Author: has written 5280 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

13 Responses

  1. a dude somewhere…  » Blog Archive   » Fit to be tied.

    [...] ust let it go. Think of the children before using that potty mouth. Oh hell yeah…Dennis Prager is a retard. This entry was [...]

  2. Johnny
    Johnny August 4, 2005 at 5:33 pm |

    Great post. I don’t think that Prager missed elementary school science class though, I just don’t think he believed it…however…in this article, as in all his articles, what I find so fascinating is how he picks and chooses which parts of the “Judeo-Christian” law to pay attention to. To even exist, he has to reject everything the man he calls christ is reported to have said…I think the word the bible provides for men like Prager is Pharisee. Something about throwing stones and judging others…but I suspect he forgot to study that part too.

  3. The Debate Link
    The Debate Link August 4, 2005 at 8:10 pm |

    How Did I Become a Christian All of the Sudden?

    Dennis Prager is at it again. This time, his construction of “Judeo-Christian” values leads him to attack “transgendered” persons, by which he means cross-dressers and other persons who act in a manner contrary to how their gender “should” behave…

  4. aeonsomnia
    aeonsomnia August 4, 2005 at 8:28 pm |

    I think Prager said that about transsexuals so that Ben Shapiro wouldn’t be so embarassed about his fascination with them;)

    Also, conservatives seem to believe that they’re “God’s agents here on Earth”, so I’m guessing that men’s clothing would be pants and shirts, and women’s clothes would be dresses (preferably with full skirts) and high heels. (Prager’s actually ranted about women not wearing dresses anymore here and here. He even reasons in those columns that women flash people, Girls Gone Wild style, to show that they are feminine, and ’cause they don’t wear 50’s feminine dress anymore). Anyway, maintaining gender roles, as the Good Lord intended, is a major theme running through most wingnut thought.

  5. Antigone
    Antigone August 4, 2005 at 8:49 pm |

    The only thing I don’t understand is why it’s dangerous to have guys running around in dresses, STILL. So, you’re a fundie nut job, and you have to impose these fundie nut job ideas on your kids and congregation. m’kay. I’m a feminist, and I’m busy trying to persuade people that that’s a good way to be, contrary to you’re patriarchy-affirming religion (good from evil, male from female…the better one always goes first right?).

    Freedom OF speach means you don’t get freedom FROM speach. I have to hear the nutjobs on the corners, I have to see that gross guy with his hairy beer gut with no shirt off. You don’t get a pass on seeing guys in pumps.

  6. Heliologue
    Heliologue August 5, 2005 at 12:30 am |

    Boy, I wish I got paid to write crap like that every week.

  7. Dunc
    Dunc August 5, 2005 at 8:10 am |

    Hey – I’m Scottish. Where does the kilt fit into this nonesense?

  8. mutant cat
    mutant cat August 5, 2005 at 8:44 am |

    I thought that Jesus himself wore a dress, along with those cute little backless sandals. Where does that fit into all of this?

  9. piny
    piny August 5, 2005 at 7:43 pm |

    …except does anyone outside of conservatives and Rocky Horror Picture Show use the word “transsexual” anymore?

    You don’t mean to say here that “transsexual” is no longer currently applied to anyone, do you? It means, “someone who has changed* sex*.” Lots of people still identify as transsexual, and most care providers still use transsexual. “Transgender” is used interchangeably with “transsexual” in clinical and lay settings to refer to people who transition, but most of the transitioning people I know use “transsexual” to refer specifically to themselves. Transgender is too broad and overdetermined to be used in the specific context of transition.

    “Transgender” was originally coined to refer to people who identified as the other sex but did not physically transition. These days, “physically transition” can mean any or any set of several different SRS-related procedures; back then, it was simpler because we were all being tailored into box sets. Plus, there are plenty of people who consider legal/social transition perfectly sufficient to qualify one as “transsexual.”

    Because of this etymology–and because “transgender” also connoted “better than those freak-ass transsexuals”–there are transsexuals who reject “transgender” as an umbrella term. Some transsexuals also reject the idea that there can be any meaningful umbrella term that covers both a genderqueer and someone who sees his transition as history and his identity as uncomplicatedly male. This essay lays out that viewpoint pretty handily; scroll down to, “The Hijacking.” While I don’t agree with some of what Diana says, it is important to have some specific term for “people who change sex.” Eddie Izzard, Judith Halberstam, and I have different problems to confront, and different needs.

    *This, of course, is where it gets a little sticky.

  10. piny
    piny August 5, 2005 at 7:56 pm |

    “Transgender” is used interchangeably with “transsexual” in clinical and lay settings to refer to people who transition, but most of the transitioning people I know use “transsexual” to refer specifically to themselves. Transgender is too broad and overdetermined to be used in the specific context of transition.

    …I’m sorry. This is really garbled. Clinical people–like my HMO, which lists me as “female-to-male transgender”–tend not to differentiate because the only context in which they refer to either kind of “trans”-people is a medical one–that is, all “trans-” connotes “someone taking some medical SRS-related step,” or, “transsexual.”

    The non-doctors who don’t differentiate tend not to because–if this makes any sense–they’re either unaware that there’s any other kind of “trans-” but people who undergo SRS-type stuff, or because they’re using “transgender” in the umbrella context.

  11. Amber
    Amber August 6, 2005 at 7:15 pm |

    My ex-husband is transgendered. This shit pisses me off to no end. Until people stop spouting off at the mouth and take the time to actually LEARN what transgendered means, the battle for transgender rights will continue to be a long, arduous, uphill one. I mean, I’m not happy that my husband decided to be a woman, but I’m intelligent enough to… -oh, hell, I don’t know where I’m going with this. This comment isn’t very remarkable; I’m just pissed off.

  12. emilyzilch
    emilyzilch August 7, 2005 at 12:09 am |

    the stupidest part of all of these arguments – although it is very difficult to decide which, in fact, is the most stupid – is the very issue of clothing and gender performance.

    i mean, in southeast asia, men wear skirts and women wear pants. so in conservative muslim aceh, the proper atire for a hijabi – or even niqabi – woman involves pants. and for a man, an ankle-length skirt (normally in a nice madras plaid, incidentally).

    the whole issue is just ridiculous. i mean, transgendered people are not moving necessarily from one box to another; in fact, when people ask me if i’m straight, i have to ask them what sex they think i am. trans people’s sexes can only be changed so far: hormones, maybe surgery when available and appropriate, but chromosomes and body-builds and childhoods don’t evaporate.

  13. Official Shrub.com Blog  » Blog Archive   » Sunday Link Blogging

    [...] k, Emma discusses the links between Faith, terror and gender Jill at feministe brings us God Hates Dudes in Dresses, a critique of an article reporting on ho [...]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.