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.

  • thebewilderness
    June 26, 2008 - 12:38 am | Permalink

    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.

  • RenegadeEvolution
    June 26, 2008 - 12:41 am | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 12:44 am | Permalink

    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:

    “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-.

  • June 26, 2008 - 1:16 am | Permalink

    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

    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?

  • June 26, 2008 - 1:22 am | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 1:34 am | Permalink


    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:

    K.A., that was a most brillant analysis, and needs a wider audience then what is available here. Hopefully other readers will carry your idea to other blogs, because it was perfect.

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 5:28 am | Permalink

    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?!?!

  • June 26, 2008 - 7:52 am | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 8:00 am | Permalink

    Thank you, Natalie.

  • June 26, 2008 - 8:23 am | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 8:24 am | Permalink

    Whoops! Sorry about that — I cross-posted with Natalie.

    Thanks, Natalie.

  • June 26, 2008 - 8:34 am | Permalink

    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?

  • lyssa
    June 26, 2008 - 8:48 am | Permalink

    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.


    Thanks for responding to the firestorm of protest, if not the _actual_ hate speech.

  • June 26, 2008 - 10:18 am | Permalink

    Thank you, Natalie.

  • Zenobia
    June 26, 2008 - 12:06 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 1:15 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 1:24 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 1:51 pm | Permalink

    “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?

  • June 26, 2008 - 2:54 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • GallingGalla
    June 26, 2008 - 4:21 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 5:33 pm | Permalink

    Natalie, thank you.

  • June 26, 2008 - 5:34 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 6:15 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • June 26, 2008 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

    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.

  • lyssa
    June 26, 2008 - 7:28 pm | Permalink

    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…

  • June 27, 2008 - 1:36 am | Permalink

    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.

  • June 27, 2008 - 6:08 am | Permalink

    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.

  • 1 2 3

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *