nexyjo, come back soon…

Is anybody here trans or intersex?

I’d love to know where these interesting viewpoints are coming from culturally.

I am in fundamental disagreement with most of what you say, but at least you reply in provocative and interesting ways. :)

Who was this? Did he actually say, “You may not make radical-feminist comments on my blog,” or did he take issue with particular things you were saying because he found them offensive?

I recently put up a post on feministe (feministe.us/blog) saying that I’d take good-faith questions on feminism; that seems like the most appropriate place. I’m in rather a tired mood right now, but I should have time within the next few days. Shoot.

I was recently informed by a FTM that my comments would be deleted if I continued asking radical feminist questions on his blog. Some of those questions have been addressed very well here, but not entirely. (I was referred to Piny, and lo and behold, here is Piny. Where can we talk further?)

I am in fundamental disagreement with most of what you say, but at least you reply in provocative and interesting ways. :)

dorktastic, non-trans reduction mammoplasty is often done for reasons such as yours - to become less noticeable. It is a little different from getting breast augmentation, and more like getting sticking-out ears pinned back. Other people might do non-surgical strategies, such as changing clothing style or hair style. I considered reduction once because I was self-conscious, but found that a little clothing change and a little weight loss and a little “piss off” attitude towards leerers made me feel less out-of-norm. I had a real aversion to general anesthesia for cosmetic reasons, knowing that there is a small but real risk.

Thus we see pressures that have traditionally predominantly fallen on women spreading to men - in this day and age, cosmetic surgery and the whoe ‘metrosexual’ meme are good examples.

IOW, I’m saying that men are victims of the patriarchy too. Not to the same extent as women, but they are nevertheless in the majority, grist for the mill one way or another.

So no, I don’t see this remotely as a feminist triumph. :/

I hear you, Myriad. I have to give more thought to the connection between capitalism/consumerism and patriarchy. I’ve always also understood capitalism to be kind of like a cancer in that it has to keep growing to survive… which is scary. I’m no economist though, and I’m not a full on socialist either. (because I treasure individual thought, I think. Wholly socialist governments have been frighteningly oppressive from my observation). I favour democratic socialism as practised in Scandanavia - where the intrinsic value and dignity of all of the people is more important than the accumulation of individual personal wealth, but it’s still a capitalist economy.

It seems that the essentialist versus the social constructivist viewpoints are a major sticking point in this question of whether feminism should accept transeccuals as women. Transeccsuals are struggling to make yourselves understood or believed about your motivation to transition, and that it has nothing to do with ‘gender roles’, no matter how often this is repeated. (well, people are always hearing it for the first time too, I get that…) That may not come down to a belief in essentialism for all transeccsuals (no ‘eccs’ on keyboard), I know it doesn’t in fact, but I wonder, as I’ve seen it written elsewhere - would essentialism be the problem it is if it wasn’t ‘in bed with’ political oppression?

If it happens to be so that some things, like transecsuality or homosesuality ‘are’ innate or hardwired for a percentage of people, this will be a never ending debate until ’something’ is irrefutably proven. I wonder why we can’t move forward politically by allowing for both possibilities since neither is ‘provable’, on its own. Because I believe in the innateness of some things, it doesn’t follow in my mind that feminism is doomed.

my husband’s truck door handle wouldn’t make the door open again a few weeks back, so i grabbed my tools, pulled off the door panel, and readjusted the door latch actuator. is that feminine or masculine? should i care?

i think a big part of the problem is that there is no language that accurately (or even inaccurately) defines what it is that drives people to transition, and that folks who are not trans can’t help but to understand the need to transition in the context of gender roles, and how one “fits” (or doesn’t “fit”) into them.

I’ve got to post one of the pictures of me in hospital looking femme enough to have my trans card permanently cancelled. Everyone who’s seen it thinks I look beautiful, but I just think it makes me look like a stranger.

On the other hand it bothers me that the definition of ‘masculine’ in our culture is so narrow that men who don’t fit it feel that the only way they can be accepted, or accept themselves, is to become a woman.

Then there’s the problem that the term ‘woman’ is being used as a kind of default for anyone who doesn’t fit the prevailing definition of ‘masculinity’.

I know some butch dyke transwomen–and some high femme transguys–who would love to talk to you.

Look, read the thread. IIRC, there are several transpeople on it who dispel the oft-repeated myth that transpeople transition because they don’t fit into conventional ideas about masculine men and feminine women. Might be hard to believe, but I was feminine. I made an awesome woman. I’m currently a C-minus at masculinity. I’m not sure where the second part of your “problem” is coming from, but I assure you that no one’s trying to make “woman” the default catch-all for everything not-man. Okay, maybe the patriarchy. If you have more time, you might want to check out, ftmichael.tashari.org for resources, or read Gender Outlaw by Kate Bornstein for a meditation on gender role and identity.

As a caring and empathetic person I would dearly love to welcome trans folk as whatever gender is most comfortable for them.

On the other hand it bothers me that the definition of ‘masculine’ in our culture is so narrow that men who don’t fit it feel that the only way they can be accepted, or accept themselves, is to become a woman.

Then there’s the problem that the term ‘woman’ is being used as a kind of default for anyone who doesn’t fit the prevailing definition of ‘masculinity’.

I think that maybe the long term solution is probably to change the expectations of ‘masculinity’, rather than have people endure the pain and trauma of medication and surgery that would enable them to live as women.

I have no dispute with the fact that the capitalist/consumer society drives the cosmetic industry, but with regard to feminism I wonder what you make of the dramatic rise in male participation?….. when does it stop being a feminist issue?

I think you have to remember we are talking about the patriarchy, ie the rule of white older elite men; it’s easy to forget this and think that patriarchy = all men. Not at all. The quote that always reminds me of this critical difference is Churchill’s saying something like “war is a gentleman’s agreement between countries to kill each other’s young men”.

“Young men” (in this sense, men who are not members of the elite) are kept in support of the patriarchy because of course they are rewarded more by it, and because they have the carrot of one day joining the elite dangled in front of them continuously. For this, they fight and kill each other, and compete in every sphere.

But that doesn’t preclude or negate the fact that ‘young men’ are also fodder for patriarchy - to fight their wars, and drive their consumer-capitalist economy, just as women are. Previously the divide between the use of men and women has been more stark; the critical change I think is consumer-capitalism. It is a beast that must always be fed to keep achieving “growth” (ie wealth accumulation for a relative few aka the patriarchy); and thus it simply cannot afford to be based solely on women as consumers. Thus we see pressures that have traditionally predominantly fallen on women spreading to men - in this day and age, cosmetic surgery and the whoe ‘metrosexual’ meme are good examples.

IOW, I’m saying that men are victims of the patriarchy too. Not to the same extent as women, but they are nevertheless in the majority, grist for the mill one way or another.

So no, I don’t see this remotely as a feminist triumph. :/

The maybe-not-really borders I was pointing to were different ones and ones which can be controlled for class–say, between an upper-middle-class eighteenth-century woman who has children because she believes she should and an upper-middle-class twenty-first-century woman who gets breast implants in her mid-twenties because she believes she should.

I’m bothered by an apparent reading of surgery/corsetry/foot-torture as special cases or a special trend or even a special focus on the body. All they are, assuming they are new or newly extreme for cultural rather than technological reasons, is a decision on the part of the patriarchy to put women’s bodies to different uses.

I think that there’s absolutely some truth to that, but I don’t think it really encompasses the issues I was pointing to.

I tend to think that there are a few issues of injustice here. First, and most all-pervasive, is the injustice you’re referring to . . . the idea that a woman’s body isn’t her own, and that she is to be compelled to use it in certain ways for the good/amusement/asthetic appreciation of others. This is a real problem, and a big one.

The issue I was looking at was more the specific ways in which she is compelled to use her body, and whether there are more or less extremely horrible ways that womens bodies have been used. Discussion and recognition of one doesn’t preclude discussion and recognition of the other.

Think of it this way: A 19th century housewife, kept in the absolute lap of luxury, waited on by her servants, and very much in love with her husband is still expected to have his children whether she wants to or not. In this specific case she may want to, and in this specific case her loss of freedom may not be as onerous as it would be for, say, an enslaved prostitute who is beaten and burned when she rebels against her pimp.

There’s still a loss of freedom for both of them. In one way, their situation is the same. Both of them are having their freedom curtailed and their bodily autonomy stolen by the patriarchy. I think it’s important to recognize that commonality.

At the same time, it’s also important to recognize that in other, concrete ways, their situations are utterly different. The houswife wouldn’t choose to swap lives with the prostitute, and the prostitute likely dreams of a life as comfortable as the housewife’s. Without recognizing this difference, I find that the whole discussion ends up lacking credibility.

It’s the whole “We’re both sisters in oppression!” “No we’re not. You’ve got a good life and mine sucks ass.” argument.

—Myca

This thought is only half-baked, but…I’m bothered by an apparent reading of surgery/corsetry/foot-torture as special cases or a special trend or even a special focus on the body. All they are, assuming they are new or newly extreme for cultural rather than technological reasons, is a decision on the part of the patriarchy to put women’s bodies to different uses. It doesn’t mean that women are less embodied or body-obsessed, merely that–again, assuming–they’re ordered to control other parts of their bodies. Is an eighteenth-century woman who feels compelled to have children until her body gives out less mutilated than a woman with breast implants? Are the effects of those demands more natural or less extreme?

The whole “oh, she’s got tuberculosis! She’s so dreamy . . .” thing.

On the other hand, anorexia does seem to be a solidly modern malady

Modern like the telegraph, not modern like botox, although it is definitely increasing. It existed at least as far back as the Victorian era.