 |
| photo found here |
Well, shit. Here we are.
I'm taking the step that will likely cause me to lose some readers. Twisty did it and now, Nine Deuce has also spoken up. Both radical feminist bloggers have "played" the "trans card" and raised concerned eyebrows at the recent discussions taking place in some of the radical feminist blog-o-sphere.
So, you guessed it! I will be yet another radical feminist blogger who will "play" the trans card, I will do so with what was originally an unpublished comment on Nine Deuces' blog. This post came about from my discomfort with some of the language being used in parts of the online radical feminist community. The recent post at RATM has forced me to come to terms my unease and publicly respond. So, here is that comment expanded.
I think there is a difference between providing a critical analysis and being mean - one can be critical of a movement or individuals without being mean. But when critiques do become mean and resort to name-calling, they no longer appear as thoughtful feminist critiques. This is because it is simply not thoughtful to refer to an entire group of people as "she-males" and "trannies." This sort of name calling is disgusting. Just like it is disgusting when women are called names or those who are older, larger, less abled, less white, less straight, less "beautiful" are called names.
We know, as radical feminists, exactly how it feels to be called an array of horrible names. We know that name-calling is not an ideal path towards mature discussions. That said, there are trans activists who are abusive to radical feminists; I have witnessed name-calling on both sides. However, not ALL radical feminists take part in this just as not ALL trans people take part in abusing radical feminists or agree with what some of the abusive trans activists are doing or saying.
Why should radical feminists sink to the same level of name-calling, if we know how this treatment feels, why should we use it against a group of people that, as Nine Deuce said, are part of an oppressed group. It is unfair to make sweeping and cruel statements against any oppressed group. It is never necessary to waste time feeling hatred towards others - it will not create any real change or discussion. Hurtful language, like "she-males," has no place in any analysis or in any situation.
Update: There is NO censoring going on here, the only instances where I do not publish comments is when they are attacking of a particular group or written anonymously or by men.
All of my feelings on this subject are sketched out beautifully over at Rage Against The Manchine with her second post on the topic.
Verbal Abuse is verbal abuse, no matter how people want to dress it up.
ReplyDeleteYou're courageous, what an admirable trait. :)
You're coming at this from the idea that dialogue or conversations are going to effect change. They won't. We're running out of time and resources to try and eek out our survival in this postmodern liberal haze. Women shouldn't be wasting their time trying to dialogue with people who are too brainwashed and happy in it to change. Our political understanding of gender as a form of oppression is not wrong, it holds up well to scrutiny. There is no more to be said about it to appease people who wallow in male supremacist beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIts aggravating that radical feminists are being policed about their language. FFS! Women have every right to be contemptuous and mock the hell out of things that are absurdist and oppressive towards them.
Today I received a false DMCA on my youtube video responding to 2 blog posts full of lies and homophobia by a trans man called Xander Sarkisova. In order to reinstate my video I would have to give my personal info to youtube, who would send it to him. This is someone who has dropped the home and work address of a lesbian feminist on another feminist's blog in order to intimidate her. Radical Feminists just don't behave that way. They never have.
I guess the point I should be making here is that they oppress us. They are no more entitled to our respect or validation than any other males or male identified females.
Being nice and respectable isn't going to liberate womankind.
I don't think it's post-modern to believe that name-calling isn't necessary or productive. And if we're not going to have dialogue, what will we have? Also, I don't understand it is policing of me to say that it's messed up that people are being called nasty names. We have been called so many names, why should we do the same thing? I don't see how seeing a problem with that is "policing" or "mocking" - calling trans people "she-males" is just fucked up. That sort of thing doesn't encourage people to seek radical feminism out.
ReplyDeleteI just think that being critical is a lot different than name-calling. We don't need to be "nice" to not be downright mean to people who aren't in any place of social power, really. I think we can be mad without resorting to attacking people like they attack us...it is sinking to the same low level.
I think that is bullshit about what happened to you on Youtube, but i still don't think all trans people are represented by those with an online presence.
I guess I just don't see how we're being oppressed by trans people.
ReplyDeleteI mean, women can (and have) obviously be(een) mistreated by trans people, but not ALL trans people are like that, not all of them share the same beliefs or ideas - it is unfair to make such a blanket statement about an entire group of people based on the shitty behavior of some.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the goal shouldn't/can't necessarily be about dialogue with trans activists, but I do think that there is hope for dialogue with others. Dysphoric women on the fence about transitioning. Lib fems/fun fems who have begun to see how much damage trans politics is doing to women. Others who are truly open to dialogue, but just have never run across actual radical feminist thought. Name-calling is really not in the service of creating dialogue with such people. In fact, I believe it is cutting off dialogue that has the potential to be very productive.
ReplyDeleteI understand--and actually agree with--the argument that mockery of an oppressor class is perfectly acceptable by the oppressed class. And I definitely think there is a time and place for it. What concerns me is the pervasive nature of this type of language. I don't think it's serving us or our agenda. And while on one hand I can see how this can essentially be seen as a "tone argument" I really don't believe that's what's going on. There's something here about human decency; about talking about human beings as if they are actually human.
It also occurs to me that those feminist fore-mothers who blazed the trail for us, whose writing inspires us and challenges us and gives us the courage to carry on, did not use this type of language. They managed to leverage brilliant and cutting critiques of trans politics without resorting to name-calling.
Thanks for this, BK. You also got to some of what I plan to say in the next bit.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'm glad you are speaking your mind. I've talked with radfems that are frankly afraid to speak their minds even on little disagreements they have with other radfems because of the viciousness that is hurled at them by said feminists. Just because someone has a strong political understanding of how oppressive power structures function doesn't mean they aren't going to act in an oppressive or domineering fashion themselves.
ReplyDeleteWith that in mind, I will respond to some of what you wrote:
"I mean, women can (and have) obviously be(een) mistreated by trans people, but not ALL trans people are like that, not all of them share the same beliefs or ideas - it is unfair to make such a blanket statement about an entire group of people based on the shitty behavior of some."
Couldn't the same thing be said about men who do not consider themselves transgendered?
I'm not sure that transpeople, as such, are oppressed. They may face violence for not appearing feminine or masculine, but born women who do not ID as trans face that violence as well.
I don't write any of my critiques of transgenderism to be mean, but rather because I see genderism as an intrinsic part of patriarchy. But then, if these were outright men, would I feel the need to not be mean? I don't think so. And yet, even doctors say these are just men who have been through surgery. It's in the medical sociology literature, if readers don't believe me. It's like the famous story of the boy who said the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes.
I may write more later....or not. I have a feeling this convo is going to be a trainwreck, and I'm not keen on getting involved in those. :)
I am not saying that they can't act in domineering ways, any group can act in those ways...what i AM saying that i don't think people should be calling trans people, partcuarly transwomen "she-males" or "trannies." That was the purpose of this post. This post was not intended to critique the construction of gender or cultural objects that we attribute to gender.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, i don't think it could be the same situation with non trans men. Men who are trans often cannot go in public "appearing" "feminine" because they will be harassed/assaulted/raped (because they appear feminine or not "fitting" in with the constructed gender binary)- men who are not trans often present themselves as men (through wearing culturally created clothing assigned to men) and get treated as men. However, if a man who was not trans went out and wore a dress, he would likely be treated differently.
Gender is constructed, but we live in a world that thinks it is innate, and so our society cannot stand people who don't look like either a man or a woman, or appear "too feminine" or "too masculine" for their perceived sex (which we know from intersex individuals, is not always obvious and shouldn't have to be).
My question to you then, after you just admitted that they face violence, how are they not oppressed? First of all, trans people are required to make a lot of choices about how they are perceived - when people have to alter their behavior, appearance, bodies and lives to make everyone else more "comfortable" is oppressive.
I just don't understand this argument - saying that trans people are oppressed is NOT the same as saying women are not oppressed or that women do not face violence.
Both groups face violence, and I have no idea how my post denies this at any point...
This post wasn't created to compare how much violence each group experiences. This post was about calling an entire group of human beings names based on actions by a number of trans people that don't represent ALL trans people. Furthermore, what does "born women who aren't trans face violence as well" have to make for an argument against trans people? Isn't that just saying that both groups experience violence at the hands of men? Which is true? Or is it that, if women experience more violence than another group, then that other group should be called names? I don't understand this.
"I don't write any of my critiques of transgenderism to be mean, but rather because I see genderism as an intrinsic part of patriarchy."
Regardless of what you see, men kill and rape trans people -- that's what is happening these days. Kids bully other kids who aren't straight or don't "appear" properly "male" or properly "female." We can make abstract, theoretical arguments about "genderism", but it doesn't change the violence targeted at trans people BY MEN.
So why should some radical feminists say such hateful things about transwomen when transwomen aren't the ones going out and raping and killing people? They are not out there starting wars...they are not doing any of these terrible things...at least not to any extent worthy of the names they are being called. Name calling, as my post said, is NOT dialogue.
Also, if someone is intersex, should they not take part in "genderism" or saying "i'm a man or a woman"? Or neither?? what if they appear as men but actually have both ovaries AND testicles? What if they then go about their lives as a man, but are biologically intersex? Are they "she-males"??? Should they be called names?
Calling men names after they assault us and attack us is very different than calling trans people names, many of whom have very little social power. This, to me, is not an argument.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying anything about gender as a construction in this article, because it is. I AM talking about name-calling and verbal attacks against trans people - why aren't any commenters addressing the actual topic of this post??
I'd like it if someone would actually address the topic.
That huge comment is directed at everyone here.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteim really surprised you censored nuke. Just like the tranz man who recently falsely DMCA'd her video the other day and who threatened Cathy Bernamen last week. WTF
ReplyDeleteExcuse me?! When did i censor her?!?! EVER??? I don't allow anon posters, but I allowed her post...I am horrified at why you would accuse me of something i never did!!
DeleteWTF to you, dollsnatch, when did i ever censor her? UGH, this is the bullshit i am talking about TROLLING. Stop making things up that I didn't do!!!! like censoring her! OH MY GOD i can't believe you would say that
ReplyDeletePretty sure that disagreeing isn't the same as censoring.
ReplyDeleteShe told me she responded to your comment to her comment and you never posted it :/
ReplyDeleteHow is that possible? I put it up? I am so confused. It is right there, I can see it, scroll up.
ReplyDeletesays "bolshevikchick" and then her comment - maybe it was not appearing as through the moderation que for her - i would NEVER censor her!
ReplyDeleteHey, all this is well and good. "Meanness is bad." Could have totally used the support when a transwoman threatened to kill me. But people get called names (apparently) and it's time to blast activists against gender identity because they use meanie language?
ReplyDelete*two thumbs up*
Way to take a stand agains meanness!
Cancer is also BAD!
@bugbrennan,
ReplyDeleteI am horribly sorry to hear about your experience. But it was one experience, it does not mean that all trans people are "bad" or violent, in fact, that's not fair to say at all.
And Brennan, I am assuming you are a man by your username, so please consider checking out the comment policy.
I see one comment by her. She said she wrote another one and it's not posted. 2. that is not a man. Good lord OE. A lot of females have been attacked by the tranz community. I find it very offensive that once again, FAB women are told to just suck it up and ignore the censorship, violence, abuse and erasure of us because a extremely small, but vocal group of men want to wear the trappings of the female reality like a fucking dress.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see a second post on my feed by her, if I did, it would have been published.
ReplyDeletehttp://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/casebeer-roberts-bill-introduced-in-maryland/?#comment-6113
ReplyDeleteDollsnatch, trans women are not men who want to wear dresses. You need to do some reading on transgenderism. Here's a place to start: http://skepchick.org/2012/01/13-myths-and-misconceptions-about-trans-women-part-one/
ReplyDeleteWhat?! Brennan isn't a man, BK. But I suspect you already know that.
ReplyDeleteMajor faux pas; Ms. Brennan is not a man but I suspect you already know that.
ReplyDeleteCrucial D, actually no, I don't and I also don't know who you are.
ReplyDeleteHey BK,
ReplyDeleteThe comment regarding understanding and possessing egalitarian politics not necessarily resulting in egalitarian behavior was not meant about transfolks, though it's interesting to think about it in that light.
I do agree that the way the argument is put forth makes a difference. In my experience, no matter how kindly worded the critique, people's feelings are going to get hurt. After all, they really do see [feel in the blank gender identity] as being who they are. That ends up in an emotional reaction that disregards any intellectual critiquing feminists do. That said, we need to take into account how is best to reach people...and how we want to have relations with one another, as well as with those women with which we disagree. In my opinion, there can be a variety of blogs, with a variety of styles, and that focuses on whatever the writer feels she is best at writing about. And importantly, I would like to see critiques of transgenderism, and the queer movement more broadly, reach bigger blogs.
I also think it's important to take into account that some women reading these blogs really have been violated by M2Fs. Women are the first to work for any other cause besides our own. It's easy to be guilt-tripped by M2Fs and their supporters into thinking they are The Most Oppressed. I like to think a radfem analysis offers something to women who feel deep down something is not quite right about the amount of resources being taken by transgenderism.
I've always appreciated your support for my writing, BK. If it means anything, I think you're a good person. If you'd like to talk about this more, feel free to contact me at womononajourney (at) gmail dot com.
I agree with your post here. It's one thing to be critical but name-calling is something that I thought most people got over in kindergarten.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about being removed from blogs, BK. If people actually think that name-calling is a good idea, they're not worth it.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to remove the duplicate post, BK. I've read your blog for awhile now and I usually love what you have to say. I'm sorry for implying that you should know who Cathy Brennan is, I just assumed you would since she's a well-known rad fem.
ReplyDelete@Bushfire gender is a social construct.
ReplyDeleteYes, Dollsnatch, I agree with that - gender is a social construct.
ReplyDeleteCrucial D, it's fine, i was just very confused as i truly didn't (and still don't) know who cathy brennan is. Does she have a blog?
@Dollsnatch- that's really an oversimplification of gender. There's a lot of social construction going on in gender roles, but there's also a gender identity that doesn't just come from society. The problem going on here is that people are ignoring that there is a different between a gender role and a gender identity. Instead of reading about it, you're ignoring it. That doesn't embiggen the discourse.
ReplyDeleteDon't gender roles come from gender? Which is socially constructed? I don't believe that since it is socially constructed, people can't "identify" particular ways, but i would argue that it is constructed and the roles stem from the constructs (which change through cultures and time)
ReplyDeleteGender roles come from society. A person's gender identity is whether their brain is wired to relate to the categories "male" or "female" or neither.
ReplyDeleteThat would mean our brains are gendered, which is what is argued by biological determinists who declare women to have different brains then men, which is just nonsense IMO. What would a "female" brain look like as opposed to a "male" brain?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't are greatest idea as humans to be to incorporate both perspectives rather than one or the other?
ReplyDeleteYou can accept that people believe themselves to be male/female/other without also believing that men have "more spatial intelligence" or other such nonsense. One of those is people's views of themselves, the other is men trying to label women as "other" and "inferior". It's really not the same thing. Moreover, biological determinism is a position against transgendered people. Bio det. says that if you are born with female genitals, your brain has to believe itself to be female. The transgendered don't agree with this, so these views are actually in opposition to each other.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it is biologically deterministic to assume that one's genitals dictate how they believe themselves to be female/male etc...the only thing is that I do not understand the idea that gender roles are not part of the same construct that gender is? Unless I am just misunderstanding what you wrote! Which is a big possibility.
ReplyDeletethis is cool to see.....
ReplyDeletebut it really f*ng sucks that people are belittling you for being just.
this is the problem i have with alot of rad fem-
the haters.
(in other ways im so rad fem tho,lol.
so it really just sucks...dworkin is a huge hero to me....she is supposed to be ok w/T people....)
by the way,
do you have any loose idea of the percentages of anti trans feeling in rad fem?
this is something ive been wondering
for a long time now.....
i mean if its just fringers that is not as big a deal....i assumed that was mostly the case...
anyway,here:
http://www.feminisms.org/
this is a cool blog-they are pretty trans friendly i think.
(not all their commenters blogs are, tho!)
thanks for being a moral person.
best to you!
ps
i'm faab
http://queerdictionary.tumblr.com/post/3899151192/faab
I mean that gender identity doesn't come exclusively from society. People have a strong sense of their gender identity even if society tries to dictate something else to them. However, gender roles are entirely a social construction.
ReplyDeleteI think your blog gets more hits than mine, but I added you to my side bar. We gotta stick together, ya know? A network of radical feminists who don't put up with trans hate will surely stifle arguments that we aren't actually radical feminists without being anti-trans.
ReplyDelete