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
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Why do I do it? Why do I look at the Daily Mail website when I know the paper is written solely to annoy the hell out of me? Today's exhibit: 'I spent a week living like a woman' in which a Daily Mail orc tidies his flat, is aware of what he eats and drinks, makes conscious decisions about what to wear, reads Cosmo, phones his Mum for a chat, has his legs waxed and pays attention when people speak to him. It's 'all a bit of fun' of course, in the same way that a crowbar to the head is 'light-hearted japery'.
Labels: Daily Mail, men, metrosexuality, stupidity, women
Thursday, August 23, 2007
News just in from the Gah, Fuck! We Men Are Such Bastards! desk:
A management consultant who branded his wife with a hot steam iron because she had failed to press his shirt and ...also slashed her with a knife because she had forgotten to make his sandwiches... walked free from court - with just a £2,000 fine.
And what was the Judge's well thought out, wise and sagacious decision for this?
He was spared even a community punishment because the judge ruled that "special circumstances" suggested he was unlikely to reoffend and his job meant he was too "busy" to find the time to complete any order.
SO, if I were to kill Shrubya on my holiday and then point out that he's the only scumbag I really dislike and I have a 9-5 job at a library to return to, that'll be okay then? What the cock is going on when you have A FUCKING JUDGE believing the criminal justice system is not there to inconvenience someone who has committed GBH on someone else?
the £90,000-a-year executive walked free from court - with just a £2,000 fine.
His wife Elizabeth, also 25, sat quietly in the corner of the courtroom at Southwark Crown Court as he indicated he could pay the fine within 28 days.
By my reckoning he'd be able to pay the fine in just over 8 days.
You know it's something serious when the comments on the Daily Mail website are against him, the Daily Mail readership normally comprising of people who think Thatcher was dangerously liberal.
Anyway, the fella's name is Colin Read. Yep, Colin Read likes torturing women for fun. If you're the sort of woman who has even lower feelings of self-worth than Liz Jones then Colin Read is the man for you. Colin Read will beat the shit out of you and you'll have no means of legal recourse. Go out with Colin Read today and get a free breadknife in the shin. Of course, there are lots of Colin Read's on the net, so here's a picture of the little shit:
A management consultant who branded his wife with a hot steam iron because she had failed to press his shirt and ...also slashed her with a knife because she had forgotten to make his sandwiches... walked free from court - with just a £2,000 fine.
And what was the Judge's well thought out, wise and sagacious decision for this?
He was spared even a community punishment because the judge ruled that "special circumstances" suggested he was unlikely to reoffend and his job meant he was too "busy" to find the time to complete any order.
SO, if I were to kill Shrubya on my holiday and then point out that he's the only scumbag I really dislike and I have a 9-5 job at a library to return to, that'll be okay then? What the cock is going on when you have A FUCKING JUDGE believing the criminal justice system is not there to inconvenience someone who has committed GBH on someone else?
the £90,000-a-year executive walked free from court - with just a £2,000 fine.
His wife Elizabeth, also 25, sat quietly in the corner of the courtroom at Southwark Crown Court as he indicated he could pay the fine within 28 days.
By my reckoning he'd be able to pay the fine in just over 8 days.
You know it's something serious when the comments on the Daily Mail website are against him, the Daily Mail readership normally comprising of people who think Thatcher was dangerously liberal.
Anyway, the fella's name is Colin Read. Yep, Colin Read likes torturing women for fun. If you're the sort of woman who has even lower feelings of self-worth than Liz Jones then Colin Read is the man for you. Colin Read will beat the shit out of you and you'll have no means of legal recourse. Go out with Colin Read today and get a free breadknife in the shin. Of course, there are lots of Colin Read's on the net, so here's a picture of the little shit:
Labels: angry, courtrooms, courts, Daily Mail, domestic violence, England, Flickr, men, torture, women
Sunday, August 12, 2007
With the parents for the weekend. Family get together this afternoon! Back Monday evening, maybe.
In the meantime, have some weekend misogyny.
In the meantime, have some weekend misogyny.
Labels: men, misogyny, stupidity, women
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
