[TW: transmisogyny, misgendering/third-gendering, biological essentialism]*
Via The Wild Hunt's weekly Unleash The Hounds linkspam post, I found this blog entry by Tracie Welser, a pagan woman in Southern California, about her experience with transmisogyny at the Goddess Temple of Orange County. The short version is, at a women-only service honoring Cybele - which gives this story an extra layer of fuckery, as several Hellenismos friends of mine have pointed out that Cybele had one of the most famous orders of trans priestesses in history** - the Temple's "Presiding Priestess" Ava (I don't see how that's different from High Priestess, but in comments to the linked post she disavowed that title, so I will respect her expressed identity, which is a damn sight more than she is willing to do for trans women) made a series of comments about "the truth of womanhood" that referred to trans women as "mutilated", "not truly women" and "denying the truth of who they are". According to Tracie, who was at the service in question, it was spoken dogmatically by a person in a position of spiritual authority, and members were then asked to "meditate on this unreality [of trans-ness versus cis-ness]". This was not a dialogue. This was dogma.
So, with Tracie's permission, I am sharing this information for the benefit of any pagan female readers I have who are in that area, or who may be there at some point. The Goddess Temple of Orange County is NOT a safe space for trans women or their allies. It is headed by a 2nd-waver who defines womanhood by the possession of a uterus (apparently, even if you have had yours removed, if you were born with one, she considers you to have an "etheric womb", which begs the question of why she doesn't consider trans women to have the same sort of "etheric womb"...).
If you want to head over to Tracie's post and jump into the conversation, be warned that Ava has showed up in comments and is defending her bigotry with the usual litany of bullshit (which she asked me to post on here when I commented to ask Tracie if she would mind me blogging about this, lolno).
*I swear to fucking god I almost feel like I could TW for "2nd-wave bullshit" at this point, and it would be pretty easily understood. Although it might be unclear as to whether I'm referring to their cis-supremacy or their racism, so...maybe not.
**Much like the fact that it was a rite to Lilith that was the site of transmisogynistic exclusion at PantheaCon 2011, which...just read this fantastic post about the absurdity of holding a trans-exclusionary ritual to Lilith in particular.
Showing posts with label transgender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transgender. Show all posts
4.23.2012
4.18.2012
Dick, Pussy, Cunt, and "Die Cis Scum": Why Some Insults Are More Equal Than Others
I see this issue make the rounds occasionally, on tumblr, on twitter, on feminist blogs, and it bugs the crap out of me. Usually because it's someone trying to discredit or deflect requests that people not use misogynist insults like "pussy" and "cunt" by saying "well if that's bad then why aren't you asking people to stop using "dick" as an insult, too?!?" Which is manifest horseshit on several levels.
Firstly, many of the feminists/progressives I know actually *do* frown on all genitalia-related insults. I know plenty of feminists who don't use pussy, cunt, or dick as insulting terms. Quite often, the person at whom the "But what about dick?" (henceforth BWAD) argument is being directed falls into this category already, and the person trying to defend their use of misogynist slurs just hasn't bothered to ask before making arguments based on their assumption. Moral of the story: ask before you base your whole argument on an assumption.
Secondly, context fucking matters. When the use of insults based on genitalia is taking place in a culture that systematically values maleness and denigrates femaleness, using slurs based on the penis (which our culture associates exclusively with masculinity) does not have the same damaging impact that slurs based on the vulva (which our culture associates exclusively with femininity) do. Using "dick" as an insult does not contribute to longstanding, systemic oppression of men, because such oppression simply does not exist. For the same reason that naked dude pictures are not the same as naked lady pictures, "dick" as an insult doesn't do the same kind of cumulative cultural damage that "pussy" and "cunt" do as insults.
Thirdly, are you (where "you" = someone who has asked or is asking BWAD) seriously trying to say that "dick" as an insult is of the same level of severity and carries the same connotation as "pussy" and "cunt"? Really? I'm sorry, are you some kind of pandimensional being speaking to me from an alternate universe? Because that's really the only explanation I can think of for trying to treat all three insults equally.
"Dick" as an insult ranges from mild to moderate intensity depending on the tone of the speaker, and simply means mean or rude, perhaps overly pushy or aggressive. "Pussy" is also mild to moderate, but has a more specific connotation of cowardice and weakness, and going simply on personal observation, a man will be far more offended/upset if you call him a pussy than if you call him a dick. Especially considering that masculinity is actually *supposed* to be aggressive and, to a point, abrasive in this culture, "dick" can be the sort of insult that signals you're doing something to be proud of, in a fucked-up sort of way. "Dick" is still an insult, but it's the sort of insult that leaves one's all-important Masculinity Cred intact. "Pussy", on the other hand, is deliberately calculated to cut deeper by undermining said Masculinity Cred.
And then, of course, there's "cunt". One of the Big Bads of the insult dictionary. Widely acknowledged as the worst thing you can call a woman - or, really, anyone. One of the very few cuss words that is still unacceptable among most people, even people who regularly pepper their (our, cause I'm totally one of them, in case you couldn't tell) speech with "fuck". The one you pull out when you really want to make your point that you have an epic amount of disdain and hate for someone - usually a woman.
One of these things is not like the other ones...
[TW: implied/verbal violence against trans* people]
This is actually an old draft that's been kicking around the Unfinished Thoughts black hole for awhile now, until this post on tumblr revived it the other day. Because it basically expresses the same context-free viewpoint that makes the BWAD argument specious, and I just could not let it go without comment, especially given it dovetailed rather well with an already-mostly-written post. Behold:
For those who don't know the "die cis scum" history, it's a phrase that many in the trans community on tumblr have taken to use as a rallying cry/pushback against ciscentric culture that literally kills a whole fucking lot of trans people. I'm not going to lie, the phrase makes me mildly uncomfortable, but I absolutely understand where it's coming from and am not going to begrudge anyone their anger against a vastly more powerful group that stands a much-higher-than-is-comfortable chance of killing them, because it's not my place to police people's expressions of anger against oppression. It was said in a moment of frustration and anger, got picked up by a lot of people, and became A Thing, with the inevitable result of a whole lot of cis people having very hurt fee-fees over it. A backlash developed, with far too many cis people saying that Die Cis Scum makes the trans* people who use it "just as bad" as the cis people who murder and abuse trans* people. (O rly? Just as bad? You have an...interesting morality scale.) The response from many trans* people has been "It doesn't say "die cis people". It says "die cis scum". Are you cis, but not scum? Then you're safe, now shut up." Of course, backlashing cis people couldn't let it rest there. Hence, this graphic.
Apparently, there are a whole lot of people in this world who have never heard of context before.
Following the same logic, and for the same reason, as the argument against comparing "dick" to "pussy" or "cunt" as insults, "die cis scum" and "die trans scum" are not insults that carry the same social weight. One is an oppressed group basically shouting "fuck you" up at their oppressors, while both groups know full well they don't have the power to do much harm. The other is the group in power, shouting "fuck you" back down the ladder as they continue to kick the people below them in the face. They are not equivalent. They are not equal. Just because they use the same syntactic structure does not mean they are expressing the same kind of sentiment, because the power differential changes things.
Or, to quote an acquaintance of mine on tumblr: When we say "die cis scum", you have your feelings hurt. When you say "die trans scum", we literally end up dead.
Not.
The.
Same.
Firstly, many of the feminists/progressives I know actually *do* frown on all genitalia-related insults. I know plenty of feminists who don't use pussy, cunt, or dick as insulting terms. Quite often, the person at whom the "But what about dick?" (henceforth BWAD) argument is being directed falls into this category already, and the person trying to defend their use of misogynist slurs just hasn't bothered to ask before making arguments based on their assumption. Moral of the story: ask before you base your whole argument on an assumption.
Secondly, context fucking matters. When the use of insults based on genitalia is taking place in a culture that systematically values maleness and denigrates femaleness, using slurs based on the penis (which our culture associates exclusively with masculinity) does not have the same damaging impact that slurs based on the vulva (which our culture associates exclusively with femininity) do. Using "dick" as an insult does not contribute to longstanding, systemic oppression of men, because such oppression simply does not exist. For the same reason that naked dude pictures are not the same as naked lady pictures, "dick" as an insult doesn't do the same kind of cumulative cultural damage that "pussy" and "cunt" do as insults.
Thirdly, are you (where "you" = someone who has asked or is asking BWAD) seriously trying to say that "dick" as an insult is of the same level of severity and carries the same connotation as "pussy" and "cunt"? Really? I'm sorry, are you some kind of pandimensional being speaking to me from an alternate universe? Because that's really the only explanation I can think of for trying to treat all three insults equally.
"Dick" as an insult ranges from mild to moderate intensity depending on the tone of the speaker, and simply means mean or rude, perhaps overly pushy or aggressive. "Pussy" is also mild to moderate, but has a more specific connotation of cowardice and weakness, and going simply on personal observation, a man will be far more offended/upset if you call him a pussy than if you call him a dick. Especially considering that masculinity is actually *supposed* to be aggressive and, to a point, abrasive in this culture, "dick" can be the sort of insult that signals you're doing something to be proud of, in a fucked-up sort of way. "Dick" is still an insult, but it's the sort of insult that leaves one's all-important Masculinity Cred intact. "Pussy", on the other hand, is deliberately calculated to cut deeper by undermining said Masculinity Cred.
And then, of course, there's "cunt". One of the Big Bads of the insult dictionary. Widely acknowledged as the worst thing you can call a woman - or, really, anyone. One of the very few cuss words that is still unacceptable among most people, even people who regularly pepper their (our, cause I'm totally one of them, in case you couldn't tell) speech with "fuck". The one you pull out when you really want to make your point that you have an epic amount of disdain and hate for someone - usually a woman.
One of these things is not like the other ones...
[TW: implied/verbal violence against trans* people]
This is actually an old draft that's been kicking around the Unfinished Thoughts black hole for awhile now, until this post on tumblr revived it the other day. Because it basically expresses the same context-free viewpoint that makes the BWAD argument specious, and I just could not let it go without comment, especially given it dovetailed rather well with an already-mostly-written post. Behold:
 |
| Two identical Venn diagrams stacked on top of each other, with blue and red circles and overlapping purple section. Text used to read (it doesn't show up against this background, sorry) "If this is okay" over the first diagram, where the circles are labeled "cis" and "scum" and the overlap "cis scum", then "Then so is this" over the second, where the circles are labeled "trans" and "scum" and the overlap is "trans scum" |
Apparently, there are a whole lot of people in this world who have never heard of context before.
Following the same logic, and for the same reason, as the argument against comparing "dick" to "pussy" or "cunt" as insults, "die cis scum" and "die trans scum" are not insults that carry the same social weight. One is an oppressed group basically shouting "fuck you" up at their oppressors, while both groups know full well they don't have the power to do much harm. The other is the group in power, shouting "fuck you" back down the ladder as they continue to kick the people below them in the face. They are not equivalent. They are not equal. Just because they use the same syntactic structure does not mean they are expressing the same kind of sentiment, because the power differential changes things.
Or, to quote an acquaintance of mine on tumblr: When we say "die cis scum", you have your feelings hurt. When you say "die trans scum", we literally end up dead.
Not.
The.
Same.
2.27.2012
On PantheaCon and "Respectful Dialogue"
[Continued TW for transmisogyny, misgendering, genital-essentialism, and for the love of all the gods do not read the comments anywhere without a stiff drink handy. Possibly also some tranquilizers.]
I wrote a post about the genital-essentialist Dianic Wiccan elder Z. Budapest's "for genetic women only" ritual at PantheaCon 2012 last week, which was apparently one of the first-off-the-mark posts about the incident. In following the other posts and commentaries that have run like wildfire through the pagan blogosphere in the week following, I have encountered again and again and again calls for "calm/peaceful/respectful dialogue", asking us all to treat this as a teachable moment, a learning experience, asking us to "work from love" and seek healing for our community.
The problem with that is that we are responding to an act of emotional violence - that it is psychic and verbal violence, rather than physical, does not change the violent nature of the act - that was in no way calm, respectful, peaceful, from love, or seeking healing. (Calling trans women "transies" and describing them as "men who just won't respect women's boundaries" is pretty much the fucking definition of not-respectful.)
So why is it incumbent upon trans women and their allies to "work from love" and "engage in respectful dialogue" to "bring healing to our community"? Why is it unacceptable to be visibly, openly angry at this bigotry on display from one of our community elders? To quote from one of my favorite writers: "When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is that person's responsibility." Z. Budapest engaged - repeatedly! - in the divisive behavior of excluding and misgendering trans women, an act which causes explicit mental, emotional, and spiritual harm*. Any resulting division in the community, then, is her responsibility (and to a lesser degree, her supporters').
So why is there so much tone-policing going on in the form of these calls for "respectful dialogue"?
I am not a Wiccan, and so I do not adhere strictly to their notions of dualistic balance in things. But I do feel that this is a situation that is terribly imbalanced. Anger is a valid response, too, just as valid as any calm, reasoned, respectful choice to engage in dialogue, and yet it is being rejected as "making things worse", in favor of framing respectful dialogue as the One And Only True Way to make any progress on this issue. To add one's voice to the repressive drumbeat of CALM RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE ONLY is to visit a second harm on those who have already been harmed - to add insult to injury, as it were - by saying, in essence, "You are not allowed to be angry at this violation of your right to feel safe in this community. You are not allowed to be angry at the bigotry and hateful rhetoric this person and her supporters have used to exclude you. If you want to participate in the conversation, you must choke down your anger, swallow the hurt, and gently, quietly, politely reply, educate, and dialogue with someone who has no interest in being educated or entering in mutually-respectful dialogue with you."
Because here's the thing: quietness and respect are not synonymous. Z. Budapest may not have raised her voice when she read her statement to those who sat in silent witness on behalf of those excluded at this year's ritual, but that does not make her words respectful. She may not have screamed in the face of a trans woman "YOU'RE A MAN AND I HATE YOU", when she posted her little transphobic screed in response to the uproar last year, but there was no respect in what she said. So why, why on Earth are we expected to respond with respectful dialogue and education to someone who has shown no interest in reciprocating?
In particular, in going back through links to the various pieces I've read in preparation for hitting publish on this post, The Wild Hunt's continuing declaration of being "a place where all voices can be heard" struck me. I respect that, as a large pan-pagan news blog, there's a natural desire to both be and appear neutral on contentious issues like this one. But the problem with being "a place where all voices can be heard" is that, to be quite blunt, not all voices deserve to be heard. When some voices are spreading misinformation and causing harm, they don't need to be heard. To use a worn-out old example, if someone stomps on your foot, and you want to say "Ow that fucking hurt," does a counterpoint "No, it didn't!" really need to be heard, honored, and respected?
Productive dialogue is not always possible in every situation. And indeed, it is a manifestation of privilege to insist that it should be. As Sonneillion said on last week's post, we have HAD dialogue. Tons of it. Oodles of it. An entire anthology, "Gender and Transgender in Modern Paganism". A conference. And this still happened again. We are still having the same damn conversation, the same "dialogue" all over again. It hasn't worked. What's that saying, about doing the same thing over again and expecting different results?
Respectful dialogue is not possible, will not be possible, until those who have caused this divisiveness in our community, and those who have supported and defended them in doing so, are willing to back down and listen, which they have shown no signs of.
Respect is earned. Dialogue is not an obligation on the part of the oppressed. If the pagan community wants respectful dialogue, hold the oppressors accountable to that standard first.
*I have spent the past week and a half watching an acquaintance of mine (you know, that awkward grey space where you're mutual followers on Twitter and Tumblr and have spoken briefly about inconsequential things but never really interacted more directly, even though you actually like the person and think you might be able to be friends), a pagan trans woman, hurting over this. I have watched her speak on her blog about how psychically hurt and emotionally weary she is, and how much harm this exclusionary bullshit has done to her, while my heart has ached in sympathy for her pain. So anyone who wants to argue that this kind of public misgendering and hateful statements isn't *really* harmful, or isn't *really* violence, can GTFO.
I wrote a post about the genital-essentialist Dianic Wiccan elder Z. Budapest's "for genetic women only" ritual at PantheaCon 2012 last week, which was apparently one of the first-off-the-mark posts about the incident. In following the other posts and commentaries that have run like wildfire through the pagan blogosphere in the week following, I have encountered again and again and again calls for "calm/peaceful/respectful dialogue", asking us all to treat this as a teachable moment, a learning experience, asking us to "work from love" and seek healing for our community.
The problem with that is that we are responding to an act of emotional violence - that it is psychic and verbal violence, rather than physical, does not change the violent nature of the act - that was in no way calm, respectful, peaceful, from love, or seeking healing. (Calling trans women "transies" and describing them as "men who just won't respect women's boundaries" is pretty much the fucking definition of not-respectful.)
So why is it incumbent upon trans women and their allies to "work from love" and "engage in respectful dialogue" to "bring healing to our community"? Why is it unacceptable to be visibly, openly angry at this bigotry on display from one of our community elders? To quote from one of my favorite writers: "When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is that person's responsibility." Z. Budapest engaged - repeatedly! - in the divisive behavior of excluding and misgendering trans women, an act which causes explicit mental, emotional, and spiritual harm*. Any resulting division in the community, then, is her responsibility (and to a lesser degree, her supporters').
So why is there so much tone-policing going on in the form of these calls for "respectful dialogue"?
I am not a Wiccan, and so I do not adhere strictly to their notions of dualistic balance in things. But I do feel that this is a situation that is terribly imbalanced. Anger is a valid response, too, just as valid as any calm, reasoned, respectful choice to engage in dialogue, and yet it is being rejected as "making things worse", in favor of framing respectful dialogue as the One And Only True Way to make any progress on this issue. To add one's voice to the repressive drumbeat of CALM RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE ONLY is to visit a second harm on those who have already been harmed - to add insult to injury, as it were - by saying, in essence, "You are not allowed to be angry at this violation of your right to feel safe in this community. You are not allowed to be angry at the bigotry and hateful rhetoric this person and her supporters have used to exclude you. If you want to participate in the conversation, you must choke down your anger, swallow the hurt, and gently, quietly, politely reply, educate, and dialogue with someone who has no interest in being educated or entering in mutually-respectful dialogue with you."
Because here's the thing: quietness and respect are not synonymous. Z. Budapest may not have raised her voice when she read her statement to those who sat in silent witness on behalf of those excluded at this year's ritual, but that does not make her words respectful. She may not have screamed in the face of a trans woman "YOU'RE A MAN AND I HATE YOU", when she posted her little transphobic screed in response to the uproar last year, but there was no respect in what she said. So why, why on Earth are we expected to respond with respectful dialogue and education to someone who has shown no interest in reciprocating?
In particular, in going back through links to the various pieces I've read in preparation for hitting publish on this post, The Wild Hunt's continuing declaration of being "a place where all voices can be heard" struck me. I respect that, as a large pan-pagan news blog, there's a natural desire to both be and appear neutral on contentious issues like this one. But the problem with being "a place where all voices can be heard" is that, to be quite blunt, not all voices deserve to be heard. When some voices are spreading misinformation and causing harm, they don't need to be heard. To use a worn-out old example, if someone stomps on your foot, and you want to say "Ow that fucking hurt," does a counterpoint "No, it didn't!" really need to be heard, honored, and respected?
Productive dialogue is not always possible in every situation. And indeed, it is a manifestation of privilege to insist that it should be. As Sonneillion said on last week's post, we have HAD dialogue. Tons of it. Oodles of it. An entire anthology, "Gender and Transgender in Modern Paganism". A conference. And this still happened again. We are still having the same damn conversation, the same "dialogue" all over again. It hasn't worked. What's that saying, about doing the same thing over again and expecting different results?
Respectful dialogue is not possible, will not be possible, until those who have caused this divisiveness in our community, and those who have supported and defended them in doing so, are willing to back down and listen, which they have shown no signs of.
Respect is earned. Dialogue is not an obligation on the part of the oppressed. If the pagan community wants respectful dialogue, hold the oppressors accountable to that standard first.
*I have spent the past week and a half watching an acquaintance of mine (you know, that awkward grey space where you're mutual followers on Twitter and Tumblr and have spoken briefly about inconsequential things but never really interacted more directly, even though you actually like the person and think you might be able to be friends), a pagan trans woman, hurting over this. I have watched her speak on her blog about how psychically hurt and emotionally weary she is, and how much harm this exclusionary bullshit has done to her, while my heart has ached in sympathy for her pain. So anyone who wants to argue that this kind of public misgendering and hateful statements isn't *really* harmful, or isn't *really* violence, can GTFO.
2.20.2012
How Are We Any Different? On The Continuing Trans*Fail at PantheaCon
This post deals with the ongoing trans exclusion by Z. Budapest in official con-sponsored rituals at PantheaCon. Material on last year's issues can be found here. This is to address this year's ritual and various responses surrounding it. [TW: transmisogyny, misgendering trans women, genital-essentialism]
The broader pagan community likes to think we are so much better than other religions when it comes to openness and acceptance and tolerance. It comes naturally out of being a loose conglomerate of vastly varying traditions and faiths, I think, lumped all together under a big umbrella for convenience (and because we do share some underlying traits). We have to be tolerant and accepting and open, because how else could you have Asatruar and Dianic Wiccans and Gardnerian Wiccans and Chaos magicians and Satanist witches and literally dozens and dozens of other named traditions, not to mention those of us with no trad affiliation at all, all together under the same banner and generic name? We talk a good game and feel smugly superior to those closed-minded others - usually Christians, whether we say so specifically or not - who aren't quite so enlightened as we fancy ourselves to be.
And yet we are also a community which, at one of the biggest annual gatherings, hosts a ritual/permits a ritual to be hosted and publicized - and then defends having done so - which purports to be about "healing for all women", while specifically being for cis women only.
Anyone else seeing a huge fucking disconnect there?
The relevant ritual this year was "The Sacred Body of Woman (Self-Blessing)" (link goes to PDF of the official PantheaCon 2012 program; event listing is on page 40), led by Z. Budapest, founder of the Dianic Wicca tradition. Dianic Wicca is Goddess-focused, in contrast to classical Wicca's duotheistic God-and-Goddess approach, and is practiced almost exclusively by women (certain offshoot traditions and some covens accept men as well). So this ritual, naturally, specified that it was women-only - but not just women-only. "Genetic" women only. Which is basically just the newest iteration of the term "women-born-women", a relic of 2nd-wave feminism still in use by certain groups of trans-exclusionary "radical" feminists (TERFs).
Of course, Words Mean Things, so some snarky part of me wonders if they were requiring chromosome test results before allowing people in. That's really the only way you can tell a "genetic" woman for sure, and if you're going to use weird terminology, you should be expected to follow through on it, in my opinion. (Why they refuse to use "cisgender" like the rest of the civilized gender-discussing world is beyond me. Surely linguistic contortions shouldn't be necessary when there's a perfectly good, established term that means "woman assigned-female-at-birth", which is what all the "genetic women" and "women-born-women" bullshit is really intended to convey?)
At any rate, it certainly says a lot about what you believe regarding the gender of trans people - that is to say, that it's clear you don't believe them to be their actual gender, but view them as pretenders who are "really" still their assigned-at-birth sex, which is really fucking shitty of you - when you have a ritual titled "The Sacred Body of Woman", and which has as its described purpose "[honoring] the body of each and every woman present, the beauty and grace of the feminine form in all of her infinite variety" ...but you specifically exclude trans women from the rite.
It says very clearly that you don't feel their bodies are or deserve to be sacred in the same way as your precious cis bodies. It says you don't think their bodies deserve to be honored alongside your own. It says, most of all, that "the feminine form in all her infinite variety" is only ever cisgender, that you just plain don't count the bodies of trans women as being part of the infinite variety of the feminine form.
All of this is awful, cissexist, transphobic, misgendering, and truly shitty.
But you know what? If you were holding a private ritual somewhere, I wouldn't actually bother you about it, believe it or not. I probably wouldn't be friends with you, and I certainly wouldn't attend your ritual because I don't agree with your determinations of who counts as woman and who doesn't, but it wouldn't really be any of my business unless you asked for my opinion.
It is, however, an entirely different thing when you are holding a ritual at a large public conference that people have paid to attend. You are holding your ritual in a space rented with money paid by attendees, on con time, listed as an official event in the con program. To do that, and frame your ritual as a "celebration of women" with a footnote that says (*some restrictions apply) instead of saying outright that your ritual is a "celebration of cis women/cis womanhood", is very very very much not okay.
Z. Budapest argued last year, and likely will continue to argue this year, that it's a matter of "freedom of religion" and "freedom to practice our Dianic tradition/beliefs" to be allowed to exclude trans women from their women-only rituals. (And I've already seen a good few responses today that take the "freedom of religion" line to defend this year's exclusion, so it's not just confined to her.)
In which case, I would like to know something: what exactly makes TERF-Dianics like Z. Budapest any better than fundies who use "Jesus said so" as a basis to exclude LGBT people from all kinds of spaces and social structures? I opened this post by pointing out how we pagans like to think we're above that sort of shit, especially when it comes to modern social issues. But when you have a well-known community elder misgendering trans women and barring them from rituals at a major pan-pagan conference, and then defending those actions based on "because our religion said so" - how is that any different, exactly?
It's not. It is exactly the same fucking thing as owners/operators of various publicly-available services, for example, such as wedding venues or florists, refusing to do business with a wedding because the couple are the same gender and that violates their religious beliefs. It's exactly the fucking same as pharmacists who deny certain medications to customers because it goes against their (religiously-informed) conscience. Not in degree or severity, no - but the principle is exactly the same, that of excluding people based on religious reasons.
Nobody is saying TERF-Dianics suddenly have to be welcoming of trans women in every ritual they do, or that they have to rework their whole theology around "blood mysteries" and menstruation/birth as the defining signifier of womanhood. Nobody is infringing on their religious freedom (much like nobody is actually infringing upon the Catholic Church's religious freedom in the recent contraception wars, despite aggrieved claims to the contrary). They can have all the cissexist theology and exclusionary policies they want in their religion. Knock yourselves out, kids.
What we are saying is that such exclusionary policies have no place in a major, paid-entry community gathering like PantheaCon.
The other rationalization offered as a shield against community criticism has been the usual "penises are triggering (therefore trans women in the space would be triggering)" claim. Which has several weak points.
Okay, first of all, some people do have triggers relating to certain genitalia. Like this woman, for example, who wrote a letter-to-the-editor for a pagan news bureau detailing her history of abuse and how, if she had gone, and any women with penises had also been there, she would have had to leave. Except that first of all, her phrasing regarding that struck me as being kind of fucked-up: "When we disrobed, if I had seen a penis I would not have been able to stay. Even today I can’t contemplate being naked with a male." The fact that she's conflating a skyclad ritual with non- or pre-op trans women with "being naked with a male" makes it clear that she does not truly respect the gender of the women she repeatedly refers to as "my trans sisters". Second of all, look, I sympathize with her hurting, I truly do. I can't even imagine the trauma she must be dealing with. But that trauma does not give you the right to pass trauma on to others, in the form of misgendering trans women just because you haven't managed to sort out that gender != genitalia.
My second issue with this defense is that there seems to be the assumption that "safe space" means "penis-free" space. And I wonder, why is it that "safe [penis-free] space" for cis survivors of sexual violence is presumed to be more important than "safe [transphobia-free] space" for trans women, who may also be survivors of sexual violence and abuse and need the self-blessing and healing work that this ritual purported to offer?
Lastly, let's consider the phrase "genetic women". It's obviously designed to exclude all trans women, not just pre- or non-op trans women. Because, um...not all trans women have penises. Some have had bottom surgery - some are years and years past surgery, and in a ritual-nudity setting you wouldn't have any idea what a given woman's history was. But "genetic women" and the unspoken-but-clearly-heard, "women-born-women", doesn't take that into account at all. Which pretty much puts the lie to the idea that this was ever about creating penis-free safe space for survivors, rather than just a rationalization for expressing Z. Budapest's documented trans-hate in a ritual setting.
This is something we should not tolerate in our community, and I am deeply disappointed that PantheaCon organizers gave the green light to another explicitly trans-exclusionary ritual this year, in light of last year's issues. The theme for the con this year was "Unity in Diversity", as a nod to healing the wounds caused by events last year, making it doubly - or perhaps triply, or more - inappropriate to perpetuate the problem this way. If you are inclined to send a comment to PantheaCon's organizers on this issue, they can be reached at feedback@pantheacon.com. Please, if you do choose to contact them, be polite, simply explain that you don't feel anti-trans bigotry should be given official sanction in our community with official rituals at a paid event.
If we want to continue to claim the moral high ground, this is something we need to address. Otherwise we are no different from the bigots who hide their bigotry behind a veil of "because God said so!" - we've just changed the name of the god.
The broader pagan community likes to think we are so much better than other religions when it comes to openness and acceptance and tolerance. It comes naturally out of being a loose conglomerate of vastly varying traditions and faiths, I think, lumped all together under a big umbrella for convenience (and because we do share some underlying traits). We have to be tolerant and accepting and open, because how else could you have Asatruar and Dianic Wiccans and Gardnerian Wiccans and Chaos magicians and Satanist witches and literally dozens and dozens of other named traditions, not to mention those of us with no trad affiliation at all, all together under the same banner and generic name? We talk a good game and feel smugly superior to those closed-minded others - usually Christians, whether we say so specifically or not - who aren't quite so enlightened as we fancy ourselves to be.
And yet we are also a community which, at one of the biggest annual gatherings, hosts a ritual/permits a ritual to be hosted and publicized - and then defends having done so - which purports to be about "healing for all women", while specifically being for cis women only.
Anyone else seeing a huge fucking disconnect there?
The relevant ritual this year was "The Sacred Body of Woman (Self-Blessing)" (link goes to PDF of the official PantheaCon 2012 program; event listing is on page 40), led by Z. Budapest, founder of the Dianic Wicca tradition. Dianic Wicca is Goddess-focused, in contrast to classical Wicca's duotheistic God-and-Goddess approach, and is practiced almost exclusively by women (certain offshoot traditions and some covens accept men as well). So this ritual, naturally, specified that it was women-only - but not just women-only. "Genetic" women only. Which is basically just the newest iteration of the term "women-born-women", a relic of 2nd-wave feminism still in use by certain groups of trans-exclusionary "radical" feminists (TERFs).
Of course, Words Mean Things, so some snarky part of me wonders if they were requiring chromosome test results before allowing people in. That's really the only way you can tell a "genetic" woman for sure, and if you're going to use weird terminology, you should be expected to follow through on it, in my opinion. (Why they refuse to use "cisgender" like the rest of the civilized gender-discussing world is beyond me. Surely linguistic contortions shouldn't be necessary when there's a perfectly good, established term that means "woman assigned-female-at-birth", which is what all the "genetic women" and "women-born-women" bullshit is really intended to convey?)
At any rate, it certainly says a lot about what you believe regarding the gender of trans people - that is to say, that it's clear you don't believe them to be their actual gender, but view them as pretenders who are "really" still their assigned-at-birth sex, which is really fucking shitty of you - when you have a ritual titled "The Sacred Body of Woman", and which has as its described purpose "[honoring] the body of each and every woman present, the beauty and grace of the feminine form in all of her infinite variety" ...but you specifically exclude trans women from the rite.
It says very clearly that you don't feel their bodies are or deserve to be sacred in the same way as your precious cis bodies. It says you don't think their bodies deserve to be honored alongside your own. It says, most of all, that "the feminine form in all her infinite variety" is only ever cisgender, that you just plain don't count the bodies of trans women as being part of the infinite variety of the feminine form.
All of this is awful, cissexist, transphobic, misgendering, and truly shitty.
But you know what? If you were holding a private ritual somewhere, I wouldn't actually bother you about it, believe it or not. I probably wouldn't be friends with you, and I certainly wouldn't attend your ritual because I don't agree with your determinations of who counts as woman and who doesn't, but it wouldn't really be any of my business unless you asked for my opinion.
It is, however, an entirely different thing when you are holding a ritual at a large public conference that people have paid to attend. You are holding your ritual in a space rented with money paid by attendees, on con time, listed as an official event in the con program. To do that, and frame your ritual as a "celebration of women" with a footnote that says (*some restrictions apply) instead of saying outright that your ritual is a "celebration of cis women/cis womanhood", is very very very much not okay.
Z. Budapest argued last year, and likely will continue to argue this year, that it's a matter of "freedom of religion" and "freedom to practice our Dianic tradition/beliefs" to be allowed to exclude trans women from their women-only rituals. (And I've already seen a good few responses today that take the "freedom of religion" line to defend this year's exclusion, so it's not just confined to her.)
In which case, I would like to know something: what exactly makes TERF-Dianics like Z. Budapest any better than fundies who use "Jesus said so" as a basis to exclude LGBT people from all kinds of spaces and social structures? I opened this post by pointing out how we pagans like to think we're above that sort of shit, especially when it comes to modern social issues. But when you have a well-known community elder misgendering trans women and barring them from rituals at a major pan-pagan conference, and then defending those actions based on "because our religion said so" - how is that any different, exactly?
It's not. It is exactly the same fucking thing as owners/operators of various publicly-available services, for example, such as wedding venues or florists, refusing to do business with a wedding because the couple are the same gender and that violates their religious beliefs. It's exactly the fucking same as pharmacists who deny certain medications to customers because it goes against their (religiously-informed) conscience. Not in degree or severity, no - but the principle is exactly the same, that of excluding people based on religious reasons.
Nobody is saying TERF-Dianics suddenly have to be welcoming of trans women in every ritual they do, or that they have to rework their whole theology around "blood mysteries" and menstruation/birth as the defining signifier of womanhood. Nobody is infringing on their religious freedom (much like nobody is actually infringing upon the Catholic Church's religious freedom in the recent contraception wars, despite aggrieved claims to the contrary). They can have all the cissexist theology and exclusionary policies they want in their religion. Knock yourselves out, kids.
What we are saying is that such exclusionary policies have no place in a major, paid-entry community gathering like PantheaCon.
The other rationalization offered as a shield against community criticism has been the usual "penises are triggering (therefore trans women in the space would be triggering)" claim. Which has several weak points.
Okay, first of all, some people do have triggers relating to certain genitalia. Like this woman, for example, who wrote a letter-to-the-editor for a pagan news bureau detailing her history of abuse and how, if she had gone, and any women with penises had also been there, she would have had to leave. Except that first of all, her phrasing regarding that struck me as being kind of fucked-up: "When we disrobed, if I had seen a penis I would not have been able to stay. Even today I can’t contemplate being naked with a male." The fact that she's conflating a skyclad ritual with non- or pre-op trans women with "being naked with a male" makes it clear that she does not truly respect the gender of the women she repeatedly refers to as "my trans sisters". Second of all, look, I sympathize with her hurting, I truly do. I can't even imagine the trauma she must be dealing with. But that trauma does not give you the right to pass trauma on to others, in the form of misgendering trans women just because you haven't managed to sort out that gender != genitalia.
My second issue with this defense is that there seems to be the assumption that "safe space" means "penis-free" space. And I wonder, why is it that "safe [penis-free] space" for cis survivors of sexual violence is presumed to be more important than "safe [transphobia-free] space" for trans women, who may also be survivors of sexual violence and abuse and need the self-blessing and healing work that this ritual purported to offer?
Lastly, let's consider the phrase "genetic women". It's obviously designed to exclude all trans women, not just pre- or non-op trans women. Because, um...not all trans women have penises. Some have had bottom surgery - some are years and years past surgery, and in a ritual-nudity setting you wouldn't have any idea what a given woman's history was. But "genetic women" and the unspoken-but-clearly-heard, "women-born-women", doesn't take that into account at all. Which pretty much puts the lie to the idea that this was ever about creating penis-free safe space for survivors, rather than just a rationalization for expressing Z. Budapest's documented trans-hate in a ritual setting.
This is something we should not tolerate in our community, and I am deeply disappointed that PantheaCon organizers gave the green light to another explicitly trans-exclusionary ritual this year, in light of last year's issues. The theme for the con this year was "Unity in Diversity", as a nod to healing the wounds caused by events last year, making it doubly - or perhaps triply, or more - inappropriate to perpetuate the problem this way. If you are inclined to send a comment to PantheaCon's organizers on this issue, they can be reached at feedback@pantheacon.com. Please, if you do choose to contact them, be polite, simply explain that you don't feel anti-trans bigotry should be given official sanction in our community with official rituals at a paid event.
If we want to continue to claim the moral high ground, this is something we need to address. Otherwise we are no different from the bigots who hide their bigotry behind a veil of "because God said so!" - we've just changed the name of the god.
2.10.2012
Ending Bullying Through Victim-Blaming (Bonus Poll Bomb!)
[TW: institutional gender-policing and gender-expression-policing in schools]
I would like everyone who has ever proposed or supported anything like this to take a deep breath and repeat after me: The solution to bullying is not to force the victim to assimilate better. The solution to bullying is to punish those who bully.
Prompted, this time, by a school district in Virginia that wants to add a section to their dress code for students, banning what news articles are referring to as "cross-gender clothing". The actual language for it specifies clothing "that is not in keeping with a student's gender and causes a disruption and/or distracts others from the educational process or poses a health or safety concern."
The school board members who are proposing and supporting this transphobic bullshit are pretending it's a student-safety issue, citing "boys who wore feminine clothing" (the article doesn't actually say anything about the kids in question, whether they're cis boys who were cross-dressing or femme'ing, or trans girls being misgendered, or genderqueer individuals, or what; the "boys in feminine clothing" line is from the school board member, so I don't know how accurate a description it is) who apparently had to use a faculty restroom because they felt unsafe in the student bathrooms.
The solution to bullying is not to force the victim to assimilate better. The solution to bullying is to punish those who bully.
There are two paths to ensuring student safety in this situation. The school can either crack down on bullying and anti-trans* harassment among the student body (supporting the victims) or they can try to regulate away the trans* kids' gender expression so as not to make cis kids uncomfortable (supporting the bullies). I think it's pretty clear which way is NOT how it should be done, y'know? When your approach to student safety involves coddling the bigots and bullies and reprimanding/disciplining the victims for provoking the bullies' assaults, you are very much on the wrong side of things. Case in point: the second comment in the comments thread following the linked article is by a person in support of the proposed rule basically saying that using violence to keep people in line with social expectations is totally normal: "People wanna be different and push society to accept them, sooner or later society will push back..just saying." These are the people this rule would support, not the people who suffer violence or threats of violence at their hands. (As a side note, DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS. A couple of good ones are tucked in there, but mostly it's bigots showing their asses, and nobody needs to see that.)
Of course, I actually keep lol'ing a little bit at the way they're phrasing this shitty clause. They repeatedly refer to "cross-gender" or "appropriate to the student's gender" or "in keeping with the student's gender". Which, um. If you're talking about an AMAB trans girl wearing a dress or something? Is totally in keeping with her gender. It's not in keeping with her assigned sex, which is what the school district is really referring to, but it is in keeping with her gender. By doing this, the school is in fact trying to force her to wear clothes not in keeping with her gender. The school district is trying to make themselves the arbiters of students' genders, when you come right down to it.
And out of curiosity, how are they going to define "appropriate to one's gender"? That's a really subjective concept. Some people believe that pants are inappropriate for girls. Are we going to end up going back to the days when girls literally weren't allowed to wear pants to school? (My mom has told me that it wasn't until she was in high school that girls were allowed to wear pants to school!)
This rule is a clusterfuck of cissexism, transphobia, and just sheer stupidity and ignorance. So let's poll-bomb the news site! Go here and vote "no", if you'd be so kind. And let's hope that the school district sees reason and/or chooses to focus on the real issues of bullying at play in this situation, instead of trying to forcibly misgender trans* and gender-non-conforming kids under the banner of "student safety".
I would like everyone who has ever proposed or supported anything like this to take a deep breath and repeat after me: The solution to bullying is not to force the victim to assimilate better. The solution to bullying is to punish those who bully.
Prompted, this time, by a school district in Virginia that wants to add a section to their dress code for students, banning what news articles are referring to as "cross-gender clothing". The actual language for it specifies clothing "that is not in keeping with a student's gender and causes a disruption and/or distracts others from the educational process or poses a health or safety concern."
The school board members who are proposing and supporting this transphobic bullshit are pretending it's a student-safety issue, citing "boys who wore feminine clothing" (the article doesn't actually say anything about the kids in question, whether they're cis boys who were cross-dressing or femme'ing, or trans girls being misgendered, or genderqueer individuals, or what; the "boys in feminine clothing" line is from the school board member, so I don't know how accurate a description it is) who apparently had to use a faculty restroom because they felt unsafe in the student bathrooms.
The solution to bullying is not to force the victim to assimilate better. The solution to bullying is to punish those who bully.
There are two paths to ensuring student safety in this situation. The school can either crack down on bullying and anti-trans* harassment among the student body (supporting the victims) or they can try to regulate away the trans* kids' gender expression so as not to make cis kids uncomfortable (supporting the bullies). I think it's pretty clear which way is NOT how it should be done, y'know? When your approach to student safety involves coddling the bigots and bullies and reprimanding/disciplining the victims for provoking the bullies' assaults, you are very much on the wrong side of things. Case in point: the second comment in the comments thread following the linked article is by a person in support of the proposed rule basically saying that using violence to keep people in line with social expectations is totally normal: "People wanna be different and push society to accept them, sooner or later society will push back..just saying." These are the people this rule would support, not the people who suffer violence or threats of violence at their hands. (As a side note, DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS. A couple of good ones are tucked in there, but mostly it's bigots showing their asses, and nobody needs to see that.)
Of course, I actually keep lol'ing a little bit at the way they're phrasing this shitty clause. They repeatedly refer to "cross-gender" or "appropriate to the student's gender" or "in keeping with the student's gender". Which, um. If you're talking about an AMAB trans girl wearing a dress or something? Is totally in keeping with her gender. It's not in keeping with her assigned sex, which is what the school district is really referring to, but it is in keeping with her gender. By doing this, the school is in fact trying to force her to wear clothes not in keeping with her gender. The school district is trying to make themselves the arbiters of students' genders, when you come right down to it.
And out of curiosity, how are they going to define "appropriate to one's gender"? That's a really subjective concept. Some people believe that pants are inappropriate for girls. Are we going to end up going back to the days when girls literally weren't allowed to wear pants to school? (My mom has told me that it wasn't until she was in high school that girls were allowed to wear pants to school!)
This rule is a clusterfuck of cissexism, transphobia, and just sheer stupidity and ignorance. So let's poll-bomb the news site! Go here and vote "no", if you'd be so kind. And let's hope that the school district sees reason and/or chooses to focus on the real issues of bullying at play in this situation, instead of trying to forcibly misgender trans* and gender-non-conforming kids under the banner of "student safety".
6.10.2010
Blogswarm: Revise the FDA's Ban On Gay Men Giving Blood
Currently, the FDA bans gay and bisexual men (and any other man who has had sex with men [MSM]) from giving blood. If a man has had sex with another man even once since 1977, he is permanently disqualified from donating blood. The ban is a relic of the AIDS panic of the 80's, when HIV/AIDS was "the gay disease", couldn't be tested for reliably, etc. It made sense then. But now? Now, HIV affects every demographic. Now, it can be detected by testing within 2 weeks of exposure. And yet the rules are still such that if a man once had protected sex with another man 30 years ago, he will never be allowed to donate blood, while a man who has had sex with a known HIV-positive woman is only deferred for a year, after which he may donate blood again. This is anti-gay (and apparently is sometimes used as anti-trans, depending on the personnel at a given blood center) discrimination, pure and simple, and it needs to go away.
Right now, the FDA is convening a committee on whether or not to reconsider the ban. They are open to public comments. Please, email Dr. Holmberg - jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov - to encourage the committee to replace the ban with a policy grounded in science in fact, rather than discrimination. Additional talking points and a form letter can be found here, if you want to use that.
Please email!!
Right now, the FDA is convening a committee on whether or not to reconsider the ban. They are open to public comments. Please, email Dr. Holmberg - jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov - to encourage the committee to replace the ban with a policy grounded in science in fact, rather than discrimination. Additional talking points and a form letter can be found here, if you want to use that.
Please email!!
1.18.2010
Tranny-Alert.com, Redux
It is, apparently, the site that will not die. Remember Tranny-Alert.com, the horrifying and offensive site that advised readers, if they saw a suspected "tranny", to "snap your fingers, snap a pic, and email those photos to: mayday@tranny-alert.com!", and then posted the reader-submitted pics of women, be they transwomen, drag queens, or not-feminine-enough ciswomen, to the blog? The one we rallied against, last summer, until it shut down?
It's back.
An anonymous commenter on the original post tipped me off to the zombification of this trans-hating monstrosity, and I went to check it out. It is, for a mercy, reborn without the outing-transwomen aspect that I originally objected to in such strong terms. Now, it seems to be content with posting news and fashion items that relate in any way to transwomen or crossdressing. Which is at least an improvement.
BUT. You knew there had to be a but to this, didn't you? BUT. They are still throwing the word "tranny" around like it's going out of style (had a Freudian slip of the fingers there and wrote "stale"...) and sensationalizing transwomen as some kind of sideshow to chronicle and stare at. This new version is not so much better, as it is just less worse.
While the new T-A.com doesn't directly endanger the lives of individual transwomen with pictures and outing anymore, it still contributes to an atmosphere and a culture in which transwomen are freaks, a joke, blogged about not for any purpose of actually advancing the acceptance and de-Othering of transpeople into society, but for the amusement and shock value. They are no longer saying "Here's a transwoman! Get her!" But they are still saying "Transwomen are something to be looked out for, and laughed at." Which indirectly supports the kind of culture in which shit like the original T-A.com was possible, in which transwomen face a murder rate some six times the average and the constant dangers of trans-bashing, in which transwomen cannot just go about living their lives and not constantly being noticed, pointed out, marginalized, and Othered.
Sadly, since they've left off the most directly threatening part of their mission, it'll be harder to get it closed down again through official complaints, if it's possible at all. But my teaspoon will be in evidence nonetheless, this time taking the form of a direct email to the trans-haters in question. Maybe we can't get it taken down, but we can certainly make them feel the force of our displeasure! Who's with me?
It's back.
An anonymous commenter on the original post tipped me off to the zombification of this trans-hating monstrosity, and I went to check it out. It is, for a mercy, reborn without the outing-transwomen aspect that I originally objected to in such strong terms. Now, it seems to be content with posting news and fashion items that relate in any way to transwomen or crossdressing. Which is at least an improvement.
BUT. You knew there had to be a but to this, didn't you? BUT. They are still throwing the word "tranny" around like it's going out of style (had a Freudian slip of the fingers there and wrote "stale"...) and sensationalizing transwomen as some kind of sideshow to chronicle and stare at. This new version is not so much better, as it is just less worse.
While the new T-A.com doesn't directly endanger the lives of individual transwomen with pictures and outing anymore, it still contributes to an atmosphere and a culture in which transwomen are freaks, a joke, blogged about not for any purpose of actually advancing the acceptance and de-Othering of transpeople into society, but for the amusement and shock value. They are no longer saying "Here's a transwoman! Get her!" But they are still saying "Transwomen are something to be looked out for, and laughed at." Which indirectly supports the kind of culture in which shit like the original T-A.com was possible, in which transwomen face a murder rate some six times the average and the constant dangers of trans-bashing, in which transwomen cannot just go about living their lives and not constantly being noticed, pointed out, marginalized, and Othered.
Sadly, since they've left off the most directly threatening part of their mission, it'll be harder to get it closed down again through official complaints, if it's possible at all. But my teaspoon will be in evidence nonetheless, this time taking the form of a direct email to the trans-haters in question. Maybe we can't get it taken down, but we can certainly make them feel the force of our displeasure! Who's with me?
8.30.2009
CA Passes Equal ID Act!
So it turns out California can still do SOME things right. (via) Our Legislature passed the Equal ID Act yesterday, providing a means for California-born transpeople (living in state or elsewhere) to use a court order gotten in the county of their birth to have their CA birth certificate reissued to reflect their gender accurately. With a 22-14 vote in the CA Senate, the bill now moves on to the Governator's desk. After his repeated vetoing of bills that would have legalized same-sex marriage that made it to his desk (Congratulations Vermont for being the first to do it the right way, but I'll always be bitter; it should have been us. Thanks for nothing, Governator.) I'm wary of trusting Schwarzefucker to do the right thing for our community. But we shall see.
But while we're at it, why don't we lean hard on the 14 "no" votes? Just because it passed, doesn't mean we should be complacent. Teaspoons ahoy! If you're a California voter, go here and click on "Your Senator" in the sidebar to go to an interactive district-finder.
Sam Aaenestad
Roy Ashburn
John J. Benoit
Dave Cogdill
Dave Cox
Jeff Denham
Robert D. Dutton
Tom Harman
Dennis Hollingsworth
Bob Huff
Abel Maldonado
Tony Strickland
Mimi Walters
Mark Wyland
But while we're at it, why don't we lean hard on the 14 "no" votes? Just because it passed, doesn't mean we should be complacent. Teaspoons ahoy! If you're a California voter, go here and click on "Your Senator" in the sidebar to go to an interactive district-finder.
Sam Aaenestad
Roy Ashburn
John J. Benoit
Dave Cogdill
Dave Cox
Jeff Denham
Robert D. Dutton
Tom Harman
Dennis Hollingsworth
Bob Huff
Abel Maldonado
Tony Strickland
Mimi Walters
Mark Wyland
8.26.2009
Caster Semenya's Chromosomes: None Of Our Business
Everyone and their sister in the progressive blogosphere has posted about the fucked-up way the International Association of Athletics Federation is treating Caster Semenya. Short recap, if you haven't heard: Caster Semenya is an 18-yr-old runner from South Africa, who just took the gold in the 800m at this year's World Championships in Athletics. Her time was so impressive, and she herself so lacking in our normative ideas of "appropriate" femininity, that the IAAF decided to force her to undergo gender testing on the suspicion that she isn't "really" a woman. For a more thorough explanation of just why this is fucked-up, try here, here, or here (read the comments, that's where the gold is).
Now, there is a petition going about taking IAAF to task for their shameful treatment of Semenya. Tell the IAAF to stay out of Caster Semenya's pants!
Remember Tranny-Alert, and how fast they scuttled away before the righteous blaze of our progressive fury? Let's do that again, shall we? Add your name. Tell the IAAF it's not ok to demand gender-testing of Caster Semenya.
Now, there is a petition going about taking IAAF to task for their shameful treatment of Semenya. Tell the IAAF to stay out of Caster Semenya's pants!
Remember Tranny-Alert, and how fast they scuttled away before the righteous blaze of our progressive fury? Let's do that again, shall we? Add your name. Tell the IAAF it's not ok to demand gender-testing of Caster Semenya.
6.26.2009
Tranny-Alert.com: Hey, transphobic murderers, we've marked your targets for you!
This isn't even just a WTF. This is an "Are you fucking kidding me?" This is a "What the flying fluffy fuck on a flaming stack of fuck?"
Via Gudbuytjane on Feministing Community, I found out today about a site called Tranny Alert, a site which collects and publishes member-submitted photos of drag queens and women suspected to be trans. They encourage their members: "Remember, if you spot a tranny: snap your fingers, snap a pic, and e-mail those photos to: mayday@tranny-alert.com !"
Because, you know, it's totally not dangerous to be outed as a transwoman. Just ask Angie Zapata (beaten to death by her boyfriend, who later called her "it" in statements from jail), or Duanna Johnson (discovered shot in Memphis a few weeks after suing the Memphis police department for the abuse she suffered at their hands), or Gwen Araujo (beaten and strangled at the age of 17 after some male classmates discovered she still had male genitalia), or any of the other 350 trans people on the Remembering Our Dead list, all of whom were murdered for daring to live as the gender they were and not the sex they were born (and the many more who have died in such a manner but are not on the list).
Tranny Alert claims to be "admiring" the transwomen it outs, of course. Their disclaimer reads: This site is in no way meant to disparage or belittle any member of the LGBT community. We here at Tranny Alert are simply admirers of the bravery and uniqueness of the entire trans-community. While there is a comedic element to our site, under no circumstance do we condone any mistreatment of any member of the LGBT community and support full and equal rights for all. For more information please visit the National Center for Transgender Equality at http://www.nctequality.org/.
You know what? The folks at Operation Rescue and other rabid anti-choice organizations were only "providing information" on abortion providers, and as soon as Dr. Tiller was murdered, they piled over each other to proclaim their innocence and insist that they would never condone such violence, never! But they provided the rhetoric, and the information, and their actions helped a man kill. And in a world where "trans panic" is still considered a viable defense strategy when a cis man kills a trans woman, in a world where only about half of U.S. states have hate-crimes legislation or non-discrimination statutes that include protection for gender identity, in a world where politicians are perfectly comfortable painting a trans-inclusive federal hate crimes act as "pedophile's rights", taking and posting photos of women someone thinks are trans is equivalent to painting a target on their backs, whether they're actually trans or not.
To the sick fucks behind TrannyAlert: trans women's lives are not a joke. They are not props for your website, toys for your fetish. Your casual and continual use of the offensive term "tranny" dehumanizes the women you claim to admire. Even if we take your disclaimer at face value and assume that you really do "admire" trans women, that you would never harm one or advocate that someone else do so, we live in a world where there are all too many who would. Stop outing these women. Stop endangering their lives. They deserve better.
Via Gudbuytjane on Feministing Community, I found out today about a site called Tranny Alert, a site which collects and publishes member-submitted photos of drag queens and women suspected to be trans. They encourage their members: "Remember, if you spot a tranny: snap your fingers, snap a pic, and e-mail those photos to: mayday@tranny-alert.com !"
Because, you know, it's totally not dangerous to be outed as a transwoman. Just ask Angie Zapata (beaten to death by her boyfriend, who later called her "it" in statements from jail), or Duanna Johnson (discovered shot in Memphis a few weeks after suing the Memphis police department for the abuse she suffered at their hands), or Gwen Araujo (beaten and strangled at the age of 17 after some male classmates discovered she still had male genitalia), or any of the other 350 trans people on the Remembering Our Dead list, all of whom were murdered for daring to live as the gender they were and not the sex they were born (and the many more who have died in such a manner but are not on the list).
Tranny Alert claims to be "admiring" the transwomen it outs, of course. Their disclaimer reads: This site is in no way meant to disparage or belittle any member of the LGBT community. We here at Tranny Alert are simply admirers of the bravery and uniqueness of the entire trans-community. While there is a comedic element to our site, under no circumstance do we condone any mistreatment of any member of the LGBT community and support full and equal rights for all. For more information please visit the National Center for Transgender Equality at http://www.nctequality.org/.
You know what? The folks at Operation Rescue and other rabid anti-choice organizations were only "providing information" on abortion providers, and as soon as Dr. Tiller was murdered, they piled over each other to proclaim their innocence and insist that they would never condone such violence, never! But they provided the rhetoric, and the information, and their actions helped a man kill. And in a world where "trans panic" is still considered a viable defense strategy when a cis man kills a trans woman, in a world where only about half of U.S. states have hate-crimes legislation or non-discrimination statutes that include protection for gender identity, in a world where politicians are perfectly comfortable painting a trans-inclusive federal hate crimes act as "pedophile's rights", taking and posting photos of women someone thinks are trans is equivalent to painting a target on their backs, whether they're actually trans or not.
To the sick fucks behind TrannyAlert: trans women's lives are not a joke. They are not props for your website, toys for your fetish. Your casual and continual use of the offensive term "tranny" dehumanizes the women you claim to admire. Even if we take your disclaimer at face value and assume that you really do "admire" trans women, that you would never harm one or advocate that someone else do so, we live in a world where there are all too many who would. Stop outing these women. Stop endangering their lives. They deserve better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
