Cartoon: An Easy Mistake To Make
| July 17th, 2007
Click on the image to see a larger version. (I think the drawing is nicer than my usual on this one). (Of course, it’s still new; in a month I’ll probably hate the art.)
Comments will be tightly moderated on this one; insulting comments are subject to being deleted at my whim.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Damn, you kick so much ass.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I think the two of them have more in common than they think they do. ;)
This comment was written by Doug S..Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
So true.
My world view is essentially feminist, while my parents were (for while, at least) fundamentalist christians. All of that makes me despair at some of the comments made about those of us who are trans and/or who were born with an intersex condition.
Maybe it just shows that dogma is dogma and it is often hurtful.
This comment was written by Ellen.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 12:40 am
I wrote an essay about this last year (after attending a women’s music festival and having a relatively good time, but being like, now this “trans inclusion” thing, what is that).
I also attended (& just graduated from) a women’s college, but it’s a little different here - we have trans people, FTM though not (that I know of) MTF. It’s not black and white but we seem to be OK with that; we’re not about to go co-ed, but neither do we feel that having trans people threatens our fabric (though I do wait for that landmark case where an MTF applicant gains admission - esp since we have a program for older women students returning to college later in life).
I do not really understand it but I do know that I’m not up for excluding anyone out of a desire to seem like a good feminist (though I do appreciate women-only space). I was reading some of the message boards devoted to this issue and was absolutely astounded by the level of vitriol on both sides. It kind of made me not want to go back to the festival this year, actually (that and it’s expensive and I don’t really have the time). I mean it just doesn’t make sense - almost seems like it’s a vestige of 60s/70s feminism that is less than resonant today? Anyway, thanks for the cartoon.
This comment was written by SarahO.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 3:26 am
/delurking rant
You know just like feminism today isn’t one big monolithic experience, feminism in the 60s and 70s was not just a bunch of lesbian-hating, transphobic, sex-hating racists who got together in order to ban lipstick from the universe. I’m really sick and tired of having my experiences hand-waved off so that younger feminists can say how much more enlightened they are.
/relurking
(edited to add — SarahO, I don’t mean this to be directed at you particularly. Your offhand comment just happened to be the thousandth one or so I’ve read and it finally got to me)
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Can I just second Andi?
As someone who has done considerable amounts of research into the women’s liberation movement in NZ, and knows a fair bit about . Almost all of the generalities that people characterise that movement with are inaccurate* (my least favourite of the moment is ‘in the sixties women fought for the right to work, but black/poor women had always worked’)
I like the drawing, but I’m kind of ’so?’ on my reaction to the whole cartoon. If radical feminist and conservative christian discourse overlaps in some areas then there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that (I’ve got a conservative christian who hangs out on my blog and he’ll often agree with my posts about violence against women). Either what radical feminists/conservative christians are saying is wrong, or it isn’t (and I disagree with every one of teh statements from either character). But that stands on its own merit, not on the fact that they agree with each other.
* Starting with the term second wave.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 5:07 am
SarahO Writes: … (though I do wait for that landmark case where an MTF applicant gains admission - esp since we have a program for older women students returning to college later in life).
You know, plenty of us are college-aged. You don’t have to wait for an older late-transition trans woman to apply for continuing education programs to see that case happen; there are no doubt teenage and twentysomething trans women already applying for regular undergrad programs.
I’m always interested in the cases of women-only spaces that welcome trans men, but not trans women. What does that say to trans men about respect for their lives and identities? What does that say about what’s actually being excluded? Male privilege? Masculinity? Aggression? Phalluses? Are we excluding people who desire women? People who desire men? People who appear male, for the sake of people who are uncomfortable in some way with apparently-male people? People who appear female, because they might be spies? What are the operating assumptions in place?
(Interesting move, by the by, Amp. I’m already bracing for impact.)
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 5:08 am
I don’t entirely agree, Maia. This particular position held by some radical feminists is gender essentialist, and the implications of gender essentialism are frightening and have been martialed to oppress women (often by religious groups) for a very, very long time. Pointing out the agenda this serves is instructive, IMO, even if it’s not the whole story.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 5:43 am
I think the aim is to eliminate people who have the psychological effects of being raised with male privilege. (Which is not to say I agree with the aim.)
I did want to comment a bit on what you said, SarahO. I hope this doesn’t feel like you’re being picked on, since a couple people have already replied to you.
I dunno what women’s college you went to as an undergrad, but I’m pretty sure the women’s college I went to briefly as a grad student had a friendly and welcoming policy toward MTFs.
I was particularly caught when you said this: “I was reading some of the message boards devoted to this issue and was absolutely astounded by the level of vitriol on both sides.”
I think it’s a mistake to respond to the level of vitriol on both sides as if it is equal. Although both sides are fighting against their own oppression, one side is trying to oppress the other on the way. The anger that accompanies trying to oppress someone may be genuinely felt, and is certainly rationalized, but I don’t think it should ever be placed on the same level as the anger that accompanies the feeling of oppression.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 6:07 am
My ex girlfriend is currently attending Mount Holyoke, and reports that there are a number of FTM and MTF transfolk on campus, without any issues that she’s aware of.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 6:28 am
Ah ha ha ha! I almost fell out of my chair at work when I read this. I like the cartoon and I like that it’s getting people to talk. Well done.
This comment was written by E to the M.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 6:33 am
I gotta agree with Maia here.
Whether a position is correct is unrelated to who holds it.
If the general point of politics is to get other groups to AGREE with you, then a claim that an argument is “worse” because “bad” groups agree with you makes no sense. If you could convince a white supremacist, or a fundie, or a World-of-Gor follower, to agree with one of your political positions, isn’t that a good thing?.
And if you say “yeah, but this cartoon talks about a BAD political position” then we’re back to square one: you should address why it’s bad, not who is holding it.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 6:36 am
I don’t know if this was intentional (nice comic btw - the background pops out a bit much but I do like the character style) but I really want to see some kind of bridge or dialogue between radfems and trans people.
This comment was written by Meep.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Hmm. Seems if you’re a feminst you are either in bed with pornographers or with the Christian Right. Best not to even bother.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 6:42 am
I second the sentiment that sometimes agreeing with conservative Christians isn’t what makes transphobic radfems wrong. Being transphobic is wrong, because it’s oppressive, not because some people with unpopular theological views are also transphobic. (Helping the poor and needy is right, and progressives aren’t going to give that up just because Christians share that value.)
I will also say that the cartoon challenged my prejudices about conservative Christians. My mental image of conservative Christian dress codes is that they expect women to look obviously “feminine” and to cover most of their bodies. Of course, that’s not true for all conservative Christians, and it’s perfectly likely that a woman with short, spiky hair and bare arms showing her ink could follow that kind of religion. Thanks for that additional lesson, Amp!
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 6:56 am
In the case of anti-pornography, I think it’s instructive to examine why some feminists and conservative Christians believe what they do. The feminist argument follows from feminist principles. It is substantively different from the conservative Christian argument.
In the case of transphobia, however, it appears that the particular radical feminists who believe this, and the conservative Christians, come to their belief through the same reasoning process — which, again, is a variety of gender essentialism.
It’s not just that the position is the same. It’s that the logic for getting there can be extremely similar. That logic is most familiar in its poisonous incarnation as gender oppression leveled from conservative religious groups.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Wow, trust Mandolin to say precisely what I was going to say, and earlier.
I read the cartoon as being about gender essentialism, and talking to a specific, targeted audience. As in, “Look, we all think gender essentialism is wrong and dumb when it comes from this place, why do we seem to think it’s okay when it comes from that place?”
It wasn’t so much about, “this idea is bad because these people hold it,” but more “we all already agree that this idea is bad when these people hold it,” and, “what are the implications of that?”
Part of the difficulty of political cartoons is that they’re cartoons, not position papers, so of necessity they’re going to be pithy and a little simplified, but I thought Amp made his point well.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Q Grrl, to quote the magnificent Teresa Nielsen Hayden:
Obviously, feminism is a large and multivalent discipline, because women exist in every walk of life. Therefore, any feminist is going to find herself agreeing with some people who are not wholehearted feminists about some things. Everybody agrees that rape and murder are wrong and bad for women; feminists aren’t suddenly going to stop fighting against rape and gendered violence just because some of the people who think murder should be illegal also think that women should be subservient to men.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Oh, no, I’m all for advocating that feminism *doesn’t* combine forces with the Christian right. I’m also for advocating a lack of hypocrisy (i.e, Amp selling his blog to pornographers). If we all have to do what we have to do, then obviously what’s good for the gander is good for the goose.
I don’t like either option, personally.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Please be careful here. I do not want this conversation to be about this.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 9:29 am
What I don’t understand is why, or under what circumstances, the distinction between people who are or are not “gender essentialist” would matter, expect (perhaps) when deciding with whom to be on intimate terms (romatically or in a close friendship.)
From what I understand at this point, I absolutely am a “gender essentialist.” Sorry, but transgendered people have not moved over in to the other gender. They are in a third category. I would never be romantically involved with a woman who had surgery to “become male” because s/he would not be male to me. No spark. Doesn’t compute. And, we probably would have trouble being more than casual friends or coworkers, for similar reasons. My understanding of who s/he is would differ too much from his/her own understanding of his/her identity. We’d do best to just give each other our space. [Edit: Yes, I’m intentionally leaving out the long discussion of cultural definitions of gender versus personal freedom, i.e. whether a female-to-male transsexual is really trying to become more socially powerful, or a male-to-female person feels this is the only way to embrace a right-brain aesthetic, because I’m sure most people reading this have already been there and fought that. In other words, part of the reason I think gender reassignment is a mistake (for all but a tiny genetically-ambiguous minority) is because, ideally, gender should not have that much impact on a person’s available life choices.]
This doesn’t mean transgendered people don’t have to the right to have whatever surgery they wish. They also have the right to a job, and fair housing, and to walk down the street without, say, being murdered, and especially the right to go about their days without people like me, who do think they’ve made a mistake, poking our noses in their business and presuming to give them the gift of our opinions.
But, do I get the same rights? I certainly should be expected to share the planet with transgendered people fair & square, but why do you insist on changing my mind? Why do I not get the right to pursue my sexual identity (which includes heterosexual congress solely with men who have one Y and one X chromosome, and who have been obviously identified and socialized as male from birth) without being hassled about it?
This is not a theoretical question. I’m really sick of being nagged about my identity and beliefs and values when they are, in fact, nobody else’s damn business. This gets back to the distinction between “acceptance” and “support”. I can accept transsexuals. I cannot, however, support or celebrate that set of decisions.
So, how are we suppopsed to live together? I’m willing to live and let live, and to endorse and fight for others’ civil rights, even when I believe they’re wrong or confused. Why won’t you grant me the same courtesy?
This comment was written by Kell Brigan.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 9:30 am
You know just like feminism today isn’t one big monolithic experience, feminism in the 60s and 70s was not just a bunch of lesbian-hating, transphobic, sex-hating racists who got together in order to ban lipstick from the universe.
Yes, we are all so fucking stupid that’s exactly what we all thought. Thanks for clearing that up.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Why do I not get the right to pursue my sexual identity (which includes heterosexual congress solely with men who have one Y and one X chromosome, and who have been obviously identified and socialized as male from birth) without being hassled about it?
Criticizing your position in the abstract is the same as heckling? It’s denying you rights?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Carnival of the Feminists is up here and features a couple of Alas! links.
This comment was written by Cruella.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 10:15 am
This is not a theoretical question. I’m really sick of being nagged about my identity and beliefs and values when they are, in fact, nobody else’s damn business. This gets back to the distinction between “acceptance” and “support”. I can accept transsexuals. I cannot, however, support or celebrate that set of decisions.
Substitute “homosexuals” in the above paragraph and you might get an idea of why those horrible people are nagging you about your cherished beliefs.
As for the rest, Mandolin is correct — nobody is denying you any “rights”. You will not be legally required to have sex with FTMs. There will be no thought police who fire you from your job if you fail to agree that a transsexual woman is not really a woman.
Oddly, you do sound like those people who wail about how not being homophobic is an assault on their “rights”, and who bring up urban legends about female landlords being forced to rent out rooms to predatory lesbians.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Reinforcing the theme of the cartoon, a couple of years ago I was eating at a buffet place and there was a group of 10-12 women at a long table. They dressed from various classes and were a bit more touchy feely than your average women in the area–but not in an overtly sexual way. I was convinced that it was either a Christian women’s group, or some sort of lesbian group. I was in an odd transition phase between fundamentalist Christian and very-out gay man, so I noticed the similarities without being brave enough to ask.
This comment was written by Sebastian Holsclaw.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 10:49 am
“Criticizing your position in the abstract is the same as heckling? It’s denying you rights?”
Yes, absolutely. If someone insists on nagging people they disagree with in the workplace or in a classroom. If someone insists on nagging people in what are supposed to be relaxed social situations. If someone insists on nagging strangers. If someone insists on nagging and harassing and diverting attention from other issues or activities or ideas.
I’m assuming you don’t endorse bosses or professors or coworkers or fellow students who endlessly grill a transexual (or gay, for that matter) person, or family members who would tell a trans/gay family member they’re not welcome at Thanksgiving, or someone who insists on continually bringing up how evil homosexuality is every single time they get together with other people. So, why is it OK to do all of the above to someone who thinks sexual reassignment surgery is a mistake, or even to someone who believes homosexuality is a sin/mistake/illness? I have a long, long list of choices that I think are dirt stupid (i.e. anything involving a slot machine) that I routinely keep my mouth shut about. Should I make a point of nagging Aunt Ethel until she’s in tears every November just because she likes to hang out in Reno?
I don’t believe anyone has the right to monopolize workplaces or classrooms or social occasions with their own personal ethics or beliefs. (Especially people who then turn around and spout off about “Diversity”. One thing “diversity” means is playing nicely with people you can’t stand.) You don’t get to use any of these situations as an opportunity to witness at or convert people, and you don’t get to lay down an ideological guantlet that people have to pass through in order to participate. And the same thing goes for conservative Christians.
I know of no issue, not even murder, that people agree about 100%. And, I don’t like people who think passive aggressive mind games (nagging, continually bringing up controversial issues, name-calling) are legitimate in any situation. Do you really think you’ll get to a point where everyone you meet agrees with you? And, do you really think that you can afford to not live peacefully and respectfully with people who disagree with you?
This comment was written by Kell Brigan.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Kell, what you dismiss as nagging is how hearts, minds, opinions, and public policy gets changed. I’m sure that virulent racists really dislike being ‘nagged’ about their racism, but as it becomes more and more publicly unacceptable to express racist sentiment, more and more people question why they believe the things they do, and whether their beliefs are defensible.
The ‘nagging’ is why if someone at my job uses the ‘n’ word to refer to a black person or the ‘f’ word to refer to a gay person, they will be met with shocked disgust rather than laughter.
The nagging is part of how you change the world.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 11:20 am
You can read more on essentialism here.
After the reading, do you still consider yourself a gender essentialist?
If so, which characteristics would you say are essential to all women?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I understand Kell’s feelings about trans people. However, it’s not a topic I usually discuss, and I’ve never been nagged about it (though I probably will be now).
I just don’t understand why someone would feel the need to change out their plumbing. If we’re not bound to gender roles, why would someone risk major, elective surgery in order to get a fake set of the other sex’s equipment? Yes, I’ve read explanations. I just don’t get it. From the outside, it seems less like accepting what you were born with (as I believe gay people do) and more like artificially trying to change your body; a very radical type of cosmetic surgery.
This comment was written by Dee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 11:39 am
To turn the question around, “If our plumbing determines who we are, why would a gay person risk major personal danger (physical, emotional, and social) in order to express affection for someone with the same plumbing?”
It’s because this is who they are.
They’re not choosing to risk anything, they’re accepting the risk inherent in being who they are. Transfolk are the same. This is who they are.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Who cares if you don’t understand why somebody would do that, Dee? How is that relevant to anything?
I don’t understand why somebody would skydive. Does that mean that there aren’t valid reasons for wishing to skydive? Does that mean that I should treat skydivers differently than I would anybody else. One doesn’t need to understand the motivations, desires or needs of others in order to grant them their rights or treat them decently.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 11:47 am
I’VE never needed a parachute, and it’s never been a problem for me, so they should all be outlawed!
Goddamn skydivers and their goddamn special rights . . .
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Who cares if you don’t understand why somebody would do that, Dee? How is that relevant to anything
You’re right. Why would anyone care about my incomprehension? Sorry for bringing it up.
But, actually, it’s not just incomprehension. There’s a little judgement in there as well: “Why would you subject your perfectly healthy body to surgery for cosmetic reasons? You must be nuts.” I feel the same way about the decision to get breast implants. However, I find it easier to understand the motivation for that.
BTW, skydiving is easy to understand. I’m not into it myself, but it’s obviously a thrill seeking activity. If you think that risking one’s life for a cheap thrill is ill-advised, then that might justifiably affect your opinion of skydivers.
Denying people’s rights and/or not treating them decently is an entirely different issue.
This comment was written by Dee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Dee, your comment implies that all transpeople undergo sexual reassignment surgeries. This is not true. Some do and some do not. The same goes for hormone therapy. Medical intervention is not a precondition for being transgendered; transgender is simply the condition of having a mental or psychological gender identity which does not match the gender you were assigned at birth. Also, criticizing transgendered genitals as “fake” is not acceptable behavior anymore than insulting fat or disabled people’s bodies.
This comment was written by Cooper.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Kell,
You’re on a political blog, reaidng a political cartoon.
Is that the same thing as going after you in your workplace to nag you about your opinion on transsexual issues?
If you express an opinion about gender reassignment surgery in a place where that opinion doesn’t belong, such as a workplace, then what do you want? People to say, “Oh, okay, whatever?” Do you want special protection for your bigoted beliefs?
Outside the workplace, are you pretending that it’s inappropriate for people to discuss topics like transsexuality? If you don’t want to hang out with people who will challenge your bigotry, then avoid them.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Dee,
You’re right — you are being judgmental. There’s nothing wrong with being judgmental, but there’s nothing wrong with other people criticizing you for it either.
In this case, I am criticizing you not because it’s inappropriate to judge others’ lifestyles. Sometimes it’s quite appropriate to judge them. But because you appear to be judging from ignorance (which you admit), and from the assumption that your feelings about your body have relevance for how other people will perceive theirs.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Oh, so this blog is only for people who are in favor of sex changes. Sorry. Didn’t get the memo. (Seriously. If there is a list-of-accepted-positions on various issues, it would come in real handy in determining what I am or am not allowed to comment on and what position I’m supposed to hold before saying anything.)
Meanwhile, since nagging people into changing their minds is apparently acceptable behavior, here are some reasons why sex changes are wrong and evil and sinful and stupid. There. Now I can go be happy because I’ve done my part to fix the world. Aren’t you glad I was here to tell you how to live your life?
http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0502.htm
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Warning.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,2085904,00.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-change.html
This comment was written by Kell Brigan.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Kell, how is your position different from religious fundamentalists who say they can’t be friends with gay people because their understanding of that person’s identity is too different from the person’s own self-identification?
You can choose your friends however you want, but your choices have consequences: those being what others think of you. If you declined to have friends of different races or sexual orientations, just about everybody here would call you a bigot. So you say you can’t have transgendered friends. We see you accordingly. If you don’t like how we see you, either change or leave.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Hey Kell, didn’t you notice all the comment-moderation notes that say that comments in most threads are limited to people with certain points of view? This is not a public square; this is a blog. If you have irreconsilable differences with the rest of the readership, move on.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Myca, a quick essentialism-semantics question since you seem to be up on this topic:
As far as I can tell, essentialism as defined in that article is, using men as an example, the claim “all men must have ____ trait.”
What term is proper IYO to use for the claim “the trait of ______ exists only in men (but not necessarily all men)”?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
There’s nothing wrong with being judgmental, but there’s nothing wrong with other people criticizing you for it either.
I didn’t say there was.
Also, criticizing transgendered genitals as “fake” is not acceptable behavior anymore than insulting fat or disabled people’s bodies.
Fat and disabled people didn’t go out and pay for surgery in order to achieve their (admittedly, stigmatized) conditions. Just sayin’.
I’d say that it’s more like referring to tattoos, piercings, or other body mods as “fake.” It could also be like criticizing the decision to have weight loss surgery.
And, sorry for generalizing about trans people and gender reassignment surgery. I think I’ll keep doing it for the sake of argument, though. There are so many people who aren’t gender normative for various reasons.
This comment was written by Dee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
BTW, skydiving is easy to understand.
So says you. I find it incomprehensible. Does that mean I’m perfectly justified in treating skydivers differently than non-skydivers?
Should skydivers and their allies keep silent when I denigrate their choices and lifestyles? (Because, let’s face it, your 2nd paragraph of comment #30 is denigrating) Or should I expect to be criticized?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Wow, serious thread drift…
But sure. Skydiving is a choice. (I actually used to be a certified skydiver myself, and boy do I miss it.) You’re as “free” to insult skydivers as you are to insult any other choice; the recipient may think you’re an asshole, or you may be unmannerly, but it’s not socially unacceptable. Substitute “treat differently” for “insult” and it’s still true.
[shrug] Everyone seems to agree that you can’t morally attack something immutable–age, race, country of birth, etc. Similarly, people agree that you can morally attack a conscious decision, whatever it happens to be–political leanings, beliefs re racism, etc.
Dee, would you agree with that?
If so, the real question is whether being trans is immutable. It’s similar to the debate* regarding homosexuality, but with a twist:
First, whether trans status is a choice or an immutable trait. (just like the homosexuality debate.)
Second, given trans status, whether the surgery/treatment is a choice or a forced decision. (similar to the should-homosexuals-refrain-from-sex argument, but with a major twist.)
I don’t know much about trans psychology or genetics. But from everything I know regarding homosexual psychology and genetics, the current science suggests that homosexuality is at least partially genetic (immutable). Given the suggested genetic link to sexual preference, and given the assumption that few people in this country would voluntarily elect to be trans (it doesn’t seem like much fun to be disliked/hated by a huge number of folks) I’m inclined to believe the same immutability applies to trans folks.
Dee, am I correct that the root of your disagreement stems from a belief that trans status is not immutable? If so, why don’t you think so?
(also, FWIW: just because something is immutable doesn’t mean you have to LIKE it, only that you can’t morally “blame” the owner of that trait.)
*There’s no debate in MY mind, but there is (unfortunately in my view) a debate in the larger sphere.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Should skydivers and their allies keep silent when I denigrate their choices and lifestyles?
I’m guessing that skydivers wouldn’t care if you thought they were idiots for jumping out of planes. You’ve worn out that particular metaphor.
The issue here is not whether it’s okay to discriminate or treat people badly. I think we probably all agree that it’s wrong to do so.
I think that the real issue is social acceptance. For trans people, two things stand in the way of that. The first is similar to what gay people face. They’re in a minority, outside the usual gender binary. Even though queer people have become more accepted in society during the last 30 years, this is still an issue. Some people even have trouble with straight men and women who aren’t entirely gender normative. It really seems to upset their world view.
The second issue is the one of artificiality. Many people have an easier time dealing with the idea that gender is independant of sex than the idea that sex is mutable to some extent. It’s the effort required; the artifice that rubs them the wrong way. I’m more or less in that camp.
Maybe in 100 years, we’ll all be modifying our bodies. Cosmetic surgery will be incredibly advanced and low risk. If I feel that my true self is a purple squirrel, then that is the appearance I’ll have. We’ll be able to turn our bodies into perfect machines or works of art. I’m not quite ready for that, though.
This comment was written by Dee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Thomas Writes:
“Kell, how is your position different from religious fundamentalists who say they can’t be friends with gay people because their understanding of that person’s identity is too different from the person’s own self-identification?”
It isn’t. I don’t think every person in the world is morally obligated to “be friends” with everyone else. In fact, it’s impossible, and such a situation would by definition require a dictatorial control over everyone’s beliefs and behavior. “Being friends” is far different from respecting the law and respecting other’s rights and value. (Part of the differences of opinion in this discussion is arising from different opinions about privacy and intimacy. I don’t count every person in the world as my friend and I don’t respect all of the choices and opinions of every person in the world, but otehr people’s rights are predicated on neither my respect nor my friendship.)
Re. Comments moderation. All that’s there is discussion of whether or not comments are or are not “feminist” (And, oh, what a kettle of fish that is.) Nothing about opinions on gender reassignment. But, since Thomas has declared that everybody in this club house believes gender reassignment is legitimate, OK, reasonable, not a mistake, that means everybody who disagrees must leave. (He must have taken the vote when I wasn’t looking.)
So, OK, bye. This is getting boring, anyway.
To Myca: Wikipedia? Try this.
This comment was written by Kell Brigan.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Dee:
I’m guessing that skydivers wouldn’t care if you thought they were idiots for jumping out of planes. You’ve worn out that particular metaphor.
Inconceivable! The fact that you can’t draw the parallel between the two indicates otherwise.
The issue here is not whether it’s okay to discriminate or treat people badly. I think we probably all agree that it’s wrong to do so.
Then why did you do so in paragraph 2 of comment #30? Then why did you complain when you were called out on your derogatory comments?
This is exactly what the issue is here. Social acceptance is directly tied to discrimination/treating badly. Name me one group that is socially accepted, yet treated badly or discriminated against & I’ll begin to consider the validity of your assertion.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Kell:
Right, yeah, I’m sure the Wikipedia is chock full of errors.
Did you have a single actual issue of accuracy with the linked article? That’s what’s relevant, after all.
Were you planning on answering any of the questions I asked you?
Sailorman:
Oh man am I ever not up on this topic. There may well be a word for it, but if there is, I don’t know it off hand.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Kell’s apparently one of those trolls who thinks an open discussion means “I get to say whatever I want, and if you disagree, STFU,” and any disagreement is unfair silencing.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
And I’m just going to say the number of gastric bypass surgery has actually skyrocketed over the past five years (give me some time to find the journal article). Also, depending on the disability, there are a number of surgeries being done to help people cope with or overcome certain disabilities, e.g. prosthetics, cochlear implants, hip implants, spinal rods (of which I have three) etc.
But that is beside the point that transexuals are getting surgeries so that they can overcome social stigmas, as Cooper so aptly said, it’s about having the opportunity to change the “condition of having a mental or psychological gender identity which does not match the gender you were assigned at birth.” If that were the case, one could argue that social stigmas are just as dangerous to the person when it is known that they are going through/have had surgery.
This is one of the many parallels between trangender experiences and homosexual experiences. Even if it is about choice, it’s definitely not about overcoming social stigma, because god knows things it does not get any better after getting a sex-change surgery/coming out. Case in point.
This comment was written by Sewere.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Sorry for popping up in the middle of a discussion and asking an unrelated question, but can any of you direct me to an elementary resource on transsexuality? Is there a trans equivalent of the Feminism 101 blog? Google has not been particularly helpful. There are a lot of things I would like to understand about transsexuality without hijacking a discussion and/or being a jerk out of ignorance.
This comment was written by Acer.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I think Kell probably identifies more with the conservative christian in the cartoon than the radical feminist, judging by the 4th link ze provided. Oh! Fun! I just used a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to someone who doesn’t think trans people really exist.
This comment was written by Murphy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I think it’s a mistake to respond to the level of vitriol on both sides as if it is equal. Although both sides are fighting against their own oppression, one side is trying to oppress the other on the way.
This is true. I’m sorry if I made it sound like I thought both sides were equal - but it really is astounding how it plays out on both sides.
And I know that feminism is a many-faceted thing, but I do get this impression that many of those who defend MWMF’s womyn-born-womyn policy are from an older generation. Although you can see from my essay that there are many who caution very strongly against painting it as a blanket generational thing.
And Myca: as for the climate here at Mount Holyoke, I think it’s interesting (and great) that your ex-gf knows of several MTFs who are here without incident. I just wasn’t aware of them. There are several very visible & vocal FTM figures on campus, but I just wasn’t aware of anybody MTF.
This comment was written by SarahO.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
You’re at Mt. Holyoke?
That kicks butt. What year are you?
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Kell:
Who’s stopping you? Who’s forcing you to change your mind? Associate with whoever you damn well please. Be attracted and not-attracted to whoever you want. Just stop nagging other people for making judgments about you, or choosing whether or not to be friends and romantic partners with you, based on your lifestyle choice. You want to make the artificial decision to avoid a certain class of people who make you uncomfortable, that’s one hundred percent your right. Modify your life. Avoid being friends with that FTM co-worker. Cross the street and sigh in disgust at that genderqueer whatever-they-are going to your favorite restaurant. Just stop nagging people until they change their minds and approve of your lifestyle, ‘kay? I mean, why should they have to change their minds just to support your agenda? Isn’t it enough that they don’t oppose your legal right to make that choice? (Heck, you could even vote to suppress my rights, if you changed your mind about “civil rights” in the future and wanted to! That’d be your choice and your right. I just…well…I don’t know if I could be anything past casual friends or co-workers with someone who’s choosing to do that with their life. It’s just that my view of them, as someone who’s wrong and making a terrible mistake, would differ too much from their own self-identity, and it’d make things uncomfortable.)
Hearts and flowers!
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Acer @51, I think that’s the most polite way I’ve ever seen that put. Thanks! Er. Well, you’re always welcome to drop by my place, even though it’s not particularly 101, and truly, honest questions do tend to go answered. We could even cobble you up a reading list, if you really wanted.
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Can I cut in - I know, I know, this discussion has gotten heavy, but just hear me out ;)
- to say that I just really like the comic itself?
Beautiful message, lovely background, great times. I almost feel like I’ve stood at that bus stop once upon a time - you’re just that good, Amp.
***
This comment was written by defenestrated.Now, back to your regularly scheduled political-style debating!
Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I love this comic! It’s funny and the art seems to pop out at me. (sorry i can’t better describe why I like the art. I’m not good at that.)
It pokes fun at both conservatives that annoy me and liberals that annoy me and reinforces my thinking that consenting adults should just be left alone to do as they please.
I also like the fact that comment thread hasn’t spent a lot of time telling amp how he did it wrong/could make it better!
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
and the fact that i’ve gone through what you so dismissively call a “sex change” vastly improved my life, and enabled me to become functional again, should have been prevented simply because you have decided (without, i might add, *any* research on the issue, except of course, a simple google search, and not so much as *one* interview with a trans person) that “sex changes are wrong and evil and sinful and stupid”. perhaps you should have just killed me and the thousands of others like me before we so horribly disrupted your life by improving our own.
i have always wondered why certain people have such issues when others take steps to improve their lives? why is it you have such a problem with the approved medical procedures for treating people with my diagnosis?
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
“Oh, so this blog is only for people who are in favor of sex changes. Sorry. ”
No one said that, Kell. I said that it’s inappropriate to characterize this cartoon as “nagging” because it exists within a context where the cartoon is clearly a part of appropriate discussion.
“evil and sinful and stupid”, however, is not part of appropriate discussion on this topic. Should you choose to storm back in, kindly modulate your tone to respect the golden rule.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Acer, you might want to start with this link: http://www.t-vox.org/index.php?title=Trans_101
I’m not sure I agree 100% with all of the “ground rules”, but it’s got a lot of good info and some good links.
This comment was written by Asher.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Wow, I feel kind of unwelcome now. I know that’s not the intention of the blog, but it’s nice to have something to read that doesn’t make me feel like a total outcast all the time. I’m a human being too, with feelings, ideas, desires… why does my gender seem to impede people? It’s not like I don’t get uncomfortable too, you know. Sorry if I’m venting, but reading all of those comments makes me wonder if I even get to have a place without rubbing other people the wrong way somehow.
This comment was written by Meep.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Kell wrote:
Polite disagreement is allowed; out-and-out bigotry is not.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference, but sometimes it’s easy. For example:
“Evil and sinful and stupid” not only goes over the line between disagreement and outright hatefulness, it leaves the line several football fields behind.
For that reason, you’re no longer welcome to post comments here, Kell.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
*pout*
This comment was written by nexyjo.and i was so looking forward to learn how by following accepted medical procedures, i was being “wrong and evil and sinful and stupid”.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Meep, I hope you can feel welcome enough to stick around.
Meep and defenestrated, thanks for the compliments about the strip. (And everyone else, too). Meep, I agree with you that I screwed up the background; I’m tempted to redraw the backgrounds, but it’s probably better if I just move on to the next cartoon instead. (I am really pleased with how the figures came out.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
I’m especially impressed by the guy’s tattoos. Such intricacy for a Conservative Christian! - never mind the awesome pants and socks going on between the two.
(Seriously, I just plain really like this one.)
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
actually, speaking of the tattoos, wouldn’t a conservative christian be against tattoos as well? i seem to remember there being something in the old testiment about body mods - the same reason orthodox jews cannot have tattoos or piercings.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
nexyjo, I’m by no means an expert, but my understanding is that the Jewish tattoo taboo is more related to WWII than anything else…in any event, I’ve never known self-confessed “Conservative Christians” to do much playing by their own rules, anyway ;)
This comment was written by defenestrated.***
Hence the strip!
Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2007 at 12:18 am
from my jewish learnings:
this was made very clear to me as a student in hebrew school. needless to say, not only have i had several tattoos and piercings, i’ve also had what’s commonly called a “sex change”. so gashes and marks are my bylines. i’m just saying that people who follow the laws of the bible, shouldn’t be having tattoos, piercings, or sex changes. not that the laws stop them from wearing blended fabrics or eating shellfish.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2007 at 2:22 am
OH PLEASE. The article’s on one of those completely unformatted geek sites, by someone called Matthew White who’s, like, a librarian who admits “his academic credentials are pretty slim”. Yet he’s too superior for Wikipedia (which is, to me, a tool among others, and has its good and bad points.) Please! You just can’t satirise these people!
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Hmmm. I’m a gay man and I don’t ‘understand’ trans people much at all in any kind of emotional sense. It strikes me as very odd. But another thing that strikes me as odd is the fairly automatic judgment that things we don’t get are bad.
I don’t ‘get’ the idea that people are attracted to children and I make a separate judgment that it is wrong because it is exploitive of those children. But there really isn’t any reason to go there with trans people. I don’t really get them, but they aren’t exploiting people so why do so many people feel the need to freak out.
This comment was written by Sebastian Holsclaw.Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Not to mention, of course, that there are so many straight people who don’t ‘understand’ gay people in an emotional sense, and therefore assume that they’re wrong, evil, etc., etc. . . .
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Sebastian, you seem to be going somewhere interesting. I’m always a little intrigued by what calls a person to one gender or another - my understanding (and this is a little ripped off from Discovery Channel specials, mk? so take it with a grain of salt) is that somewhere around the late 70s/early 80s, doctors started talking to parents of babies born with ambiguous gender - rather than just secretly picking a sex and never saying a word about it.
Where I’m going with this (and I’m sorry if this constitutes a derail) is that I get the sense that a large proportion of transfolk are of an age where they maybe were born into the “opposite” body of what the combination of chromosomes and fetal hormones “meant” them to be.
Does that make any sense? I’m probably well-overstepping my areas of expertise here, so I’d appreciate it if somebody wants to correct me.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2007 at 9:55 am
defenestrated> I do think that there is both a biological and social aspect to transgender.. ing… I’m having a sinking suspicion that I might have too much mercury in my body. plus, take into account the amount of xenoestrogens that are present now in our water supply than before. However, this is not to say that it’s purely a chemical reaction - random mutations occur frequently all the time. Also, both chronologically and cross-culturally, there have been people who do not fit standard gender roles for whatever reason.
This comment was written by Meep.But! Not all trans people are intersexed, and not all intersexed people are trans. There’s really no “smoking gun” to indicate why some people are trans, unless for ideological reasons they want to screw with gender. (this is not an invalidation of other genderqueers or genderfucks etc - we should be in solidarity)
Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
actually, speaking of the tattoos, wouldn’t a conservative christian be against tattoos as well? i seem to remember there being something in the old testiment about body mods - the same reason orthodox jews cannot have tattoos or piercings.
Nexy, correct. Here in SC, tattooing was illegal until just last year for this reason.
I dunno the Bible verse, but they quoted it every time the legislature was in session and the subject was brought up.
Finally, they were able to challenge this on separation of church and state grounds. Tattooing is legal AT LAST in South Carolina.
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I’ve certainly met evangelical Christians with tattoos, so they do exist. It’s possible that they got the tattoos before they became “born again,” however.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Now that’s some interesting stuff. What are “xenoestrogens”? I know there’s all sorts of weird stuff in our water these days (let’s start with fluoride, for one thing - good for teeth, bad for people!), but I’m lost as far as the specific hormonal stuff.
I’ve done a bit of playing with gender myself (being a theatre person and whatnot), so this kind of stuff is fascinating to me. I think maybe it’s easier for some people - namely, women - to “pass” by simply being what most people would call transvestites, rather than going the whole hormonal route.
On the other hand, one can also weird people out with it (in a good way, I mean, at least) - see: the above comic ;D
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Love the comic!
Don’t love the comments, though.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
But Amp, it was full of candy.
Ahem.
defenestrated, I am under the impression that “xenoestrogens” refers to estrogens not normally found in humans/from non-human sources–that is, ones you get in you by accident–but I could be wrong.
I’m not sure if the little pink pill I take twice a day, for instance, counts as a xenoestrogen. I would imagine the deciding factor in those gynecomastia-from-drinking-hormone-laced-milk cases, however, was.
This comment was written by little light.Report this comment to the moderators
July 20th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I’ve known pre-op TS people who strongly dislike being referred to as ‘transvestites’, because that implies that there is male dress and female dress, and that the twain shall never meet, and that what constitutes male dress or female dress never changes. It also implies that, say, an MtF person who chose to wear jeans, a baggy t-shirt and stomping boots would no longer be MtF, as if that’s all there was to it.
Lovely cartoon.
This comment was written by Thene.Report this comment to the moderators
July 20th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
funny, here i was assuming that was referring to some of the very recent online bullshit; hadn’t occurred to me that it was mocking the actual feminism/ists of the 60’s and 70’s at all.
(technically the “trans” thing didn’t really become an issue till fairly late in that era anyway, certainly not the 60’s, i shouldn’t expect…)
This comment was written by belledame222.Report this comment to the moderators
July 20th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Why do I not get the right to pursue my sexual identity (which includes heterosexual congress solely with men who have one Y and one X chromosome, and who have been obviously identified and socialized as male from birth) without being hassled about it?
I’m so sorry; I know how difficult that must be for you, you poor dear.
This comment was written by belledame222.Report this comment to the moderators
July 20th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
[…] Ampersand wins for this cartoon: […]
This comment was written by Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » Amp FTW.Report this comment to the moderators
July 20th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Great cartoon! Very topical.
I know a few conservative Christians with tattoos.
This comment was written by octogalore.Report this comment to the moderators
July 21st, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Lots of conservative Christian str8 women who look like the woman in the cartoon minus the tatoo in Virginia, just sayin. I don’t understand how a MTF is a threat to my womanhood, never have and I have been friends with more than one. I think it is often a very tough life and journey and I don’t think I would have the courage to go there if I felt the need, but I have never experienced any nagging me to accept them, that is just absurd as a notion to me. I mean people are trying to pass, not to point out that they are trans and then insist on acceptance. The whole continuing ban at Michigan makes me sad.
And do people really think it is okay to diss those folks who were born intersexual and are also identifying as trans? There are a lot more intersexual births than you would think, in the bad old days these babies were often unofficially euthanized. So would someone who doesn’t want to be friends with a trans also ban their children from playing with a child who was born intersexual? And the rationale for not being friends with an adult who has had surgey is that you think they have made a mistake? I can’t imagine only having friends who have never made a mistake, (not that I agree) that would be an incredibly boring and lonely life.
Prejudice is prejudice.
This comment was written by Alison Hymes.Report this comment to the moderators
July 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
[…] Ampersand, one of our favorite bloggers, is also an excellent cartoonist, and has taken to putting his cartoons on his blog. […]