Some Responses to the “Easy Mistake To Make” Cartoon
| July 24th, 2007(The cartoon these folks are discussing can be read here.)
Laurie and Debbie at Body Impolitic (a blog I’m a fan of) argue that the cartoon is “the politics of hypersimplification.”
…The reason the two characters in the cartoon appear to agree is that their positions are hypersimplified. We seem to be living in a time where most political/social/gender opinions and expectations have been reduced not just to the sound bite but to the bumper sticker. Oversimplified opinions lead to false agreement and false disagreement.
Piny at Feministe responds:
Radical-feminist transphobia is not distinguishable from conservative Christian transphobia because they’re both transphobia. I hate to be as uncharitable as Amp here, but my experience has borne that out in many cases: tap the facade of philosophy and/or tradition and it cracks to reveal a deep and powerful current of simple hatred. All of the positions argued by the characters in the cartoon are shortened, but they’re not actually all that hyperbolic, and they don’t actually distinguish themselves in the longer version; take the “silencing/transsexual agenda” concurrence, for example.
Meanwhile, Littoral Mermaid suggests that I’m beating a straw radical feminist. She and I debate the question in her comments. Other comments on this post range from a smart criticism from Cellycel (whose blog I like, mainly because it’s well-written, but also because it includes references to role-playing games and “Avenue Q“) to impressively venal anti-fat bigotry from someone whose name I’ve forgotten.
Anyway, here’s a quote from my exchange with Cellycel:
Why compare it to the Christian right? Isn’t transphobia bad because of things like say, oppression and discrimination? Not “Because Conservative Christians thing it’s bad, so it must be good. Also radical feminists agree with conservative Christians. That makes radical feminists bad.”
I think this is the most substantive criticism of the cartoon I’ve seen so far. (A few people have made it, including my “Alas” co-blogger Maia). The cartoon would have been better if it had somehow closed off this interpretation.
My intent with this cartoon wasn’t “conservative Christians are bad, therefore anyone who agrees with them on anything is bad.” That would be a ridiculous argument (is giving to charity bad because Christians do it?), and it’s not what I believe.
My intended point was that transphobia is wrong no matter who the speaker is; and that if these arguments are bigoted when they’re coming out of a conservative Christian’s mouth, then they are still bigoted when they are spoken by feminists.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:27 am
The idea that male-to-female transexuals shouldn’t be treated as women was espoused by germaine greer in “the whole woman”.
For me I have big issues with the idea that we live in a society where gender roles are so aggressively defined that people feel the need to have surgery. But that’s different from how I feel about people I know who are transgenered - I mean I just know they suffer heaps of prejudice and I want to help fight that.
This comment was written by Cruella.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 9:26 am
I’m wondering, is there actually a movement among transgendered people themselves opposing surgery, the same way some (not all) East Asians oppose eyelid modification surgery and many Asians and Africans oppose skin lightening creams? Because if transgendered people are not themselves even in a minority opposing gender reassignment surgery, then that certainly speaks to the bad faith of those radical feminists who oppose GR surgery.
This comment was written by Sajia Kabir.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 9:34 am
You know, I feel like a radical feminist. To the rest of the world, I come off as a radical feminist.
But I can’t imagine dismissing you solely because you’re a man, nor finding it acceptable to mock your weight under a thin veneer of definitional trickery.
My response to Littoral Mermaid, which at this time remains in moderation:
Gender essentialism is noxious whether it’s radical feminists saying that what defines a woman is childbirth (which was one of the opinions expressed on the IBTP thread) or whether it’s Christian conservatives saying the same thing.
Radical feminism does have a history of entanglement with transphobia. Major theorists, including people I greatly admire like Joanna Russ, have thrown down with the bigotry.
Fair enough. No movement is innocent. But we police our own, neh? And I see transphobic hatred on other feminist blogs. I see it leak onto transfriendly blogs, too, whenever someone makes a post in support of people who are trans.
Transphobia is bigotry. It is mean-spirited; it is cruel; it is victimizing the weak.
Gender essentialism — the apparent basis for noxiousness like that represented in the cartoon –has fatal flaws which have been martialed throughout history to hurt women.
It’s silly to maintain the position that the group of radical feminists does not include a visible portion of virulent transphobes who attempt to distort radical feminist arguments in order to vent bile at transsexuals. It’s likewise silly to maintain that this strain of radical feminist thought is limited to blogs, when it is clear in radical feminist literature as well.
As to whether or not it is a legitimate reading to assume that Ampersand (who I note has not called you names, despite your willingness to mock him and his weight) believes all radical feminists to be identical to conservative Christians, I give you the same advice Ilyka gave to her man when he swooned with offense over feminist critiques of the faults of some of his gender.
If you don’t do that, it’s not about you.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Is the idea that it’s ironic that Raf-Fem and the Fundamental Christians agree that hard to get? It’s a joke. It doesn’t have to be 100% accurate. If it were a cartoon showing a situation where Karl Rove and Jesse Jackson agree that would also be funny. It wouldn’t mean they’re all that alike. This isn’t a hurtful joke. It doesn’t reinforce harmful stereotypes. It actually challenges them a little by showing the fundie as a woman with tattoos.
Good job starting the conversation though amp.
Also the fat stuff was pretty mean. To say nothing of the comment that said fat women are okay, fat men are greasy and evil.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Sajia Kabir, in many trans communities surgery is a seen as a personal choice, up to each individual to decide whether or not hormones/surgery are right for hir. There are actually, quite a few no-ho and/or non-op trans*people out there, but I don’t believe there is any group, that I have heard of at least, that opposes hormones/surgery for all trans*people. Most non-op/n-ho trans*people, certainly all that I have met, realize that their experience of trans*ism is different from the experiences of others.
And given that hormones/surgery for trans*people are not comparable to the procedures you mentioned, I doubt that there ever will be a large group of trans*people against the medical transitions of all trans*people.
Surgery/hormones are not always about ‘passing,’ they are often about making us comfortable in our bodies. For the basics of trans*ism: http://www.t-vox.org/index.php?title=Trans_101
This comment was written by Drakyn.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 11:03 am
“To say nothing of the comment that said fat women are okay, fat men are greasy and evil.”
And you know — amazingly, as a fat woman, that caveat doesn’t make me feel any safer. If people can be reduced to how much extra food they carry under their skins, then that will be a salient characteristic, regardess of what genitalia that skin folds into.
(Not saying that it’s okay for fat men to be derided for being fat. Just saying that even if I were to be selfish about things, that argument would still suck.)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I just want to say political arguments revolving around this imagined group of people’s genital configuration and reconstruction surgery options make my stomach roll over.
Why do things get phrased as if transsexual people aren’t here–why does it have to be this certain “us” versus this imagined “them”. Do I need some sort of “I’m trans and I read blogs” button?
Cruella writes:
“For me I have big issues with the idea that we live in a society where gender roles are so aggressively defined that people feel the need to have surgery.”
I am having a hard time unpacking this statement. In many locations, to change one’s sex on (for instance) a birth certificate, a sex reassignment surgery must be completed. In my birth state Illinois, a genital reconstruction surgery must be completed and documented. I should say correcting my documents is a pretty big “need”. If you truly feel this is an unfortunate rule (which I do) then perhaps we can join together to protest the state’s rather strict and unfair rules around gender and genitals.
This comment was written by jayinchicago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
“But we police our own, neh?”
Nah.
Feminism lacks recognized authority. Nobody can pull membership cards. Therefore, we don’t “police our own.” We disagree with our own, and AFAICT never reach resolution on some matters of fundamental disagreement; unlike churches, we don’t even have enough central authority to schism and recognizably separate. So we argue. Sometimes nastily, and for decades at a time.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
There are certainly a lot of trans people out there — even ones who have had some form of gender-related surgery — who are actively engaged in resisting the idea of surgery as a criteria or defining quality of trans people, the idea that all trans people want or should want or are legitimized by surgery, the pressure that without a doubt exists on trans people to get surgery and to have our bodies look more like non-trans people’s bodies through surgery.
At the same time, the trans people who write about this subject — as opposed to non-trans academics and observers — are much more likely to grasp, or have personal experience with, the concept that for many trans people, wanting a change in the shape and function of our bodies has very, very little to do with the demands and conformity of society. Another way of putting this: even completely removed from society, without the horrifically oppressive constraints and violence of the gender system pressing upon us, a whole lot of trans people would still opt to change our bodies, to live in different forms.
Of course, this is a thought experiment: it’s no mean feat to even try and imagine our lives, experiences, beings outside of the frameworks of society and gender. You can’t just “turn off” the pressures that are exerting their forces on you, so some people are suspicious of the idea that there’s something “outside of society” going on with trans people. However, here’s the thing: some people presume to have a better idea of why trans people seek surgeries (for instance) than trans people themselves do; they may imagine that they have a better understanding of what makes gender work, how it operates inside other people’s heads.
Sure, reading a lot of theory about gender and oppression can give you this impression (I’ve been there). But really, we are all fishes theorizing about the murky water we’re swimming in, aren’t we? And yet we ignore or try to explain away the fish whose beings and experiences and lives seem to be unusually allergic, for some strange reason we don’t quite understand, to the water we live in. The ones who have to find a way to cope, in order to live. Wouldn’t it be better to pay attention to what trans people (along with so many other victims of gendered oppression) are saying about their problem-filled experiences with gender? Instead of presuming to know?
If you’re interested in reading on the subject of surgery, medicalization, assumptions people make about why trans people seek surgery, I would recommend starting with this paper:
Mutilating Gender, by Dean Spade
The idea that trans people get surgery because our society has strictly defined gender roles is simply the explanation that seems the most obvious to anyone who doesn’t have the experience of being trans. It’s a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw, honestly. But trans people will tell you differently, and I hope it makes sense to listen to why, instead of assuming that trans people are victims of false consciousness and can’t understand the effects and pressures of a gender-oppressive society on us.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Mandolin: Major theorists, including people I greatly admire like Joanna Russ, have thrown down with the bigotry.
Can I ask what you are referring to, here?
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Daisy,
Russ’s The Female Man (1975) in some ways anticipated Raymond. In fairness, though, there’s this from a May 2006 interview at WisCon 30, conducted by Samuel (Chip) Delany.
At http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Joanna_Russ_Interview_with_Chip_Delany:
Q - i was just wondering, i know you mentioned that your opinions of gay men used to very different & traditional, i was wondering if your opinions of transsexual women have changed since you wrote the female man.
JR: oh yes. oh yes it’s almost as if my life as arranged itself to disabuse me of one prejudice after another. and all of these have gone b/c none of them were real really.
SD: do you want to say anything more about that or move on
JR: let’s move on
There’s a slightly different transcript at http://www.broaduniverse.org/broadsheet/0702jrsrd.html:
Question from the Audience: You mentioned that your opinions of gay men used to be very different and traditional. I was wondering if your opinions of transsexual women have changed since you wrote The Female Man.
JR: Oh yes, oh yes, it’s almost as if my life has arranged itself to disabuse me of one prejudice after another. And all of these have gone because none of them were real, really.
This comment was written by KH.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Yeah, that’s what I was referring to. I was in the audience during that interview.
(KH: Are you in BU?)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Amp:
You are getting thrashed by a couple of people less for your cartoon and other for that other issue, you know which one. You could say the sun rises in the east, and some people would have issue with that because of that other issue. The cartoon offended some folk, I suspect you knew it would, that does not make it an any less true or accurate description of the feelings of SOME radical feminists wrt to the transgendered. Many radical feminists do not like having the occasions when their ideals, goals, or tactics fall along a similar path of conservative Christains, but sometimes it happens nonetheless. Sometimes, indeed, some radical feminists have views or goals that are similar to some conservative Christains. That is not a huge insult to them, or some dirty accusation, it is simply truth.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Can we stop pretending that the anger directed at Amp here is just about the trans issue? What this is really about is some people still feeling betrayed because he sold the domain. Pure and simple.
And WTF is this shit about Amp’s weight? What does his size have to do with, well, anything? Mandolin already said what I would have said upthread. This stuff sends chills down my spine, and I’m not even fat. It’s one thing to have sexual or aesthetic preferences, but when you start making moral judgements about people based on their weight and/or deciding that “I don’t care what you say because you’re fat” is an acceptable argument then you’re an asshole. Acting like there’s some kind of link between weight and intelligence or moral authority or whatever…that way madness lies.
Also, hello, compassion? Empathy? Are these completely foreign concepts to some people? And that applies equally to the comments about Amp’s weight and the responses to the trans issue.
I’m no authority about trans issues, but here’s what bothers me about the way this conversation keeps playing out. It’s as if people want their abstract political theories to be more important than other people’s actual lived experiences. The implication seems to be that we have a theory on gender and trans people are fucking it up by existing, so they should shut up. We liked the theory, why should we have to change it just because that group of people over there keep telling us that it doesn’t work for them and doesn’t describe their experiences?
The problem with which is, those people do exist, and ignoring them and/or demanding that they stop mucking up your tidy little theory makes you A. not a very good theorist and B. a collossal asshole. Theories are MEANT to evolve, that’s why we call them theories, not rules.
This comment was written by CassandraSays.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Bingo.
Thank you for summing up nearly every single ‘feminist’ anti-trans argument I’ve ever heard in my entire life.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Mandolin: Me BU? No. You BU?
Question: Is Amp’s offense the presumption that there’s something so inherently wrong with (any nonnegligible number of) radical feminists ever agreeing with rightwing religious folk? Or the presumption that (any nonnegligible number of) radical feminists would ever do something so inherently wrong as agree with rightwing religious folk? It used to be that the latter was the only correct answer, but Amp’s apparently guilty on both counts. I say that’s progress.
This comment was written by KH.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Can we stop pretending that the anger directed at Amp here is just about the trans issue? What this is really about is some people still feeling betrayed because he sold the domain. Pure and simple.
No, honestly, I think that commenters over at Littoral Mermaid are using that to destroy his credibility, because they don’t want to deal with his arguments. What’s the alternative? Sniping that his allegations of transphobia among radical feminists do not refer to a universal problem, and that it’s therefore unjust to make them at all?
If I wrote something attacking something someone had said–which I do quite often–I don’t think I’d have the right to get angry if they showed up to defend themselves.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Ooookay. Um, it occurs to me that this sort of commenting might not be to Amp’s preferences. Delete if the spirit moves you, dude.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Yes, KH, I’m in Broad Universe.
Was just curious. :)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
With regard to The Theory, sometimes it might not be considered abstract by someone because everyone has and experiences sexed discrimination to varying degrees. If everyone experiences sexed discrimination and the theory is based solely on that, then someone else’s decision might turn ‘personal’ because the same choice wasn’t made even though in a broader view shown through a skewed lense, the same types of things were experienced. Or people might feel that they deserve a say in something that doesn’t seem to hinder their choices one way or the other, and are looking for any excuse to make a claim against a group or persons they don’t like. Happens everywhere.
Anyway, I think the theory (might be mistaken, it is horribly simplified) goes something like… ’surely a segment of the population can’t formulate a response to something (like, say, a body configuration) where personal opinions weren’t due only to an ‘outside’ environment, which of course once it’s (environment) changed will make those opinions (and subsequent decisions) disappear. Like magic!’
Honestly, I think that if by some unknown entity’s grace there were no sexed roles and expectations, people would recreate something along those very lines from scratch just to feel better about themselves. Changing or getting rid of a possible reason for something does not get rid of all the decisions people like to associate with it.
Seems to me using a theory that is supposed to explain and reflect some people and yet, ignoring said people shoves the theoretical cart before the horse, breaks the horse’s leg and then, just for a good measure, shoots the driver then dismantles and runs off with the wheels so the carriage will never move because it’s a hell of a rude thing to disregard whomever someone is theorizing about.
This comment was written by A.W..Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I’ve seen that before, too. Everywhere. ‘Not all of my-group-in-question believes/does such-and-such even though lots of people from all walks of life do the same thing, so please don’t mention it. Ever. Nor draw any comparisons to other groups I don’t like that do the same thing. Only I’m allowed to mention it and make comparisions because we all know it exists and I don’t want any behavior I don’t like associated with me.’
That argument is still oddly popular. It’s like…not talking about it is supposed to make it go away?
This comment was written by A.W..Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 2:34 am
(Same basic idea cross-posted at Ren’s)
Amp, I have to admit I don’t come here very often, simply due to a general lack of time, so forgive me for jumping in here with no real background of why it appears many rad fems dislike you. I am under the impression it has something to do with porn links?
In any case, as both an ex-radical feminist (although I must admit my embracing of this label came more from a respect for certain theories in radical feminism and desire to reaffirm my more or less lifelong status of “feminist” than any thing else) and as one who was forced to attend a very right-wing Christian church every Sunday for up to 5 hours as a teenager, I feel the cartoon was dead-on accurate. More on this at my place at another time perhaps as I can see a long post coming on.
Also, any mention of your weight is unforgivable. Apparently, you are the Michael Moore in these parts. For some reason, some folks feel it’s okay to make fat phobic comments about you because … well, good question. I haven’t a clue what the justification is. It goes without saying if any mention was made of a radical feminist’s weight in this way, the outcry would be heard from here to “After the Revolution.” Why some feel it’s okay to ridicule your weight is beyond me.
This comment was written by Kim.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 5:30 am
Anti-Radical Feminist, Pro-Men’s Rights, Propaganda
A few responses to the latest anti-radical feminist tactics, screeds, attacks, propaganda
This comment was written by Women's Space/The Margins.…
Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 6:31 am
I think what bothers me most is Amp using trans issues to make his own personal and public slam on radical feminists regardless of how many rad fems are transphobic and how many do mirror conservative Christian mentalities. It seems, in whole, that folks are willing to climb on board with Amp, despite his open, unguarded hostility, just to discuss the issues of trans politics. Ren’s post above is a perfect example: a hurrah! to Amp and his clever revelation of bigoted Rad Fems; but a nudge, nod, and a wink towards Amps very open, public, personal gain off of his misogyny.
I don’t see how one set of people can point out complicity between some Rad Fems and conservative Christians, and completely miss the complicity between Amp and misogynistic pornographers.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 6:45 am
I don’t see how one set of people can point out complicity between some Rad Fems and conservative Christians, and completely miss the complicity between Amp and misogynistic pornographers.
Ren’s a sex worker. Whatever you might think of the inconsistency or cognitive dissonance involved in being pro-transpeople but not anti-porn, she’s not not condemning Amp’s decision because she wants the chance to bash radfems.
Personally, I think this cartoon is right, I think that percentages are a dodge, and I think that bringing up Ampgate again is just fucked up. Worse than that–I think it’s an excuse. Would this criticism be more palatable if it were up at, say, Little Light’s blog? Would it be less likely to get tossed into the “screeds and attacks” bin? I doubt it. I don’t care whether he has a personal beef with certain radical feminists or radical feminism in particular, any more than I care whether or not they prefer to dismiss his arguments because he’s the one making them.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 6:52 am
There has been much discussion of Amp’s decision to accept money for offsite/onsite/whatever pornography advertising, and I think it’s the height of disingenuousness to claim that the connection has been missed or that he’s gone uncriticized for it.
Furthermore, I do think it’s relevant in a sort of slantwise way, in that I find the reaction to that to be a perfect example of putting theory ahead of human lives, and I think that that’s an interesting and ongoing pattern.
However, this isn’t going to be a thread about Amp and pornography. There’s nothing wrong with defending radfems from charges you feel are unfair, but please refrain from attacking Amp in order to do so.
“These charges are untrue/irrelevant/etc.” = Okay
“These charges are untrue/irrelevant/etc because Amp is a pornographer.” = A textbook Ad Hom, and Not Okay
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Dumb question perhaps… but why are percentages irrelevant or a dodge? I mean, we talk about them all the time here.
Obviously nobody claims that all radical feminists are 100% in lockstep with each other on any particular issue. But just as obviously (to me, at least) if there isn’t a significant majority that share a particular view then it’s incorrect to attribute that view to the group in general.
It applies to all groups, including “feminism”: I can reliably say “feminists are concerned about women’s interests” but I can’t reliably say “feminists hate men” (and in fact, there have been many mentions on Alas of the fact that some feminists are very different from all feminists.”
I don’t know enough about radical feminism’s position on this issue to answer this myself, so I’m asking out of curiosity. What percentage of people who identify as radical feminists DO agree with the attitude in the cartoon? What percentage DON’T agree with the attitude in the cartoon?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Piny, I don’t think it’s about the relevance of trans bigotry in divergent communities - I think it’s about Amp using other peoples trans bigotry to further his own agendas of slamming rad fems, which is made transparent, in part, by his collusion with pornographers. And, yes, I’m aware that Ren is a “sex” worker, whatever that may mean, but *that* most certainly doesn’t mitigate Amp’s misogyny, anymore than my working with queer youth might mitigate my rad fem position on trans issues. Furthermore, your saying it isn’t an issue, all the while pointing out collusion between other communities, is exactly what Amp and others want. Because we all know that the similarities between Rad Fems and conservative Christians are the height of heresy, while those shiney pr0-sex feminists who share their ideology with pornographers, pimps, and the BDSM scene are just peachy keen because they’re not haters, they’re doing it for empowerment!
As others have pointed out, you don’t need to make the comparison (relevant or not) because the issue is trans bigotry. Amp is just adding unnecessary layers of his personal beef, knowing it will fly under the radar because trans bigotry is such a hot issue.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:08 am
I think it’s about Amp using other peoples trans bigotry to further his own agendas of slamming rad fems, which is made transparent, in part, by his collusion with pornographers.
Honestly, I’m looking at it from the other angle: I see at least a few radical feminists using Amp’s deplorable but non-pertinent decision to make money off of pornography to lift their own agenda above criticism. I don’t actually think that Amp really hates radfems or is only attacking what he sees as transphobia because he hates radfems. If he is inconsistent, he’s inconsistent; that’s different from being cynical.
I also don’t think that Amp is the only one making these arguments, even here. There have been a few posts like this, and transpeople and their allies have responded here and on other blogs, mine included. Lately the response stops at Amp’s deplorable but non-pertinent decision to make money off of pornography. It’s insulting, and it’s doubly irritating to have people ignore the problem with the ostensible rationale–on behalf of the people who seem to disagree–that a discussion of trans bigotry cannot be conducted on the blog of someone so impeached. That’s the end result: transphobia is ignored, or outright denied. It apparently isn’t a significant collusion at all, even in a thread devoted to it.
And, yes, I’m aware that Ren is a “sex” worker, whatever that may mean, but *that* most certainly doesn’t mitigate Amp’s misogyny, anymore than my working with queer youth might mitigate my rad fem position on trans issues.
It’s the term she uses, so you might want to ask her; as I understand it, it’s rather a catch-all. You were calling her reaction to the two things hypocritical, and I explained why I don’t think it is.
Furthermore, your saying it isn’t an issue, all the while pointing out collusion between other communities, is exactly what Amp and others want. Because we all know that the similarities between Rad Fems and conservative Christians are the height of heresy, while those shiney pr0-sex feminists who share their ideology with pornographers, pimps, and the BDSM scene are just peachy keen because they’re not haters, they’re doing it for empowerment!
I didn’t say it wasn’t important or worth discussing. I said that it wasn’t germane to this discussion, which is about transphobia in general and transphobia amongst some radical feminists (oh, and laughably transparent protestations of same). This particular collusion deserves attention of its own. There are at least a few other ways in which Amp himself is a little too similar, after all–I’m not sure he’s banned Robert yet, for example. That doesn’t invalidate his argument.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:10 am
As others have pointed out, you don’t need to make the comparison (relevant or not) because the issue is trans bigotry.
Also, as someone else pointed out at my place, this is sort of like saying you shouldn’t compare the Sierra Club’s xenophobia with that of the paleocons because the issue is xenophobia. I think that it is worth discussing as a comparison, and I don’t think it’s just parallel evolution.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:26 am
I’ve read plenty of the texts that often get mentioned on this topic (”radical feminists and transphobia”) and watched any number of discussions, online and at conferences and the like… and I tend to agree with you. I think there is a strain of anti-trans ideology in radical feminist writings, theory and community discussions, and I usually refer to it as such, instead of generalizing about “all radical feminists” which is not only slightly lazy, but would kind of shoot myself in the foot, since I agree with a lot of radical feminist theory and politics.
However, it’s also worth noting that for every (relatively rare) radical feminist who is outspoken about being anti-trans, there are definitely several more, sharing the same communities and discussions, who simply don’t care enough about trans people to strongly object. The more noble and diplomatic among them try to take the “let’s look at it from both sides” approach or will occasionally say “well, I don’t have a problem with trans people.” But you don’t see that many women who put it on the line and refuse to tolerate transphobic sentiments all that much (although I would be happy to see some examples) because taking a strong stand against transphobia stirs up a whoooole lot of drama and disagreements. It’s better not to go there, right?
Of course, what this ends up meaning, practically speaking, is that the openly anti-trans radical feminists, however few in number they are, are tolerated, especially if they only open their mouths to say something anti-trans occasionally. This doesn’t exactly make for a welcoming environment for trans folks — it’s like saying to a POC, well why don’t you want to hang out at our bar? Sure, Joe and Bill over there occasionally make racist jokes or talk about “we oughtta send them back where they came from” but you just ignore them, OK? They’re long-time patrons of this establishment and we don’t want any fights around here, newcomer. And then later on, wondering why a POC wouldn’t want to hang out at that bar — I mean it’s not like most white people are racist, I guess they just really dislike white people, huh?
Complacency. Is it that much better?
Bloggers who are really outraged by this kind of thing don’t tend to remain part of the self-identified radical-feminist section of the blogosphere for real long, or are marginalized (by the margins).
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:41 am
The interesting thing about Amp’s cartoon to me is that it points out strains of gender essentialism in the way that two people with very different political positions talk about a particular subject (trans people). This is not really that surprising, it doesn’t even necessarily make some huge comment about fundamentalist Christianity or radical feminism. Gender essentialism is a common strain in a lot of attitudes because it’s basically what is taught to everyone and rarely gets questioned by “common sense” mainstream attitudes. If there’s any point about radical feminism in all of that, it’s that shouldn’t we recognize essentialism when it inevitably creeps into our arguments, as feminists? Of course, like I said in my last comment, I don’t think this is true of all radical feminists, but the point’s still made.
If someone wanted to illustrate something similar about pro-sex feminists and misogynist men who exploit women, I think that could actually turn into an interesting conversation. For instance, instead of gender essentialism, how about the concept of “empowerment?” Frequently critique of sex-positive feminism, and language that definitely has been adopted by any number of misogynist assholes.
Oh wait, people already are blogging about this.
If done in a really pointed way like Amp did, maybe you’re right, it would have just provoked a lot of defensiveness and hostility. But all of these conversations do need to happen — problems with gender essentialism. Problems with how the concept of “empowering” women is easily usurped for misogynist ends.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Piny wrote:
This is so true.
For those of you who want to discuss “Ampgate” here on “Alas,” the pertinent thread to do so is here.
Any further instances of “Amp is an asshole, therefore hate and bigotry against trans is okay / can’t be objected to by Amp” will lead to deleted comments and bannings.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:50 am
I notice that Amp only gets slammed w/ Ampgate, etc. when he posts any sort of criticism of feminism. Why is this? Why didn’t we hear the same sort of ad hom about the Big Corn comic? Surely, if his misogyny & pimping invalidates his points about commonalities WRT anti-trans bigotry between radical feminism and convervative Christianity, it invalidates his points about everything.
Yet, it doesn’t. Strangely, many of the folks slamming him for this cartoon agree with him (w/ nary a mention of Ampgate) when the target is not their cherished ideology. Weird.
If you want to criticize Amp for selling his domain, that’s fine. But using the sale of the domain to attempt to silence only his criticisms of feminism reeks of hypocrisy and an inability to address those criticisms.
The majority of those that I’ve read slinging the fat insults & Ampgate in response to this cartoon are those who’ve been slinging insults at Amp for years (many of them from before this blog existed). Many of them have used this as an excuse to further spout their anti-trans drivel. And I’ve seen almost none of them actually address the point raised in the cartoon. How odd.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I never said you were an asshole Amp, and I think you know I don’t feel that way about you.
Yeah, piny. I see what you’re saying - I wasn’t trying to go there. I’m sick of seeing RadFems trashed, baby with the bath water kinda thing. I feel like I’m alone on this one. Certain RadFems don’t trust me because I “talk” with trans folks; trans folks don’t trust me because I’m a Rad Fem. Personally I don’t trust either side when they pull tactics like this cartoon - and yes, both sides do it. So be it. Time to become a hermit, I suppose.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Yeah, piny. I see what you’re saying - I wasn’t trying to go there. I’m sick of seeing RadFems trashed, baby with the bath water kinda thing. I feel like I’m alone on this one. Certain RadFems don’t trust me because I “talk” with trans folks; trans folks don’t trust me because I’m a Rad Fem. Personally I don’t trust either side when they pull tactics like this cartoon - and yes, both sides do it. So be it. Time to become a hermit, I suppose.
You and I aren’t entirely aligned wrt: feminist stuff in general, I don’t think; however, point taken.
I tend to get very curt and uncharitable whenever a response looks like the no-true-Irishman fallacy or a conflation of “gee, this specific radfem-identified person sure is a creepy asshole” with “I cannot stand radical feminists or radical feminism.”
It’s true, though, that this cartoon was cartoonish, and while I think that reading it as conflating radical-feminist and fundamentalist attitudes towards transpeople in general is inaccurate, I wouldn’t call it unreasonable. I think that some transphobia amongst radfems–and I don’t call it critique of anything–either covers or legitimizes itself with radical-feminist arguments or language. I think, as well, that some radical feminists just plain don’t like transpeople on a conscious or unconscious level (I think this is pretty common; I’ve blogged about how I got skeered of transwomen myownself). But this is not to say that radical feminism is itself transphobic, or that radical feminists in general harbor an irrational hatred of transsexuals. I said that percentages aren’t all that important to me, but I definitely don’t think that as great a proportion of radfems hate transpeople.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Because we all know that the similarities between Rad Fems and conservative Christians are the height of heresy, while those shiney pr0-sex feminists who share their ideology with pornographers, pimps, and the BDSM scene are just peachy keen because they’re not haters, they’re doing it for empowerment!
Damn, I just got my irony meter recalibrated, too.
Complaining that Amp is tarring radical feminists with too broad a brush is one thing. Insisting that he has a sinister agenda is just self-indulgent crap.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Regarding the “percentages” question Sailorman brought up, Holly answered it very well in comment #31. However, I’m going to reply as well, with a slightly-rewritten version of a comment I left at LM’s place.
In the thread on LM’s place, LM herself objected to the anti-fat bigotry Sis posted (and would have objected a lot more strongly, I believe, had the target not been evil Amp). This is an example of how social norms in the radfem community work to discourage anti-fat bigotry (much ot the radfem community’s credit; in contrast, anti-fat bigotry is generally acceptable in most liberal blogs).
If a radfem were to post on major radfem blogs persistently saying things like “In short, fatties are nutjobs. These unfortunate, but seriously disturbed individuals belong on the 5th floor in a straight jacket,” (which is something Luckynkl said about trans folks), they’d face strong social/institutional pressure from other radfems to mend their thinking, or at least to keep it to themselves.
Transphobia, in contrast, is widely accepted among radfem blogs, and (pre-blogs) it was widely accepted among radfems in online discussion groups, and in real life. That doesn’t mean that all radfems express anti-trans bigotry, because obviously not all radfems are anti-trans bigots.
But it does mean that those radfems who do express even extreme and virulent anti-trans bigotry — and who have done so over and over — barely have to worry about being banned or ostracized. Those who express more mild bigotry face no such worries at all. In that sense, being transphobic is acceptable in most of the radfem blog community.
Furthermore, criticism of anti-trans bigotry is often looked down upon in the radfem community. Look at how widely accepted it is among radfems that discussions of conflicts between transgendered and non-transgendered shouldn’t use words that make non-trans people uncomfortable, such as “transphobia.”
Imagine someone suggesting that lesbians, gays and bis should avoid using the word “homophobe” because many straight people think the word unfair. I feel safe in assuming most radfem bloggers would find that objectionable, and say so clearly. Yet the identical sentiment about transsexuals is widely accepted on radfem blogs, and rarely elicits criticism from other radfems.
So I’m convinced that transphobia among radfems is an institutional problem within the community, not just a matter of some isolated “bad apple” individuals. The exact percentage matters less, in my opinion, than the social norms which make transphobia acceptable.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Q-Grrl;
Heya, i’ll answer your question for you. I’m a stripper, do some professional domination, I perform in porn, and yep, I make some porn too…so I guess that makes me a pornographer. I’ve engaged in illegal sexual transactions in the past, but grow fearful of arrest in my old age….so yeah, sex worker. Also, I my defense of Amp, who has been thrashed as much for the Ampgate episode this go around as for the actual content of his cartoon…well that’s what bothers me. Someone doesn’t like the cartoon, fine, critisize it on its own, don’t bring up every other deed in Amp’s life to blur the issue…and attacking his weight? Not at all cool.
I’ll admit I found the cartoon funny. And I stress this when I say it, because SOME radical feminists are very anti trans and could be mistaken for being religious right on the issue. Not all, SOME. It’s much like political cartoons of the same nature which, due to the limited format of a cartoon, seem to insult ALL republicans, democrats, capitans of industry, (insert group of people here), but are, when one thinks about it, really directed towards those who fit the image portrayed. I no more think that ALL radical feminists have religious right-like attitudes on trans people than I think all republicans love G.W. Bush…but in the limited space of a cartoon, the author/artist can’t always specify that in order to not offend everyone and anyone.
And I’ve seen plenty of cartoons laughed at by SOME radical f eminists which are pretty offensive to others as well….
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:34 am
FYI that percentage question wasn’t a veiled attack on your position or anything, it was a sincere “i don’t know how representative this is, so I can’t distinguish between good and bad points; can you elaborate more?” question.
Which, incidentally, you and Holly have answered very well, so thanks.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Q Grrl Writes:
“Because we all know that the similarities between Rad Fems and conservative Christians are the height of heresy, while those shiney pr0-sex feminists who share their ideology with pornographers, pimps, and the BDSM scene are just peachy keen because they’re not haters, they’re doing it for empowerment!”
And your quick conflation of the BDSM scene with “pimps” speaks VOLUMES about everything that’s fucked-up about radical feminism and what it shares in common with the religious right.
The religious right and radical feminism – same moral panic, different conspiracy theory.
This comment was written by imacuriousblue.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I’m sick of seeing RadFems trashed, baby with the bath water kinda thing. I feel like I’m alone on this one. Certain RadFems don’t trust me because I “talk” with trans folks; trans folks don’t trust me because I’m a Rad Fem. Personally I don’t trust either side when they pull tactics like this cartoon - and yes, both sides do it. So be it. Time to become a hermit, I suppose.
Hey Q! We could start our own political party! I’ll be a hermit with you, we could call it “Hermit grrls” or something…
I hate this rift, really I do. I think I’m gonna tear my hair out.
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 11:20 am
The religious right and radical feminism – same moral panic, different conspiracy theory.
I’m not panicked, I’m perfectly calm. I don’t have any conspiracy theories, either.
I just asked someone else on another blog, not to generalize about radfems and trans, and now I come here and ask YOU not to do the same, please.
You make it real difficult for those of us (radfems) who are trying to sort things out, you realize? Does that matter to you?
If not, you are as dogmatic as anyone you criticize.
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I think it’s important not to generalize in a way which ascribes the motives and actions of a part of a group to the whole of the group.
I think this is true whether you’re talking about men, women, transfolk, cisgendered folk, radical feminists, non-rad-feminists, leftists, rightists, etc.
At the same time, I think it’s important to be able to discuss radical feminists, as a group, and opinions and behaviors that are prevalent within that group, while recognizing that there are exceptions. Radfems are not a monolithic group in which everyone marches in lockstep, but neither are they a random sampling of the population.
I think that Amp’s discussion of transphobia within the radfem community is appropriate, and that iamcuriousblue’s comment about the radfem perception of BDSM (though a little off topic) is appropriate.
OF COURSE not all radfems hold these opinions. Not all sex-positive feminists are pro-porn, either. The problem is that if we push the ‘not all X are Y’ game far enough, we’ll never be able to talk effectively about anything. Some behaviors and opinions are widespread enough that pointing it out is as it should be.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am
What I think was obvious about the cartoon, is that Amp decided who was worth offending and who wasn’t.
And I hate to see that happen.
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
How so?
I’m not asking to be disagreeable. I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying here, and hope you’ll spell it out a bit, if you don’t mind.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Daisy Writes:
“I just asked someone else on another blog, not to generalize about radfems and trans, and now I come here and ask YOU not to do the same, please.
You make it real difficult for those of us (radfems) who are trying to sort things out, you realize? Does that matter to you?
If not, you are as dogmatic as anyone you criticize.”
Myca Writes:
“I think it’s important not to generalize in a way which ascribes the motives and actions of a part of a group to the whole of the group.
I think this is true whether you’re talking about men, women, transfolk, cisgendered folk, radical feminists, non-rad-feminists, leftists, rightists, etc.”
First, I think some very false analogies are being drawn here – leftism, feminism, Islam, Catholicism, etc are NOT the equivalent being being black, white, male, female, gay, etc. The former are ideologies and religions and represent belief systems that one can accept or reject. The latter are groups of people and aspects of identity that one are to some degree immutable. Attacking a person’s identity is rightly considered a form of bigotry. Attacking an ideology, religion, theory, belief or position is not only not bigotry, its intellectually dishonest to hold such things above rigorous criticism.
As for “dogmatism”, if I was saying something to the effect that left libertarianism or sex-positive feminism was the one true path, you could very well accuse me of that, but that’s not what I’m saying. (My political reading list is pretty damn eclectic, really.) However, I don’t think its overly dogmatic to dismiss entire ideologies as essentially reactionary. I’m sure most people here would be pretty dismissive toward white nationalism, in spite of the often fascinating debates and differences between the National Socialists, Odinists, Christian Identity, Third Positionists, National Anarchists, etc. Similarly, dog knows there are probably several thousand competing varieties of Marxist-Leninists out there, even some ones who basically have their hearts in the right place (hey, I like a lot of the folks at UK Workers Liberty), but I have yet to see Marxist-Leninists build anything other than an extremely repressive state when given a chance to put their ideas into practice, so I’m pretty comfortable writing off that ideology, too.
And excuse me if I have a lot of trouble locating exactly what’s good in radical feminism. OK, there were some good exponents of early radical feminism – I count Ellen Willis as a political mentor of mine. But pretty much anything that’s come out of radical feminism from Robin Morgan and Andrea Dworkin onwards – its hopelessly reactionary stuff. And yes, I realize there are some radical feminists like yourself and some of the other folks who I encounter on Ren’s blog who aren’t hateful, fucked-up people, but a disproportionate number are, and what does that say about radical feminism as an ideology that its proven so attractive to mean-spirited, hateful people?
“I’m not panicked, I’m perfectly calm.”
I’m talking specifically about the social psychological phenomenon of moral panic. A similar psychology of moral panic is something I think underlies the fact that radical feminist positions on pornography, BDSM, transexuality, and even the Satanic ritual abuse scare so often doevetail with that of the religious right, even if the two positions are fundamentally opposed in theory.
This comment was written by imacuriousblue.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I agree completely, and I don’t think criticizing Radical Feminism is anywhere in the same universe as being horribly transphobic. My point was just that broad generalizations without recognition of individual difference serve nobody.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. I certainly don’t think that Radical Feminism (or any system of belief) ought to be above serious criticism and examination.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
If you look closely at the purportedly feminist “critiques of transgender” that are floating around the internet on various blogs, sites, etc, you’ll see that part of what’s going on is that “trans” is being characterized as some sort of ideology that can be questioned and critiqued. We wouldn’t accept this for any other category of identity or experience; you can’t “critique African-American politics” or “be opposed to gay ideology” without sounding like you’re making wild-eyed generalizations and probably being racist or homophobic to boot.
But if it’s possible to take a group of people with shared experiences and oppressions and an identity coalesced around those things, and somehow shift the focus onto an abstract “ideology,” it seems much less prejudiced and/or hostile to go on the attack. In the case of trans stuff, it’s also a way of delegitimizing the existence of trans people altogether, at least as a category, which is part of some people’s anti-trans goal.
This is why alarm bells go off when I read someone talking about “trans politics” and “trans ideology” in the abstract, as if there was one unitary belief system instead of, you know, a whole bunch of different people with certain life experiences and oppressions in common.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
A very oblique comment on percentages: If not quite an iron law, it’s often the case that vocal or assertive personalities, whether they’re minorities or not, disproportionately set the tone within their groups. The dominant ideological trend of a movement can’t be determined solely by a show of hands. Leaders & vocal minorities often hold more extreme views than average members, but to the extent they set the agenda & discourse norms, by a process of self-selection they can gradually change the group’s character, attracting new like-minded people & either converting or causing existing members to drift away. A group’s other adherents may not share its most extreme members’ most extreme views, but to the extent that an assertive minority shapes & reshapes the movement’s profile & character, the other members may be forced to make an unwelcome decision for or against the leading minority’s views, which may be more extreme than their own, but which have come to characterize the movement as a whole. Every sizable group has its bigots & cranks, but when we agree to participate in any collective project, we implicitly assume a measure of moral responsibility for its direction, & have to accept that there may come a point when a bigoted or retrograde current becomes sufficiently influential that we can no longer enjoy the luxury of just turning away, or absolving ourselves by indignantly insisting that “we’re not all like that.” Sometimes we’re obliged to set things right in our own house, to fight, even at the cost of hurt feelings, & even if it requires us to sort out our own unresolved moral uncertainties, now. It may seem unfair, & it’s often a source of unhappiness, but it’s an irreducible part of collective action. The history of social movements doesn’t lack for pointed examples.
To put it (slightly) less obliquely, when serious-minded members of a group that’s beset by highly vocal bigots are making an earnest effort to sort things out, it’s usually not outside critics – even sloppy, overgeneralizing ones – who’re making things most difficult for them, appearances sometimes notwithstanding. It’s the bigotry.
This comment was written by KH.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
As someone who rejects the transphobic elements within the radfem community, I still didn’t find the cartoon funny. Mainly because, depending on the issue being discussed, ALL of us would have at least some opinions in common with the religious right.
For example, I personally would strongly object to the idea that running round, randomly shooting anyone over 60 in the head is a good idea. And you know what, I’m guessing most people here would agree with me……AND OH NOES!!! SO WOULD MOST OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!!! Noooooooo, we’re all JUST LIKE THEM!!!
Please. Amp slammed radfems on this issue because radfems are currently a very easy target. He could just as easily have picked out similarities in thought between, say “fun” feminism and fratboys–hey, y’know, they both really dig their porn, don’t they? And they’re both really into the whole sex work concept. So that must make them totally alike or something.
But that wouldn’t be so popular in the current climate, and wouldn’t earn the cartoonist a lot of nice back-slapping.
Transphobia in the radfem community needs to be criticised. It is unacceptable. But making intellectually lazy jabs does nothing to help and only furthers the whole “us v them” dynamic.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
But that wouldn’t be so popular in the current climate, and wouldn’t earn the cartoonist a lot of nice back-slapping.
Really, now? Because it earned at least one woman a book deal.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
” …ALL of us would have at least some opinions in common with the religious right. For example, I personally would strongly object to the idea that running round, randomly shooting anyone over 60 in the head is a good idea.”
I take it Crys T thinks Amp’s cartoon isn’t funny in part because she questions whether the similarity it portrays between a radical feminist and a conservative Christian is significant.
If group A is similar to group B with respect to property X, the similarity may be either significant or trivial. But the observation that some third group C, or all groups, are similar to group A with respect to some trivial property Y provides precisely zero warrant for the conclusion that the similarity between group A and group B with respect to property X is also trivial. If the opposite were the case, then it would follow that no similarity between groups could ever be significant, an absurd conclusion.
Crys T is right that the fact that both she and conservative Christians oppose the murder of people over the age if 60 is a trivial similarity. But she’s mistaken if she thinks the triviality of her example elucidates the question of whether the asserted similarity between some radical feminists’ and conservative Christians’ attitudes towards transsexuals is significant. The significance or triviality of the asserted similarity can only be established by substantive argument, not by concocting immaterial examples of trivial similarities.
This comment was written by KH.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Crys T:
I think Amp has addressed this a few times, and it’s a perfectly reasonable objection, but I think it’s born of confusion as to what his intended meaning is.
If Amp was saying, “radfems share opinions with the radical right,” you’d be right . . . that’s next to useless.
What I think he’s saying is more “Radfems share opinions with the radical right, but they also share their reasons for those opinions, and in most cases, they are reasons that we recognize as bigoted bullshit when the right says them, but we tend to give a pass to radfems when they say the exact same things.”
I think that’s pretty darn valid.
And, I think it’s likely to continue being valid, since the most common radfem response to an ongoing and egregious instance of blatant bigotry in their community seems to be “How dare you point this out?!”
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Long-time lurker coming up for air, because I feel very strongly about this.
I wince every time someone uses the phrase ‘the trans issue’ - as though there’s only one, and it’s the one that matters to them, of course - or makes huge generalisations about trans*people without bothering to do the slightest bit of reading or, y’know, asking trans*people about the things they’re writing about. Such casual dismissal. And those are the good threads, the ones where people don’t savage, insult and silence trans*people deliberately. People - not only radfems - build these huge edifices of theory, and completely ignore the fact that they are building them on top of the bodies and lives of real human beings, who are being crushed.
Amp makes a cartoon, and a whole bunch of people get very uncomfortable. Well, good. About time too.
This comment was written by mazaru.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 1:04 am
I’m with Myca and KH, here. What if the cartoon were about how both fundamentalists and some pseudo-progressive men think domestic violence is no big deal? Would it be unfair to try to connect the dots there, or would we have to pretend that it’s a totally different set of underpinning assumptions?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 1:05 am
But if it’s possible to take a group of people with shared experiences and oppressions and an identity coalesced around those things, and somehow shift the focus onto an abstract “ideology,” it seems much less prejudiced and/or hostile to go on the attack. In the case of trans stuff, it’s also a way of delegitimizing the existence of trans people altogether, at least as a category, which is part of some people’s anti-trans goal.
Rock on.
It’s also a way of divorcing civil rights for transpeople from self-determination for transpeople.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 1:20 am
I’m trying to read this as anything other than “the only good cartoon is one which offends no one.” And utterly apart from the particular issue at hand, this is a basically unsupportable position.
This comment was written by Auguste.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 4:00 am
I feel kind of sad that none of the discussion about this cartoon has actually delved into what seems to me to be the real point: the prevalence of biological essentialism across what are usually conflicting ideologies.
Is that because it’s an obvious bad bad no-no in everyone’s eyes? I mean, I could see that being a common opinion, but you don’t have to go very far before you stumble into someone inadvertently or quite deliberately summoning biological essentialism into any number of feminist conversations–especially when trans people are involved.
Or is it the elephant in the room that’s being avoided by a lot of “how dare you!?” and “radical feminists are nothing like christian fundamenalists!” (No duh.)
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Are any of the people who are upset about the cartoon as a slam against rad feminism going to address the fact that it was intended to show that it is the gender essentialism in both rad feminism and the christian right that create the similar feelings toward trans folks?
I understand that one reading of the cartoon can be that Amp is slamming rad fems trans phobia because it’s like the Christian right, but I think a better interpretation is that he’s slamming gender essentialism which is something rad fems and the Christian right have in common on this particular issue. And how gender essentialism when it is part of the Christian Right rhetoric is almost always sexist (and I suspect most radical feminists would agree with that), so what makes gender essentialism in radical feminism ok?
It’s been said numerous times in this thread and others that gender essentialism has a centuries long history of being oppressive to women. That some branches of radical feminism embrace gender essentialism is for me, a pretty significiant flaw/drawback/whatever you want to call it.
Would any of the radical feminists who have a problem with the cartoon care to address the accuracy of the gender essentialst claims in the cartoon? Is gender essentialism part of the radical feminist rhetoric or not? If it is, and you don’t see a problem with that, why not? If it’s not, please tell me why not - because that’s a lot of what I see. I don’t have a problem with people wanting to “defend” their position against the cartoon, but lets actually defend the substance of the cartoon.
ETA: Or, what Holly said. Sorry, didn’t read the entire thread before posting.
This comment was written by KateL..Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Q Grrl Writes:
Because we all know that the similarities between Rad Fems and conservative Christians are the height of heresy, while those shiney pr0-sex feminists who share their ideology with pornographers, pimps, and the BDSM scene are just peachy keen because they’re not haters, they’re doing it for empowerment!
Can we call a moratorium on “empowerment” used ironically? Usually I much love satire, but women seeking and embracing power is as fragile as a butterfly newly hatched, and I hate seeing feminists sit on that particular insect. In order to get ANYTHING done, women need to seek and embrace power - I’d like that particular idea to hit air and to see if we can identify a way to seek and embrace power without mistreating other people to get it.
You are conflating “this idea is wrong” with “these people are wrong”.
The IDEA that transpeople are somehow disingenuous, destructive, immoral, or trying to hurt people via their simple existence is WRONG. Groups of RadFems and groups of Conservative Christians both hold the idea that trans is BAD. The comparison of the two on this issue is a shaming gesture; Amp may not be the best person to place is, given he’s not part of either population he’s shaming for their bigotry, but that doesn’t alter the simple fact that you yourself have below indicated that transphobia within RadFem groups you deal with has made CERTAIN RADFEMS mistrust you.
I’ve never been clear on what sexpositive feminism is, other than “the people who don’t insult women who enjoy sexual things said people don’t approve of and their friends”. This also isn’t the place to discuss this rather volatile subject, nor - given the language you used in presenting it - do I wish to discuss it with you. That being said, if you wish to draw a comic which identifies one area where there is commonality, more power to you. Perhaps it will open a dialogue on an issue you feel deserves more attent