Originally posted at Stop Trans Chauvinism
An inherent part of rape culture is trying to put on the defensive those who raise concerns about predatory behaviour happening in front of or to them (or policy which enables it), or are in the classes of people most predated on (women and children), who might also conceivably object. The aim is to make them feel as though they are doing something wrong.
Accordingly, those invested in rape culture need to make targets and potential targets feel upfront – even ahead of time – that their boundaries and concerns are wrong. Preparing ground by ensuring that potential targets know to feel badly about thinking critically of them, and don’t gather allies against predation (but maybe even distance themselves from likely allies), is a common activity of predators.
Predators and their enablers achieve this quite easily when they apply a ‘reversal’ to what’s really going on, by making the targets/ targetted classes sound like the predatory ones.
Originally published by Julian Vigo on Medium
What the non-binary/gender fluid/transgender (et al) movement has completely missed is that women have been articulating their discomfort with gendered constructs through various precise and eloquent feminist discourses for decades. I have steadfastly maintained that all humans — especially females — are non-binary through the performatives of the everyday and the political and social constraints imposed upon their lives and bodies. Sexism functions on the assumption that females should match the singular, social definition of “woman” and it is against this monolith of gender against which women have historically fought as women have had to negotiate the interstices of gender, straddling the contradictions, negotiating the discomforts. That struggle took the form of women defying their bodies and families, deracinating the mechanisms and political codes of gender, and transforming their bodies into a socially and politically tendentious vehicle for political and even personal liberation. Women have always known that gender was never real simply because they had to become so well-versed in manoeuvring around it for survival.
Originally posted at Glosswatch
The problem for the feminist – and for women in general – is not with femininity per se. It is not that taken individually, so-called “masculine” characteristics are in any way better or more useful than “feminine” ones. It is that femininity functions within a system that places women and men under very different social pressures, the primary aim of which is “to ensure that women should be in the power and service of men”.
This is basic feminism. It makes no judgment on what individual men and women are “really” like, rather it points out that the idea of inherent differences between men and women has been used to facilitate male people’s oppression of female people. As Richards puts it, “much of what is believed about women stems from what is wanted of women” (submission, chastity, unpaid reproductive, emotional and domestic work).
Fast-forward 36 years and it seems we’ve forgotten the basics. It’s not that we no longer use gender to extract resources and labour from one class of people for the benefit of another. Men still own the vast majority of the world’s material resources. Women still struggle for safety, visibility, education, reproductive autonomy, freedom from abuse. But for some reason we’ve stopped bothering to analyse gender as a social hierarchy. Perhaps it got too hard, or maybe it just got boring. Either way, these days it’s every woman – or non-man – for her/theirself.
Originally posted at Feminist Current
Anyone who ever said feminists weren’t funny has clearly never referred to them as “non-men” in an effort to be politically correct. Jokes aside, non-men are pissed as all hell to have been wholly erased in the name of “inclusivity,” as the UK’s Green Party did recently.
A few weeks ago, a representative for the Green Party suggested “non-male” members follow the Young Greens Women Twitter account. When some women challenged the use of the term, Green Party Women responded, defending their language.
Unsatisfied with the notion that referring to women as “non-men” will somehow address marginalization, women took to Twitter, both by mocking the ludicrous language, as well as pointing out the incredibly sexist message that is sent by making men the default human — that which all other humans are secondary and comparable to. The Green Party is clearly unaware that this is, in fact, the entire basis of patriarchy — that is to say, the existence of a gender hierarchy, upon which men are placed at the top, and women below, always less human than men.
Originally posted at Glosswatch
My children have a book called Wibbly Pig Likes Bananas. In it, a little pig called Wibbly reveals his likes and dislikes and invites children to think about theirs, too. Do you, like Wibbly, like bananas, or do you prefer apples? Would you, like Wibbly, play with the ball, or would you rather cuddle the bear?
The message, as you might have guessed, is that we’re all different and that’s perfectly fine. I like this message. It’s a message with which I can get on board. However, I’ve started to wonder about the identity politics of it. If Wibbly likes bananas and hats and balls, is he even a pig at all?
For instance, you could argue that since Wibbly’s preferences are so deeply anthropomorphic in nature, he isn’t really porcine after all. He’s maybe a human, or something in-between – let’s call it non-binary species. By the same token, I could say that not everything I like is stereotypically human. Some days I’d rather roll around in a mud-filled sty rather than drive to work. So maybe I’m non-binary species too. All well and good, right? This is, after all, what our inner selves are telling us. Except – except! – Wibbly still has a pig body and I have a human one.
Originally posted at sian and crooked rib
So someone tweeted this blogpost from The F Word yesterday about the need for gender-neutral toilets. The article made some good points about the need for more gender-neutral toilet provision – for example to help out parents with opposite sex children, people caring for a member of the opposite sex, and also for trans or non-binary people who are concerned about being misgendered and the violence that can follow this. To me, this is where the debate about gender-neutral loos is surely meant to be sitting – there simply isn’t enough public toilet provision anyway, and we need to increase that provision to ensure everyone’s needs are met.
And then I read this paragraph:
The shelter, relative privacy and access to running water that public toilets provide have made them useful places to have sex when folks have nowhere else to do it, but they don’t particularly lend themselves to sexual assault. In the Ladies, women remain fully-dressed outside locked cubicles. These are rooms where people may walk in at any time. Currently, there’s nothing stopping men entering the Ladies (and indeed, the laws proposed in the US would force trans men to do so) but these aren’t common locations for sexual violence; outside of horror movies, ongoing drug deals and norovirus epidemics, public toilets are pretty safe.
The paragraph has now been removed from the article, after an exchange on Twitter where the editor apologised to me. I really appreciate the apology and the acknowledgement that this paragraph could result in upset and hurt. However, I started this post so I’ll finish, as the article isn’t the only place I’ve seen this dismissal…
What I want to address is the sweeping statement that women’s loos ‘don’t lend themselves to sexual assault.’
Because that, quite frankly, is bullshit.
Originally posted at Purple Sage
This is the story of a trans man being misgendered while getting her eggs retrieved so they can be implanted into her wife for gestation. (And I note that this trans man is biologically female and has a female partner, which, by the way, makes her a lesbian.)
I’m already quite fascinated by this person after the first paragraph. She saw herself carrying a child for most of her life, but not after she came out as a trans man. This tells me that she was in fact living as a woman for most of her life, and was not feeling uncomfortable about using her female biology to create a child. This makes me wonder about the nature of sex dysphoria, if a trans man can spend most of her life feeling comfortable with the idea of carrying a child. Doesn’t that mean that she does NOT hate her female biology? This stuff just doesn’t make sense to me.
The first time she recalls being mistreated at the clinic, this is what happened: