Saturday, February 14, 2004
Managed to find the Guardian letters page for last weekend, which carries some letters of complaint about that Julie Bindel article. As Auntie mentioned in the comments, one of the letters is from Julie Hesmondhalgh, who plays the transsexual character in Corrie. My favourite letter might well be Since when was it feminist to make ignorant generalisations about a marginalised and vulnerable group?
However, the Guardian, predictably, isn't apologising, though their column title might make you think they are.
The column attracted about 200 letters, nearly all of which I have read. There was clearly an international lobby at work but this by no means accounted for all the mail.
Chuckles, the article is on your website, it can be read by anybody IN THE WORLD.
The editor of Weekend said: "We [run] vigorous, opinionated and provocative columns on a whole range of subjects and this is something I'm keen to continue and protect ... There are very many times that we disagree with our columnists, sometimes vociferously, but that is not the point - we are not looking for consensus.
"In this case, we thought that what Julie Bindel was writing was particularly interesting because it came from her - a lesbian activist for the rights of women and children. ... She is a rare kind of writer who puts her money where her mouth is."
So, Bindel's views on transsexuals are inherently fascinating because she's a 'lesbian activist for the rights of women and children'. OK, just not transsexuals or sometimes not gay men.
So, which came first, Bindel's prejudice or her investigation in the subject? The concerns about the relationship between psychiatry and transsexualism isn't new. But she does go too far.
Most people who change sex rely on adopting traditional appearance and behaviour patterns to enable them to 'pass' as their chosen gender. Men who change to women rarely dress in jeans or wear their hair short, instead striving towards an extreme form of femininity, presumably to contrast as much as possible with the way they looked as men.
Galloping generalisation alert! Two things, if you're having to jump through hoops for the magic recommendation from the psychiatrist that you are really a woman after all, might that not influence your presentational decisions a bit? And my Mum, who is either a woman born woman or has a LOT to explain to my sister and I, almost always wears dresses. I can't speak the lingo, but isn't there a theorybitch term like signifiers or something, isn't Bindel defining women by what they wear rather than what they are? I do think that if Bindel cast her net a bit wider she'd find plenty of women that have cast aside her stereotypes.
A final thought. If Bindel was confronted by an m-to-f sex worker, would she explode?
However, the Guardian, predictably, isn't apologising, though their column title might make you think they are.
The column attracted about 200 letters, nearly all of which I have read. There was clearly an international lobby at work but this by no means accounted for all the mail.
Chuckles, the article is on your website, it can be read by anybody IN THE WORLD.
The editor of Weekend said: "We [run] vigorous, opinionated and provocative columns on a whole range of subjects and this is something I'm keen to continue and protect ... There are very many times that we disagree with our columnists, sometimes vociferously, but that is not the point - we are not looking for consensus.
"In this case, we thought that what Julie Bindel was writing was particularly interesting because it came from her - a lesbian activist for the rights of women and children. ... She is a rare kind of writer who puts her money where her mouth is."
So, Bindel's views on transsexuals are inherently fascinating because she's a 'lesbian activist for the rights of women and children'. OK, just not transsexuals or sometimes not gay men.
So, which came first, Bindel's prejudice or her investigation in the subject? The concerns about the relationship between psychiatry and transsexualism isn't new. But she does go too far.
Most people who change sex rely on adopting traditional appearance and behaviour patterns to enable them to 'pass' as their chosen gender. Men who change to women rarely dress in jeans or wear their hair short, instead striving towards an extreme form of femininity, presumably to contrast as much as possible with the way they looked as men.
Galloping generalisation alert! Two things, if you're having to jump through hoops for the magic recommendation from the psychiatrist that you are really a woman after all, might that not influence your presentational decisions a bit? And my Mum, who is either a woman born woman or has a LOT to explain to my sister and I, almost always wears dresses. I can't speak the lingo, but isn't there a theorybitch term like signifiers or something, isn't Bindel defining women by what they wear rather than what they are? I do think that if Bindel cast her net a bit wider she'd find plenty of women that have cast aside her stereotypes.
A final thought. If Bindel was confronted by an m-to-f sex worker, would she explode?
