Sunday, September 21, 2008
This Will be Both Anticlimactic And Brief
Apologies, work has been crazy-busy this past week and yesterday was Open House 2008 so I've not had as much blogging opportunity as I might normally have.
Following on from here..., Miss Andrea said:
All oppressed groups have one thing in common: their desire to be treated with all the respect and rights which should be given to all humans.
But the desire to be treated as a gender is not what all other groups demand -- doubly important when considering that gender itself contains unequal power dynamics. By demanding to be treated as category of gender, transsexualism is significantly divergent from the norm, who all seek full humanity.
I'm asking, "if the demand is fundamentally different, then how is it possible that the way society approaches transgenderism should be identifical to how society approaches all those other groups?"
And the only reasonable answer is: it shouldn't.
Btw, I'm not "erasing the transsexual's existence" and have no wish to do so. I understand that the need to switch genitalia and/or gender roles is a NEED of certain individuals. I am merely pointing out that the way transfolk would have society frame the entire issue is not accurate.
I'm asking you to think about how an accurate framing would effect society's approach to transgenderism.
And unsurprisingly I disagree. Transwomen (and with Miss Andrea it is always male-to-female transsexual women, except when it's sometimes some small subsection of that) wanting to be seen as a gender being completely different from all other oppressed groups only works if you consider 'female' as having absolutely nothing to do with the sex of the body, the sex of the mind, the role of the body in society and the rolls of different genders in society. No-one is talking about theoretical shapes that exist only in ideaspace here (though I've sometimes felt I'm a isosceles triangle in a man's body) so trying to pretend as though we are is not useful.
Following on from here..., Miss Andrea said:
All oppressed groups have one thing in common: their desire to be treated with all the respect and rights which should be given to all humans.
But the desire to be treated as a gender is not what all other groups demand -- doubly important when considering that gender itself contains unequal power dynamics. By demanding to be treated as category of gender, transsexualism is significantly divergent from the norm, who all seek full humanity.
I'm asking, "if the demand is fundamentally different, then how is it possible that the way society approaches transgenderism should be identifical to how society approaches all those other groups?"
And the only reasonable answer is: it shouldn't.
Btw, I'm not "erasing the transsexual's existence" and have no wish to do so. I understand that the need to switch genitalia and/or gender roles is a NEED of certain individuals. I am merely pointing out that the way transfolk would have society frame the entire issue is not accurate.
I'm asking you to think about how an accurate framing would effect society's approach to transgenderism.
And unsurprisingly I disagree. Transwomen (and with Miss Andrea it is always male-to-female transsexual women, except when it's sometimes some small subsection of that) wanting to be seen as a gender being completely different from all other oppressed groups only works if you consider 'female' as having absolutely nothing to do with the sex of the body, the sex of the mind, the role of the body in society and the rolls of different genders in society. No-one is talking about theoretical shapes that exist only in ideaspace here (though I've sometimes felt I'm a isosceles triangle in a man's body) so trying to pretend as though we are is not useful.
Labels: feminism, men, transgenderism, women
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
OK, Miss Andrea posted this, to which I replied thus, to which she then replied via my comments thasly (posted here because comments on my blog disappear after time has passed):
I know lots [of transpersons], oh way more than that, no more than that even.
I don't talk about transmen because it appears that transwomen are much more vocal.
It isn't really about transfolk at all, from my perspective, though I am concerned about the level of harrassment suffered by transgendered. The whole situation is frought with anxiety for them and I really do sympathize. But there's only so much space and time for discussion, and the transfolk are handling the harrassment issues on their blogs so I really don't need to use my blog space for that.
It's mostly about any non-trans man being able to acces woman-only safe spaces merely by claiming to be trans. But there's also a minor annoyance to me personally because (since I do know so very many) that no matter how long they've transitioned, they never quite "get" the horror of sexism. The internal conflict just isn't the same and it can never be -- no matter how young a transchild starts her journey, her primary conflict will always be about being accepted as her gender, whereas a born girl's conflict will always be about running away from gender roles. Not sure what the transfolk assume I mean when I say that, it's just a simple observation of fact.
So now that I've answered your questions I hope you'll answer mind because there's a few things I don't understand and I'd like to. Pardon, probably not going to ask this the right way.
How does the desire for gender recognition equal the desire for full humanity? Many transfolk seem to think those two are the same and I can't figure out why.
I must admit, I don't understand this. I don't understand why the 'desire for gender expression' should equal the 'desire for full humanity' and who says it is or isn't. Part of my bafflement is based on a view that through reading her blog I have of how Miss Andrea views the transgender community that has no relationship to how I view the community. I don't know if this has something to do with her picking which parts of the community she wants to talk about or maybe I just lack the smarts to understand what she is saying. It seems to me that part of the argument is that while she as a female-born-woman chose a lifepath that (and here we have a gross simplification to avoid getting sidetracked into a seperate semantic argument) is not 'stereotypically female' (and I'm airquoting wildly here) she sees some male-born-women choosing to present as closer to that 'stereotypically female' (airquotes) role and she thinks that's bad. It's the burqa argument basically, while women in most of the world seem to think it's a symbol of oppression that needs to be cast off, there are some British Muslim women who are reported as saying that they are taking to wearing it because they see it as a symbol of freedom.
I hesitate over the any non-trans man being able to acces woman-only safe spaces merely by claiming to be trans bit because I doubt I can formulate an answer that doesn't make me look uncaring about the value of safe-spaces for women. There is the issue of what that woman-only safe space is and why the man is trying to access it, miss Andrea and her friends have tended to go for this 'non-trans man' being an abusive husband, people on the other side of the argument have tended to go for pre-operative rape or violence victim. I would suggest that any place that isn't actually able to tell the difference is probably not a very safe space for anyone. I get to be glib about safe-spaces because I'm a white middle-class straight-acting male and of course I know that it's not the case for everyone else. I'm just dubious about whether there's a real likelihood of a man wearing a frock in order to try and get access to his wife who's in a battered woman's shelter and whether it's worth trying to linking this to trans-women's access to women-only safe spaces. You might as well say that the man used a car to drive to the shelter so let's ban cars, or he eats shredded wheat so let's put Ian Botham on trial as an accessory to violence.
But there's also a minor annoyance to me personally... that no matter how long they've transitioned, they never quite "get" the horror of sexism. As though 'the horror of sexism' is a universal to all female-born-women of all countries in the world that, should they get together in one big meeting, they'd be able to agree on an exact definition that satisfied everyone. As though the definition of a woman is 'a unit of flesh for the dealing with the horror of sexism'. And there's a contradiction in what I see as Miss Andrea's argument, that transwomen are both trying too much and too little to be like 'real women' (airquotes!1!).
OK, that's enough airing of my misunderstandings and misapprehensions, so I'll leave it there for now. I welcome comments to educate me where I misunderstand things, I will just say that if anyone posts comments I will probably reply to them by seperate blog entries later on. If you don't want that then best to communicate with me by email which I'll assume is private unless you say otherwise. Abuse will be either ignored or posted to be laughed at, no matter how it arrives.
I know lots [of transpersons], oh way more than that, no more than that even.
I don't talk about transmen because it appears that transwomen are much more vocal.
It isn't really about transfolk at all, from my perspective, though I am concerned about the level of harrassment suffered by transgendered. The whole situation is frought with anxiety for them and I really do sympathize. But there's only so much space and time for discussion, and the transfolk are handling the harrassment issues on their blogs so I really don't need to use my blog space for that.
It's mostly about any non-trans man being able to acces woman-only safe spaces merely by claiming to be trans. But there's also a minor annoyance to me personally because (since I do know so very many) that no matter how long they've transitioned, they never quite "get" the horror of sexism. The internal conflict just isn't the same and it can never be -- no matter how young a transchild starts her journey, her primary conflict will always be about being accepted as her gender, whereas a born girl's conflict will always be about running away from gender roles. Not sure what the transfolk assume I mean when I say that, it's just a simple observation of fact.
So now that I've answered your questions I hope you'll answer mind because there's a few things I don't understand and I'd like to. Pardon, probably not going to ask this the right way.
How does the desire for gender recognition equal the desire for full humanity? Many transfolk seem to think those two are the same and I can't figure out why.
I must admit, I don't understand this. I don't understand why the 'desire for gender expression' should equal the 'desire for full humanity' and who says it is or isn't. Part of my bafflement is based on a view that through reading her blog I have of how Miss Andrea views the transgender community that has no relationship to how I view the community. I don't know if this has something to do with her picking which parts of the community she wants to talk about or maybe I just lack the smarts to understand what she is saying. It seems to me that part of the argument is that while she as a female-born-woman chose a lifepath that (and here we have a gross simplification to avoid getting sidetracked into a seperate semantic argument) is not 'stereotypically female' (and I'm airquoting wildly here) she sees some male-born-women choosing to present as closer to that 'stereotypically female' (airquotes) role and she thinks that's bad. It's the burqa argument basically, while women in most of the world seem to think it's a symbol of oppression that needs to be cast off, there are some British Muslim women who are reported as saying that they are taking to wearing it because they see it as a symbol of freedom.
I hesitate over the any non-trans man being able to acces woman-only safe spaces merely by claiming to be trans bit because I doubt I can formulate an answer that doesn't make me look uncaring about the value of safe-spaces for women. There is the issue of what that woman-only safe space is and why the man is trying to access it, miss Andrea and her friends have tended to go for this 'non-trans man' being an abusive husband, people on the other side of the argument have tended to go for pre-operative rape or violence victim. I would suggest that any place that isn't actually able to tell the difference is probably not a very safe space for anyone. I get to be glib about safe-spaces because I'm a white middle-class straight-acting male and of course I know that it's not the case for everyone else. I'm just dubious about whether there's a real likelihood of a man wearing a frock in order to try and get access to his wife who's in a battered woman's shelter and whether it's worth trying to linking this to trans-women's access to women-only safe spaces. You might as well say that the man used a car to drive to the shelter so let's ban cars, or he eats shredded wheat so let's put Ian Botham on trial as an accessory to violence.
But there's also a minor annoyance to me personally... that no matter how long they've transitioned, they never quite "get" the horror of sexism. As though 'the horror of sexism' is a universal to all female-born-women of all countries in the world that, should they get together in one big meeting, they'd be able to agree on an exact definition that satisfied everyone. As though the definition of a woman is 'a unit of flesh for the dealing with the horror of sexism'. And there's a contradiction in what I see as Miss Andrea's argument, that transwomen are both trying too much and too little to be like 'real women' (airquotes!1!).
OK, that's enough airing of my misunderstandings and misapprehensions, so I'll leave it there for now. I welcome comments to educate me where I misunderstand things, I will just say that if anyone posts comments I will probably reply to them by seperate blog entries later on. If you don't want that then best to communicate with me by email which I'll assume is private unless you say otherwise. Abuse will be either ignored or posted to be laughed at, no matter how it arrives.
Labels: feminism, men, sexual assault, transgenderism, women
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Oh dear. This probably won't end well.
Still, I will look on this as a learning experience, it's not every day that I find someone with a more extreme position than Julie Bindel, but then it's not everyday that I find Julie Bindel either, the Guardian seeming to be behaving itself recently.
Still, I will look on this as a learning experience, it's not every day that I find someone with a more extreme position than Julie Bindel, but then it's not everyday that I find Julie Bindel either, the Guardian seeming to be behaving itself recently.
Labels: feminism, transgenderism, transphobia, transvestites
Monday, March 03, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Links a Lordy
The Wonderbra Hills (SFW) [via Sex & Blogs (NSFW!)]
70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, only 30% is solid ground. What if everything was reversed? Fascinating. And beautifully illustrated too. I seem to be living somewhere between the English Lake and the Great Asian Ocean.
Icon War. You'll never leave your computer running alone again.
ACT_I_VATE. Daily online comix anthology.
The BNP is having to pretend it gives a toss about the environment to distract from the fact that figures show it's 'we're being swamped by brown people!' rhetoric is a load of rubbish.
The Andrea Dworkin Online Library.
Tetris fight! [via BoingBoing]
70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, only 30% is solid ground. What if everything was reversed? Fascinating. And beautifully illustrated too. I seem to be living somewhere between the English Lake and the Great Asian Ocean.
Icon War. You'll never leave your computer running alone again.
ACT_I_VATE. Daily online comix anthology.
The BNP is having to pretend it gives a toss about the environment to distract from the fact that figures show it's 'we're being swamped by brown people!' rhetoric is a load of rubbish.
The Andrea Dworkin Online Library.
Tetris fight! [via BoingBoing]
Labels: BNP, British National Party, comics, computers, feminism, humour, maps
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Friday, August 03, 2007
The Hypocrisy of anti-trans "feminism" at National Women's Studies Association. [via Feministing]. I've not really talked too much about the Julie Bindel/Hecklers thing here, it's something I posted to my LJ but it's made me interested in the anti-trans 'Feminist' position.
Labels: feminism, Julie Bindel, Radio 4, transgenderism, transphobia
Monday, March 12, 2007
Ahhh, it's the spirit of '88 as the Daily Mail resurrect the old Oh noes, our kids are being taught about teh queer! This will turn them into interior designers or car mechanics! It is noticeable that this time the Mail don't try to pretend there's no difference between 'teaching about' and 'promoting', they have those wacky, wacky Christians to do that for them, although by mentioning Section 28 the inference is there. I went to school under Section 28 and in a gulf of space between Danny La Rue and Lily Savage and look at me, so the idea that a few schoolbooks can make you gay you'd think even newspapers would have given up on that one by now.
Thousands face pay cut under new equality law. Because, you see, the villains here are all those women in lower paid jobs expecting equality, not management for refusing to raise them to the same level as that of men doing the same work.
Thousands face pay cut under new equality law. Because, you see, the villains here are all those women in lower paid jobs expecting equality, not management for refusing to raise them to the same level as that of men doing the same work.
Labels: bisexual, Daily Mail, feminism, gay, lesbian, school
Thursday, March 08, 2007
I hate you so much right now.
So I read this story about a woman who went into a 'Jamba Juice' (which I presume is some American purveyor of liquid refreshment that hasn't yet made it over the ocean, unlike Starbucks) and got a receipt which describes her as a dyke. This made me angry. Then I read the comments, which included pearls of wisdom that the clerk wasn't at fault for being offensive (and hey, how is 'dyke' offensive when it's something the gay community uses itself?!) but the woman for being offended, and hey, it's not like she was called something 'really' offensive like 'ni@@er'. That made me angrier. Then I went over to Feministing and read this. Angry is no longer the emotion, I think I've invented a whole new feeling and am naming it 'Clamboxsis', and am clamboxsing like crazy. This, combined with the news that any vote for the Conservatives in the Newark and Sherwood area is a vote for racism, and I'm about ready to start hoping that Iran does have nuclear weapons and is about to destroy us all because at the moment it's about all we deserve.
Labels: Conservatives, feminism, lesbian, news, queer, racism
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Friday, December 08, 2006
Wow, this film looks like it's going to be worth watching, presuming you like something full of lies and misinformation about the way the world works.
The Monstrous Regiment of Women, The Gunn brother’s second documentary, goes all out to demolish the feminist worldview. From a consistently Christian perspective, they will show how feminism has had a devastating impact on the church, state, and family.
So that's one out of three things to be concerned about.
[via Feministing]
Labels: feminism, Fundamentalists- Christian
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Another week, another article in the Daily Mail telling women to quit all their jobs and get back in the kitchen.
Quite simply, women are preprogrammed to feel dependent on men. Even today women may be richer and enjoy all the trappings of success but, deep down in their psyche, they fear they can't survive alone... Happiest of all were women whose husbands brought in at least two-thirds of the household income, regardless of how much they helped with domestic chores. In short I suspect women will never feel truly comfortable earning more than their men. The need to rely on a man is driven by such a deep-seated biological urge, I cannot see it ever being eradicated completely.
So what about lesbians then? Or m-to-f transsexuals that are sexually attracted to other females? Oh sorry, it's the Daily Mail so it's junk science from a world that bears no relationship to the one we live in.
Quite simply, women are preprogrammed to feel dependent on men. Even today women may be richer and enjoy all the trappings of success but, deep down in their psyche, they fear they can't survive alone... Happiest of all were women whose husbands brought in at least two-thirds of the household income, regardless of how much they helped with domestic chores. In short I suspect women will never feel truly comfortable earning more than their men. The need to rely on a man is driven by such a deep-seated biological urge, I cannot see it ever being eradicated completely.
So what about lesbians then? Or m-to-f transsexuals that are sexually attracted to other females? Oh sorry, it's the Daily Mail so it's junk science from a world that bears no relationship to the one we live in.
Labels: Daily Mail, feminism, women
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Women, know your limits!
Alternatively, how to cure feminism, which says much the same only this time in a serious article. If a woman meets a man who she is smarter, better and faster than then she should act stupid, clumsy and slow, for the good of everyone.
