Fri 29 Dec 2006
Snarkity The Snarky Snark
Posted by Sly Civilian under Trans, Mental Health, Feminism, Queer
Snarkity is at it again. Today’s “I don’t really mean this, but I’ll say it anyways” Award goes to:
Here, my experience, again, is, if someone offers a differing view of transgender issues than the one you hold, bfp, then that person gets immediately labeled “transphobic.” At that point, the discussion really ends. There’s nothing more to be said. Which is why I am saying, I hope space will be made at some point for the discussion I think needs to be had.
That’s from Heart at BFP’s place.
She’s got a point. I will now stop using the following discussion ending terms: racist, homophobic, sexist.
It’s not discrimination. It’s a difference of opinion!
Can’t we just learn to agree to disagree about whether or not you’re actually a person?
-sly
PS: I may or may not post more comprehensively on this later. But in the mean time, read BFP’s full thread, and also go to SE for commentary on the “crazy” baiting that accompanied the anti-trans rhetoric.
17 Responses to “ Snarkity The Snarky Snark ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Responding To The Feminist Anti-Transsexual Arguments
January 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pm[…] Sly Civilian quotes this comment, left by Heart at BFP’s place: Here, my experience, again, is, if someone offers a differing view of transgender issues than the one you hold, bfp, then that person gets immediately labeled “transphobic.” At that point, the discussion really ends. There’s nothing more to be said. […]
-
Trackback from The Debate Link
January 7th, 2007 at 6:16 pmCard Me…
A post by Ampersand on feminist anti-transsexual arguments reminds of something I’ve been kind of curious about: “Cards.” Not as in playing cards, or even Magic Cards (though both are very interesting), but as in “you’re playing the X Card,” wher…
December 29th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
You forget classist and ableist (insert sir or ma’am)
December 29th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
I did. I guess I need to get better about discussing those issues, and not being so quick to judge.
And it’s sir, more or less.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Anyone who doesn’t think a transperson is a person deserves an immediate burst of protest-that’s not the type of thing you just let go.
I hope to heavens that most radical feminists fully accept the humanity of all transpeople. (I don’t know how to even talk about this without throwing out the opinions of the haters. I know that’s not adequate, but I’m doing it just for this comment.) But with the long history of fighting between radical feminists and transpeople-on the Michigan boards, the subject is so tense, so dangerous, that virtually no real discussion is happening. I think that discussion could be extremely productive, I think allies and friendships could be forged, and it would help all of us.
It should be a given, but maybe now that things are so hostile, it needs to be explicitly stated: every transperson has the same level of humanity that I do. Various points of contention deserve discussing. I don’t know where Heart stands on this (though the comment above goes too far), but for *me*, when I start to discuss something that I know has been fought over in the past, I get queasy and nervous and afraid I’ll be labeled a transphobe (I’m even feeling shaky leaving this comment). I’m not trying to compare that to what transpeople have been through-that would be ridiculous. There’s a lot of talking that needs to happen, but nobody is doing that type of talking. There’s no true discussion.
Sorry for writing a book, I just think this issue is so important. Transpeople and radical feminists need to be talking to each other about the things that have caused fighting in the past. Sorry if I’m not making sense.
December 29th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Can’t we just learn to agree to disagree about whether or not you’re actually a person?
Straw man–(or straw woman if you prefer.)
The question is: Can’t we just learn to agree to disagree about whether or not you’re actually a woman exactly like I am?
December 29th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
It’s an impossible discussion to have spotted elephant, because there is no common ground with bigots. If someone insists she is a woman, but another says, nope you were born with that Y chromosome and slams the door, what can you do?
I guess the way I feel about it if someone says, “This is who I am”, who is anyone else to question it? Especially when it has nothing to do with them, it’s not like it’s some sort of scam on them. It’s like saying that the discussion will be, is transperson saying she’s a woman a liar? How can the transwoman be involved without being insulted?
Some things simply are not about opinions and a persons basic identity is one of them.
December 30th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
SE…while i posted that comment in isolation, it’s the context that gives me reason for snark. These discussions are difficult, no doubt. But this show of privilege is just as discussion stopping as anything, and undercuts any possible recognition of the issues at hand. I know well meaning people who believe that such labels as transphobia, racist, etc…are counterproductive. I could not disagree more, and i’m very wary of the more privileged person in a discussion pulling that out.
maribelle, again, i will point to the larger context of these comments. The fight over trans issues in feminism and queerdom has been nothing less than a debate over intrinsic value, not one of identity. Have you read the statements being made?
The radical dehumanization has been a consistent attribute of these “talks” and remains the most entrenched obstacle to a just conversation. heart has claimed neutrality, but the claim is absurd when the act of being passive in such an enviroment is so decisively harmful to transpersons.
The word exactly betrays your very argument, moreover. The umbrella of women that rad fem community covers is incredibly broad in orientation, presentation, outlook, in short…in gender. What’s exactly about it?
Donna- Pretty much. I generally take the tack that a person has the right to define their idenity as they so chose, in conversation with the communities that care for them. I don’t much buy the existential vision of people manufacturing identities whole cloth, but i do place heavy emphasis on agency. It is in relationship to the communities around us that we form our sense of identity anyways…
December 31st, 2006 at 12:01 pm
The question is: Can’t we just learn to agree to disagree about whether or not you’re actually a woman exactly like I am?
No, actually, this is a false version of the position Heart purports to dispute. Radfem theory does not accept transwomen as women, _period_. They’re not a different kind of woman.
December 31st, 2006 at 1:07 pm
I want to say that we can change the theory if it doesn’t fit the facts or something. But I worry I am offending people.
December 31st, 2006 at 1:45 pm
“I want to say that we can change the theory if it doesn’t fit the facts or something.”
Absolutely. There is a invaluable and devastating critique of gendered violence in rad fem theory. The problem, as i lay out in my follow up post that i’m editing now, is that using that language alone has backed these folks into a corner where they are almost obliged to contest transidenity. If your theory pushes you someplace like that…hold fast to what is good, and toss the rest out the freaking window.
Piny- One of the problems is that Heart presents a moving target. Able to condone radical dehumanization in one moment, and then cozy up to nexyjo the next…she appears to be trying to claim that she is defining transwomen as another kind of woman, capable of some participation in some feminist spaces.
Turns out, tho, that it’s not just the consent to host lucknkyl’s rants, it’s also that the “some participation” turns out to be to about the exact extent that she’ll let Teh Menz in. Which is where your point is right on.
Heart’s is an indefensible position at best (she cops to a watered down yet still definitive biological determinism), and leads to such asinine commentary as the quote I showcase above.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Well, not all radfems agree, about *many* things.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:22 pm
se…indeed. which is why some of the inflexibility on this issue frustrates me. there are people who have, for some time, authentically created a rad fem idenity that doesn’t involve this anti-trans crap.
i tend to think that this stems from a willingness to use other frames of analysis to supplement and evolve a rad fem perspective.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Yea, like rad fem isn’t like stuck in a time warp. We can move as we learn to understand things.
December 31st, 2006 at 3:23 pm
se…there’s a clause missing there.
“there are people, like you, who have…”
That might make more sense. Despite disagreements with you on other things, i’m very glad to have had your voice with us on the problems of discussion in those threads…especially in the pathologizing of trans idenity as “crazy.”
December 31st, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Thanks, Sly. Really-thank you. I’ve been feeling like I’m trying to talk to people based on things we agree on, but that I end up alienating everyone, all at the same time.
Like both you and Shannon said, movements evolve (if they want to remain useful). In the past, and currently, there are radfems who insist gender trumps race. Of course it doesn’t! I think there are things that trans and radfems need to talk out, but I’m tiptoeing here because I’m still new enough at all of this (including radical feminism) that I don’t want to alienate or hurt anyone by randomly saying something ignorant.
January 1st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I like offending people, so I will say enough ignorant things for everyone