Losing our values & The Way Forward.
-phobia
Synonyms:
aversion, hatred.
a combining form meaning “fear,” occurring in loanwords from Greek (hydrophobia); on this model, used in the names of mental disorders that have the general sense “dread of, aversion toward” that specified by the initial element: agoraphobia.
__________________________________________________________________________
SEMANTICS
TRANSPHOBIA: this word is making me crazy! What’s wrong with TRANS-IST? Trans advocates throw this term around like it’s the perfect silencer for ANY situation!! Look, redmegaera is transphobic. The creator of the Top Hot Butches is transphobic. OMG, everyone who doesn’t let the trans DEFINE everything about gender is an hate-filled, insensitive asshole. Including me. Believe it. Because I ain’t cisgendered either. It’s much, much more complicated than that.
Here’s an analogy: someone who’s ignorant of homosexuality is not necessarily homo-PHOBIC. You have to have knowledge of something in order to fear it. And even someone who ultimately disagrees with homosexuality on some philosophical level (even if it makes no sense to me or I think it’s irrational), is not necessarily operating from a place of FEAR–as an allegation of homophobia would imply. Nor do they necessarily hate homosexuals.
Just because someone disagrees with you, or because they have different political interests than you, does not necessarily mean they are filled with HATE and PHOBIA about you or similarly situated individuals.
TRANSSEXUALITY
Now, allow me to share with you my SINGLE OBJECTION to transsexuality: REINFORCING GENDER ESSENTIALISM via the oppressive gender binary. That’s it. The act of “transitioning” from one gender to the only other gender available is an act of social and emotional survival under patriarchy. So-called “transsexuality” is not an unnatural human condition that requires medical intervention to “correct.” The sex roles of male and female are also not natural human conditions. They are constructs.
Surgery, artificial hormones, self-hatred, and insisting that–one way or another– we must all fit rigid patriarchal gender molds is not The Way Forward.
DECONSTRUCTING THE GENDER BINARY is The Way Forward. CELEBRATING transgressions from gender prototypes is The Way Forward.
I think Margie Jamison explained it perfectly when she stated that radical feminism wants EVERYONE, no matter who they are, no matter what their perceived physical “abnormality” is, to feel comfortable in the body they are born into. No surgery needed–UNLESS it improves the individual’s physical independence.* We cannot keep changing BODIES to conform to oppressive frameworks of normalcy. We must change MINDS. We must change what it means to be “NORMAL.” Non-gender conforming people will not feel comfortable unless and until we do. As far as I’m concerned, there is no other solution! WE MUST TREAT THE CAUSE, not merely the symptoms.
No one seems to be able to satisfactorily explain HOW transsexuality supports the social acceptance of people whose social presentation reads as somehow incongruous with their genitals. Like lesbian butches, for example. Until I understand how transsexuality supports the experiences of butches (and effeminate men, etc.), how it makes these non-trans people’s lives more visible and more socially legitimate, I will continue to oppose transsexuality on a strategic level. I do not oppose individual choices; people can do whatever they want with their own bodies. This is not about individuals. It’s about STRATEGY and THE WAY FORWARD. We are NOT allies if it is your goal to align yourself and your social movement with the current power structure, including myopic patriarchal definitions of man and woman.
LOSING WOMEN
Ok, moving on, for the most part I agree that transsexuality is not relevant to feminism. However, I feel very passionately about BUTCH FLIGHT. No, no, no, no, no, NOOO!!! Come back, my lovelies!! Come baaaaaack!!!! Why, oh WHY, are you leaving us??
Particularly as a radfem, it is so NOT cool for women to join the ranks of our oppressor! It’s offensive, even. What is so PHOBIC about naming that? What is so MEAN about not liking it when people you believed were members of community, your perceived allies and peers, defect??
Additionally, as I set up in the post immediately preceding this one, lesbians created the “lesbian look” FOR A REASON. We created it to identify each other, to differentiate ourselves from the hets. It fosters solidarity. I do not take the view that lesbian style is merely an adaption of masculine style. It is a unique interpretation and representation of woman-loving-woman values. It is, in no small way, a rejection of male sexual fantasies about what a woman should look like and should act like. Again, it is not simply women trying to BE men. It is women being beautiful in ways OTHER than what patriarchy defines as acceptable and aesthetically pleasing. It is offering women NEW WAYS of being and new ways to appreciate other women’s beauty. IT IS NEW VALUE.
However, when a lesbian who embodies masculine characteristics decides that she is a he, she rejects the possibility that her personhood represents a new way to be authentically WOMAN (or female, if you prefer). Her actions say that her perceived masculinity was indicative of her inner MANli-ness, and not of being a non-traditional woman. She was just a MAN trapped inside a woman’s body!! It is also a rejection of lesbianism and the lesbian community. A transman, according to him, IS a man. He cannot therefore be a lesbian. It simply isn’t possible.
Whether former-lesbian transsexuals mean to effectuate a loss or not, IT IS. And not just a loss of the individual from our ranks (though that sucks too). Transitioning from female to male amounts to a LOSS of our VALUES. It loudly counters the feminist valuation of womanhood as a MORE encompassing and a MORE inclusive spectrum than what is expected of and enforced by patriarchal social institutions. It is a dismissal of our shared experiences as women and as lesbians. It is an erasure of what is powerful and seductive about “unfeminine” women and women who reject traditional femininity. It says that lesbian feminists who celebrate non-feminine ways of being female are WRONG about what it means to be a woman. And that the patriarchy is right (woman=feminine).
So no, I don’t like it. I don’t like it one bit.
When transsexuals and trans advocates claim that feminists and/or lesbians have a shared interest in their cause, or should jump in to support their cause, I’m not convinced that we should. In fact, I think our interests are more likely in conflict than in harmony. But I still don’t think this justifies allegations of transphobia or hatred or ignorance on my part. I don’t believe that anyone should be discriminated against or ostracized merely because of their membership in a socially constructed class. I just don’t think that transsexuals and radical feminists have the same goals. It’s not personal. It’s strategy for The Way Forward, folks.
*For example, ankle reconstruction or hip replacement to allow for greater ease of ambulation. This surgery is designed to improve physical functioning.
Remember the tale of the “boy who cried wolf”; the cries of transphobia!!! are a bit like that. The have been used so often, so frequently, and so clearly out of context, that all impact and meaning has gone from the accusation.
Don’t even bother to take accusations of transphobia!!! seriously, just laugh and ignore it.
After all, it isn’t radical feminists running around beating up or murdering trans persons is it? Nope, that would be teh menz. Take it up with them.
“I think Margie Jamison explained it perfectly when she stated that radical feminism wants EVERYONE, no matter who they are, no matter what their perceived physical “abnormality” is, to feel comfortable in the body they are born into.”
wouldn’t that be amazing?!
this is a good post. i like the way you think, lady. unfortunately, it is hard for people to listen. so many insecurities…so much fear!
& i have yet to understand why anyone would willingly become a man…yech. internal genitals are the way to go!
Hi Undercover Punk,
I really like what you have to say here. But two comments:
First, regarding “-phobia” — Celia Kitzinger and Rachel Perkins, in their wonderful book Changing Our Minds: Lesbian Feminism and Psychology say:
I know that’s long, but I think it has really interesting implications for your discussion of transphobia, and provides some support for your critique thereof. Of course, as usual, I highly recommend the whole book, it’s really good.
Second,
lesbian feminists who celebrate female masculinity
Lesbian feminists don’t celebrate “female masculinity.” Lesbian feminists celebrate the humanity of females. “Female masculinity” is a queer theory construct, or perhaps a persistence of butch-femme lesbian bar culture — but in either case it is NOT part of lesbian feminism. To put it another way, here is something I wrote a while ago:
I know that you are attached to femininity and perhaps, by extension, to masculinity, but lesbian feminism as a body of work has rejected “femininity” and “masculinity” as having any meaning outside of patriarchy. There’s nothing about any kind of “masculinity” that lesbian feminists want to celebrate. This is a really good article that discusses those terms and concepts from a lesbian feminist perspective:
We may have to agree to disagree about the value of those terms and all that goes with them, but please be careful about claiming that lesbian feminists celebrate things that we very clearly have rejected. Thanks.
I completely agree about “female masculinity,” Amy. Anything that makes “unfeminine” (ie, not submissive in behavior or dress) a MARKED form of femaleness is anti-radical-feminism. For me, the word “butch” does the same thing, and is built upon the same model of “feminine” (submissive in behavior or dress) as “normal female.”
In fact, I’m not interested in calling dominance and submission anything but dominance and submission, and I think the terms ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ really mask the sadomasoschism underlying gender.
Ok, Amy, I’ve edited the post to be more specific about my meaning. I think that we may have to agree to disagree about whether women perceived as socially masculine are celebrated by lesbian feminists, but I’m not going to get into the specifics right now because I have a more pressing question for you!
Do you agree that the phenomenon of Butch Flight amounts to a loss of feminist value that seeks to define and embrace “woman” in terms that are more expansive than what is dictated by patriarchal gender?
By “more expansive” I mean all kinds of non-traditional womanhood, including what are widely known as butches. I agree with you that “masculine” is the DEFAULT aesthetic presentation to the extent that the mere absence of feminine adornment is read as “manly” rather than HUMAN. An androgynous person will be read as male by the casual observer. I understand that you disagree with my view of femininity, but please see some of my first postings on the matter (defense part 1 & have you ever heard a lesbian say?) that discuss when woman is defined in opposition to man, it creates a major concern for me that to reject femininity is to unwillingly default to the social presentation of being “masculine.” I don’t mean to be entirely lazy, but I think that using the commonly accepted definitions of certain words is a necessary evil. Additionally, I didn’t intend to say that “female masculinity” is celebrated by lesbian feminists because of it’s association with men. The celebration is not of masculinity, but of ways of being female that are not dictated by patriarchy.
My reference to Butch Flight, however, is a specific reference to women who adopt characteristics that are socially-defined as masculine, whether we/you/feminism would describe them similarly or not. Regardless of whether they wish to be seen as “masculine,” my experience has been that these women are particularly vulnerable to suggestions (even pressure) from other members of the lesbian and “queer” communities that they are actually transmen. I believe that “masculine women” are also more likely to seek refuge/social asylum in the possibility of passing as a man– particularly when being trans is, like, cool. And I don’t like it!
I’ve just read Margaret’s comment as well and I’m fully open to the suggestion that “masculinity” is an inadequate term for describing non-feminine women. Unfortunately, I don’t have a better term here at my fingertips.
I think what’s getting lost in all this, Undercover Punk, is that femininity is specifically about maintaining women’s submission, and that masculinity is specifically about upholding male supremacy. Because of this, there can never be any parity between femininity and masculinity, from a political perspective, and that therefore it makes no sense, really, to speak of males being “feminine” or women being “masculine.” To whatever extent female people reject the outer appearance and mannerisms of submission (femininity), they can never be said to be tapping into real masculinity, as it has been constructed in order to buoy male supremacy.
To talk about sex roles without taking into consideration the power dynamics between the people who are coerced into one role and the people who are coerced into the other is to remove from the discourse an analysis of male supremacy. For me, I think it would be much more useful to talk about males and females as being agents who either uphold, or, alternatively, pose a threat to, male supremacy, as opposed to stripping the male supremacy from the conversation in order to focus on “femininity” and “masculinity.” We, all of us, should be looking to reject BOTH masculinity AND femininity, not make it more OK for people to move from one camp to the other. And I think that calling “butch” women “women who adopt characteristics that are socially-defined as masculine” is a framing that helps to lend validity to the inherency of the gender binary. I see “butch” women as being women who reject femininity, *not* women who embrace masculinity, and I think that’s a distinction that’s important. Rejecting one set of social constraints is not the same thing as adopting the opposing set.
I agree with you that female people who do reject femininity are under quite a bit of pressure these days to have double mastectomies and take hormones, but I think that has quite a bit to do with the fact that anything not-feminine is so often automatically seen as *masculine* which is inextricably linked to *maleness*. But this binary is not real! There is a world of possibilities once people understand that the rejection of femininity (behaviors/attitudes/aesthetics that signify female submissiveness) doesn’t mean adopting masculinity (behaviors/attitudes/aesthetics that signify male dominance).
There is an entire spectrum of human ways to be – aesthetically, behaviorally, attitudinally – which are all entirely uncategorizable and unique.
Margaret, I’m sorry you think this is lost on me! The post is about patriarchal constructs of gender, how gender is interpreted by the phenomenon of transsexuality, and the fallacy of essentialism.
I agree with you that rejecting and adopting are different. In my experience, however, rejecting femininity is *read by most people* as an adoption of masculinity, regardless of whether this is the individual’s intention or not. Though we might want to, and though it might be ideal to be able to do so, it is not my intention in this discussion to ignore social coding–that’s what transsexuality is all about! Hell, that’s what GENDER is all about! So when you say We, all of us, should be looking to reject BOTH masculinity AND femininity, not make it more OK for people to move from one camp to the other., I think we’re on the same page. That is the “value” that is lost when women/lesbians become men (aka, butch flight).
Unfortunately, again, I don’t know how else to talk about the social reality of “butch” without talking about social constructions of masculine and feminine!
Ok. I hear what you’re saying. If you prefer to substitute “adopt” with “reject” and “masculine” with “feminine,” I’m happy to concede to this re-phrasing because I agree that that would be a superior description. It’s still, however, a definition that’s framed and understood by reference to offensive patriarchal social constructions–which I believe is what you’re objecting to!
Hmm, for me, the reason “rejecting femininity” is the better way of framing the issue is not because it doesn’t refer back to the system gender that has oppressed us (like you said, it does), but because *femininity itself* is women’s *oppression*. To reject femininity is to reject women’s compulsory submission. Framing that as being about adopting masculinity, though, in turn, means that anyone who isn’t submissive is masculine/male-like. It validates the notion that submission is for females (or female-like people) and freedom from submission is the sole domain of the non-female, or non-female-seeming.
Ok, ok. I’m with you. Thanks. Unfortunately (I’m full of that today!), as things stand in our world, freedom from submission *is* the sole domain of non-female-seeming people. But right, it wasn’t my intention to say this is the way it *should* be or to validate that notion with my description. It was merely to discuss social perceptions of what femininity is/should be and what it means socially to be non-feminine.
For me, I think it would be much more useful to talk about males and females as being agents who either uphold, or, alternatively, pose a threat to, male supremacy, as opposed to stripping the male supremacy from the conversation in order to focus on “femininity” and “masculinity.” We, all of us, should be looking to reject BOTH masculinity AND femininity, not make it more OK for people to move from one camp to the other. And I think that calling “butch” women “women who adopt characteristics that are socially-defined as masculine” is a framing that helps to lend validity to the inherency of the gender binary. I see “butch” women as being women who reject femininity, *not* women who embrace masculinity, and I think that’s a distinction that’s important.
YES! I think Margaret said it all right there. I couldn’t quite formulate why I was uncomfortable with the other thread that discussed ‘lesbian masculinity’ etc.
Any woman who does not conform to the role of femininity, is going to be labelled butch/dyke. And I do so hate the way some non-feminine lesbians are being convinced they should have gender reassignment.
Hi Undercover Punk,
I’m not really sure I understand your question, because we are coming from such different places and using such different language WRT gender. Also I think Margaret has addressed the topic quite comprehensively. So I will just say that I am not at all personally or politically interested in “masculinity” or “femininity” or “butch” or “femme” and don’t find those terms meaningful in a lesbian/feminist context. The lesbian community that I am part of also for the most part has some basis in feminist values and therefore “transitioning” is not an issue for the lesbians I know. However, I have heard that lesbians, particularly though not exclusively younger lesbians, do experience pressure to use hormones and get surgery, particularly top surgery.
And, just FTR, I’m not agreeing to disagree about what lesbian-feminists celebrate. I think the rejection of sex roles is all there in the historical writings as well as organically, at least in the communities I’m part of. I guess I’m agreeing to not fight with you about it. You’re entitled to value what you want; whether it is FEMINIST value is another question, at least in my book.
Amy, that’s fine. Yes, Margaret covered it quite well. Thank you, Margaret! And no, I don’t want to fight. I’m still having a problem with linguistics, though.
Since you don’t want to use HP (heteropatriarchal) terminology, I’m interested in figuring out how to discuss the social implications of & descriptions of gender without using these words. I understand that you do not find HS (heteropatriarchal semantics) valuable, but especially since we aren’t talking person-to-person here, how are we (or am I?) to analyze and criticize a social phenomenon, such as “Butch Flight,” without using HS?? It’s kind of a brain-bender!
I’d also like to make a distinction between behavior and aesthetics in terms of sex roles. Both can be “gendered” according to HS, but the mere appearance of “masculinity” is enough to cue social pressure to transition in my area of the world. I’ve mentioned it before, but my FtM ex-lover did not conform to the behavior of a man, only the appearance. If you do not believe that we should discuss or acknowledge “Butch Flight,” that’s another matter.
But my question here was whether you felt this phenomenon (of transitioning and passing socially as a man) is a loss of feminist values? That’s what the post is about.
I think there’s a possibility that this isn’t coming through because you seem unwilling to believe that I could possibly VALUE women of all kinds, regardless of their social categorization. You assume that my use of HS is a function of my priorities. Well, yes–to the extent that I want other people to understand what I’m saying! If I had a reasonable alternative, which I’m open to, I’d use it! But until this is suggested to me, I really don’t know what else to do besides to put “quotation marks” around everything. Really. Seriously. I’m sincerely not trying to be antagonistic! I’d love some constructive suggestions here so that I can better express myself.
Here’s a random thought.
People come in various shapes and sizes and appearances.
No need to label or catagorise them.
Oh no kidding stormy. No gender for me, thanks.
awfisticuffer, coming here merely to support stormy’s snarky comment is fucking rude. No thanks.
That’s not a random thought. It is snark. And I think it was rude. These kind of comments are unnecessary.
Nor do I think it’s necessary for you to even consider getting ready
Because I never said anything of the sort. NEVER. I don’t know why you want to believe that I did. Maybe because most of the things I say are so fucking anti-lesbian that you were just starting think I’m a MAN posing as a separatist, right?? What the hell!
I will NOT ignore the fact that gender is the most basic social division amongst humans; across all ages, times, and locations. I can NOT pretend that everywhere I go gender —amongst many other social categories!— does not heavily influence the way the world treats me. It is only on this basis that I could possibly BE a woman. Or a feminist. Or a lesbian. Or a man-hater. Or anything else that describes a social identity.
Apparently you associate yourself with none of these labels or categories, since I’m so politically incorrect for daring to use gendered terminology that lends itself to the discussion of such reprehensible topics!
Ooooh, AMY! I just (finally) finished reading Heteropatriarchal Semantics and Lesbian Identity: The Ways a Lesbian Can Be and I don’t even know where to begin! So much to say!! Especially about the last section that assumes feminine-valuing lesbians assert themselves as superior to feminine-rejecting lesbians. That, in particular, is simply not an accurate assessment of ME or my views, which I found rather frustrating. Relatedly, social context should not be ignored–time, place, and relationships–when analyzing privilege and “passing” as heterosexual.
Lastly (for the moment!), I really wish Penelope would’ve made some tangible suggestions about actualizing the new semantic structure she argues so passionately in favor of. Ki-ki is the only word I’d never heard of before.
But anyways, I will elaborate in either another post (so we can play, like, book club!) or I’ll send you an email. Good stuff. Fascinating stuff! Thanks for the link!
Amy:
OMG Amy! I was just thinking about Kitzinger and Perkins’ critique of “homophobia” yesterday and was wondering this morning how it might pertain to Undercover Punk’s most recent post. I think “homophobia” (in its most common usage) is an implicity assimilationist concept. The term “transphobia” is also buttressed by an assimilationist politics- one which seeks to integrate non-conforming men and women into the existing regime. Lesbian feminism, on the other hand, is revolutionary, not reformist. Tensions with gay men and trans activists are inevitable. I haven’t read much of Rachel Perkins but Celia Kitzinger is brilliant. I need to think about this some more.
I also agree with you about “female masculinity”. It’s a term that I associate with queer theorist Judith Halberstam’s book Female Masculinity. I find it quite problematic for a number of reasons.
Undercover Punk:
Thanks for another great read. You’ve given me a lot to think about.
Ack! That’s the most clumsy, poorly-written grammatically incorrect post I think I’ve ever written. Apologies.
Re “transphobia” as meaningless scream:
http://imeatingblueberriesthereforeimtransphobic.wordpress.com
And as a matter of fact, right now I *am* eating blueberries, and have just put 10 lbs in the freezer.
“REINFORCING GENDER ESSENTIALISM via the oppressive gender binary. That’s it. The act of “transitioning” from one gender to the only other gender available is an act of social and emotional survival under patriarchy. So-called “transsexuality” is not an unnatural human condition that requires medical intervention to “correct.” The sex roles of male and female are also not natural human conditions. They are constructs.”
exactly. let people do whatever the f they want. the real problem is-yeah. what is this culture doing to people, such gender brainwashing that people don’t even feel comfortable in their bodies?
I really like this post.
Hello, sorry to interrupt. I was just surfing the internet and I happened upon this blog. I have to say it’s really great to find someone who thinks kind of like I do (on certain subjects)! This topic in particular really caught my attention. I remember not too long ago I was on a lesbian website and I got called all sorts of transphobic because I admitted that I didn’t see transmen the same as bio men. Somewhere around the end of the debate I even wondered out loud “What’s wrong with being female to the point that you are offended that I acknowledge that you once were…at least biologically…female?”
Of course I got no answer.
They were also hitting me with the “Judeo Christian Gender Binary” mush…I myself said “If you are transitioning from female to male, aren’t you admitting that the gender binary exist?”. Once again no answer. They just told me I was enforcing my cisprivilege, and I needed to stop being Tran phobic, that they were the same as bio-males.
What is it that you get from being a bio male that you can’t get from being a transmale? Is it the right to treat women like a lower form of human being? Is it a chance to be part of the boys club without feeling like an intruder? Without having that little nagging voice in your head that “maybe you shouldn’t treat women that way seeing as how YOU were born a woman yourself”.
The whole thing was pretty disgusting when I think about it. Luckily, I knew better then to take that kind of thinking too seriously. I have friends who are transgendered and they do demand that you call them “him”, “he” or things like that but they don’t really get bent out of shape if you don’t see them the same as a bio male.
Or perhaps they are just smart enough to know that if you are a transgendered male rather then a bio-male you might get some action from lesbians. I don’t know, that’s a whole other discussion I guess.
Just glad to know that I’m not the only one who doesn’t really get this whole Tran phobic. Not for all of them but I truly believe some of this has its roots in misogyny.
Okay, just wanted to add my two cents.
Thanks for visiting. I see you have some gold star pride.
Actually I’m not a gold star. I am a silver star though, that one guy was really enough for me.
I was rushing to make an e-mail account and for some reason a test paper with a gold star popped into my head and that’s why I named the account what I did. Didn’t even realize what I was implicating at the time
Kind of regret that one guy but at least I know there’s no magic with men like there is with women.
Uh-oh, don’t tell the lesbian police!
For real, JC! Dandy, I must apologize for even bringing it up. There is a woman who was posting comments on my blog under all kinds of different screen names. She favors lesbians who have never slept with men (over ex-het lesbians). As far as I’m concerned, it’s an elitist and misogynist distinction to make. So when I saw your email address, I wanted to acknowledge it in case it was/you were her again!
I believe that so-called gold star lesbians have every right to take pride in their histories; it’s just that *everyone* has a right to take pride in their life experiences and how they’ve influenced their current personhood. No one is better than anyone else, you know?
So, WELCOME, welcome! Thank you for sharing your support.
So fucking glad you recognise the problems associated with GSL UCP.
Because I was going to post a comment about how “create new values” meant jack-shit when ‘virtue’ (or lack of manz-contamination) was apparently ‘new value’. It isn’t. It is just the same old shit churned out by you-know-who.
It is one thing to take pride in one’s history (like never het) and another to deem those (ex-het) as less than, or contaminated. Or FFS, privileged, because most ex-hets just escape with either their lives or dignity intact, which is not exactly privilege.
It is NOT radical feminist to create hierachies, and especially hierachies created upon existing (patriarchical) values (like virgin-hood). It is not even cool to downgrade “political lesbians” as “less than” (assumedly other varieties of lesbians?/women?). FFS, no one even uses the term political lesbian any more, it is called separatist. There isn’t even the appropriation of ‘lesbianism’ by separatists. The appropriation comes from PORN. Porn is the one who makes fake lesbians for male titillation.
So, instead of taking your shit out on other women, focus on men and porn. That is where the insult and appropriation lies.
/end PSA
This amuses me, stormy! LOVE your PSA!! No, no GSL is NOT “new value”!!
Plus I love it when you tell everyone to focus on teh MENZ!! DUH.
UC! Good post. I’ve been thinking about this too. There are terms like racist and ableist, which are neutral as to motivation, then misogynist, which means hatred, and then homophobia/transphobia, which mean fear. (I’ve also heard transmisogyny.) It all seems a little arbitrary … on the other hand, I really liked Amananta’s recent post on misogyny vs. sexism (http://amananta.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/there-are-no-gender-roles/).
As for butch flight, yes, it is really disappointing. Almost like giving up! Like some butches are so tired of trying to fight gender roles and just be a person as a woman that they just give up and decide it’s easier just to be a man and gain person status that way.
FTM transexuals almost never get sexual reassignment surgery, because doctors haven’t found a way to make a very good or useful fake penis (they can create excellent vaginas for men though, from what I’ve read). So it doesn’t even seem to be a matter of “being in the wrong body” like MTF transexuals claim. I guess the FTM transition is just about wanting the privilege of being treated as a human being, which is what we all want!
Instead of fighting gender stereotypes as proud, nonconforming butches, they reinforce them by saying that anyone who doesn’t fit the feminine mold must really be male.
And feminists are supposed to support this?
And feminists are supposed to support this? Riiight?!?! OMG, seriously!
Thanks for the great comment, Joce Claire, I’m so glad you’re back!! I like your observation about the inadequacy of SRS for FtMs. It does seem to be more about the social benefits of “passing” as men than the psycho-somatic compulsion to be a different body. I actually know more than a few lesbians who have an alter-ego-man-name! Like, what’s that all about?? Are you going to transition or not? Don’t scare me like that! Yeah, we all want to be human. But we can’t ALL become “male” now, can we? No, that’s not going to work on a large scale. Hence, NOT The Way Forward!!!
Anyways, I really like that post of Amananta’s too. She’s soooo good! By the way, Kitty says that the MtF surgery requires constant up-keep because the body wants to heal the surgically-created vagina. Was that TMI?? Well, point being, surgery and horomones are crap. The patriarchy-infused brain might prefer it, but the body doesn’t.
Here is some information about the postoperative care of surgically created vaginas. Be aware the linked page contains explicit photos as well as extensive descriptions of postop complications as well as the necessity of vaginal stenting and how to do it. Not for the squeamish, at all.
Not a problem Undercover, I’ve had scuffles with the lesbian purist myself. Most seem to be very angry, often times self defeating people. So afraid that their girlfriends are going to leave them for men that they drive the women away with man-hating paranoia.
I got no problem with someone based on who they slept with. We’re all just looking for love in the end and I’ve sure taken my share of wrong turns, so who’m I to judge?