This post has been a long time in the procrastinating, because this is a difficult topic and these are some dirty sheets, but I wanted to comment on Hugo’s reference to the racial demographics of his marriage and his attendance roster. It was–it was!–a variant on the tired old “Some of my best friends are…” non-argument:
FYI, I teach at an 80% non-white college and am married to a woman who is of mixed African and Latin heritage; not a guarantor of my progressive bona fides by any means, but part of a larger picture
I’d like to share my own experience with this kind of reasoning. Before I tell my story, I would like to offer a few disclaimers. First of all, this is not meant to imply that I can empathize with or even identify other similar examples, or even that I myself have any idea of what friendship means. Second, this is a minor instance of the things that can be done in the name of friendship–for example, no one’s dead. Third, I am talking dynamics, not comparing scars.
So there’s this guy who fucks transguys.
Wait, no, that’s a mean thing to say. He makes friends with transguys. He makes friends with as many of them as he possibly can. He attends every support group, every meeting, every event, every party built around transguys. He joins every community and organization focused on transguys, on- and offline. He courts them everywhere he finds them. If you have a pulse and a mangina, he wants to make friends with you. Every transguy in the area knows about him. Many of them have slept with him or been propositioned by him. The transguys he has slept with have nothing in common besides that and their possession of both a pulse and a mangina. I take that back: they also tend to be newly-out and much younger than him.
I should say before I continue that this guy isn’t just one guy. There are actually several very prominent and many more less-ambitious tranny-befrienders out there, guys and gals. But for the sake of simplicity, I’m gonna stick with “this guy.” Think of him as an archetype.
So this guy doesn’t call himself a transguy-fucker, or a trannychaser, or even a “transsensual” (“trannychaser who’s sick and tired of being called a ‘trannychaser’”). He calls himself an ally. An activist. He doesn’t just want to make friends with every member of the transmasculine community. He thinks he is a friend to the transmasculine community. Why? Well, he fucks us. His “activism” consists of trying to get us to give him blowjobs. He shows up at meetings because he wants us to give him blowjobs. He marches in our parades because he wants us to give him blowjobs. He’s conversant with trans theory because he wants us to give him blowjobs. His committment to ending transphobia is incidental to getting blowjobs, except when it is a valuable strategy in his quest for blowjobs.
He’s not terribly interesting, attractive, or good, but lots of transguys sleep with him. He’s right there, after all, and ready to go. I think that he’s also attractive because some younger transguys may think that they don’t have the opportunity for anything else. He’s happy to exploit this belief. He’d be an opportunist, if he weren’t a friend.
Transguys cannot question him. They cannot ask him whether or not he is just in it for the blowjobs–because he does spend a lot of time arranging blowjobs. They cannot ask whether it’s okay to use support groups to trick. They cannot ask whether his love for transguys might more properly be called a fetish. They cannot feel ooged-out or threatened. They cannot want his friendly ass out of their space. If they’re uncomfortable, they must be–wait for it–transphobic! If they’d really rather not fuck him, even, they’re transphobic! They must have problems with their sexuality, with their bodies, with themselves. And if they complain about him, he replies as follows: “Don’t be ridiculous! I love transguys! I had sex with one just last night!” And, really, how do you argue with that?
And whenever anyone complains about this or worse treatment, some transguy will pop up and say, “Wait! We shouldn’t complain! We need all the friendship we can get! We’re lucky to have someone who wants to be our friend!” Handy for his purposes, isn’t it?
His best friends are transguys. His very best friends are transguys. We know he’s a friend to us, because he says so. And because he’s a friend to us, he can’t possibly be using us.
I am not saying that Hugo is this guy because he said that his actual best friend for life happened to be a woman of color, or that so many of his students have been. I do not even mean to pick on Hugo in particular. I am explaining why friends and allies do not award themselves those titles. I am providing one example–a really minor example–of how completely fucking meaningless “friendship” can be. I am showing you how wholly perverted it can become and still fail to lodge like a curse in the throats of people like this guy. (In fact, “friend” is so damn meaningless we don’t even use it anymore. We had to create a whole new word, “ally,” which is quickly becoming just as weak.)
This guy is the larger picture. This guy is the person you evoke when you tell people that you make friends with people like them. This guy is the person you become when you use the acceptance of certain group members to contradict the discomfort of certain others.* This guy is the person you become when you tell people that they don’t know who their real friends are.
*And why is a complaint meaningless without the force of unanimous community agreement behind it?
I was just explaining this to my son tonight over dinner. His friends are all black anyway, so he wouldn’t much know how to say “some” of them are :) But, anyway, I was explaining at dinner what was going on and why I was so flippin’ stressed out. Son wanted to know what I meant about it being logically wrong.
If ad hominem is wrong because it’s an attempt to show someone’s argument to be wrong by attacking the person, then it seems to me that you can’t _prove_ your feminist, radical, anti-racist, _fill in the blank_ street cred by pointing to your personal life. (This is why I’ve been a bit on a rantyfest about the distortions surrounding the phrase, “The personal is political” as well.)
In other words, I am using a logical fallacy by saying, “Ha! You support monogamy, but look we caught you messing around on your spouse. Therefore whatever your arguments are about monogamy, they’re wrong!!” (Ad hominem tu quoque)
But, the obverse is logical fallacy too. “Look! I’m not engaged in racism or sexism at my blog since, after all, I have a spouse and students who are people of color.” (Which is not exactly what Hugo said, but this is the example I was using for the kid.)
It is supporting your argument by appealing to what you do in your personal life and that seems, to me, out of bounds in argument, just on those grounds.
But the more important reason, I said to my son, was that it was treating an entire group of people as if they could be represented by one or a handful — and then using them as an amulet to protect you from criticism.
Phooey on that!
But I put the first part out there since there may be people here more versed in logic, argument, and rhetoric than I who might provide feedback.
If anyone does, please email me at info AT pulpculture.org since I might not get back here. I might blog about this so you could leave a comment at the blog address, too.
I don’t think a complaint is meaningless without community agreement behind it. But I think Hugo’s answer (and your frustration with this “person” you spoke of) stems from a desire to be right rather than solve the problem.
It’s not just because he says he’s a friend that makes him a friend – he has obviously convinced other people that he is their friend. If he thinks he’s their friend and they think he’s their friend, then he IS their friend – your judgement of the value of that friendship nonwithstanding.
And attacking someone others perceive as their friend only serves to turn communities against each other. A better solution is to talk about what kind of friends you want and deserve and encourage other people not to settle for less.
Some of my best friends are people who use me.
I completely agree that this form of reverse ad hominem shouldn’t be taken too seriously. We should all be willing to be judged on our actions and words, not our associations or even our own gender or skin color. I would never listen to an anti-feminist woman just because she was a woman, let alone a misogynist man who happened to have a wife or daughters. And really, these days it seems kind of ignorant to use the “some of my best friends are…” cliche.
On the other hand, I can understand the instinct to invoke personal experience to give credibility to your statements, especially if you are coming from the outside. As a latina who looks sort of white and has an anglo last name (thanks to my anglo father), I have found that my opinions about racial politics are listened to differently when the people listening know that I identify as latina, whether they be latino, black, or white. And I’m not sure that’s wrong, at least superficially. If I misspeak or just say something dumb about my academic specialty, then the people I am talking to are more likely to cut me some slack and treat my comments charitably if they know that I have some experience of the things I am speaking about. The same generosity seems to apply in the personal and political realms as well. So, I don’t know, maybe I would use the “actually I’m Mexican American, so I do know about blah, blah, blah” if I thought someone wasn’t taking my arguments seriously because they mistakenly assumed that I was white. But I would do that because I think that a lot of times people would take my argument more seriously once I said it.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that even though we should all be judged on our actions and not our backgrounds, that isn’t always what happens, even among right thinking people. I don’t know, maybe I’m completely wrong. I certainly don’t think that I’m treating an entire group of people as the same, but that’s because I’m using my own experience as an argument, even if it’s an invalid one. I also don’t know if I even want to say that any of this is justified, just that I can understand the temptation.
Anyway, I’m not sure if any of this directly applies to piny’s example of the creepy transguy friend. If the guy persists in being creepy, then he should be out and you shouldn’t have to feel bad about that. Plus, if he were a true friend, he would be reciprocating and not just expecting blow jobs, right?
Piny, I have some concerns about the kinds of connections you’re trying to make here, especially since Hugo retracted that comment, said it was foolish, and apologized for bringing it up. To use his remarks as a lead-in to “So there’s this guy who fucks transguys” seems rather harsh.
Well, then, what is the genesis of those titles? Action? Some kind of agreement, “Yes, we are friends?”
This is something that I’ve never been able to explain to those people who in my life have said “Well my Best Friend is _____fill in the blank” Your example shows really clearly the self-serving nature of the statement and why it tends to rub me the wrong way.
Cool
Of course it’s harsh. It was a really stupid thing to say. I said in as many words that I do not equate the two people; I’m explaining why you never engage in a my-best-friends fallacy. This guy is context.
…And not exactly. Here’s his reply:
Maybe “title” is the whole problem here?
Kinda sounds like a no-win situation.
Thanks for printing my retraction, piny, and thanks for mentioning it, evil_fizz. I confess my heart sank when I started to read this post and saw what I had typed in a rash moment coming up again.
Still, reading about the subject of your post, I am reminded of why it is so dangerous to use the sort of language I used.
Yeah.
There are certain kinds of language that may not _necessarily_ be problematic in themselves, but certainly make you sound like a lots of really clueless and frustrating people.
I’ll use the analogy to feminism — it’s ridiculous to claim to be a feminist because you know a few women, or even to claim not to be a misogynist because you know a few women.
But think for a bit about the difference between “I know lots of feminists, so I can call myself a feminist” and “I know lots of feminists, and they almost invariably say I’m a feminist, too.” I’m not sure how important that difference is, but I do think it’s real.
I think this is all about context, a case by case kind of thing. True, there’s a lot of that “But my best friends are…” annoying nonsense. But usually you can spot the prejudice inherent in it right away. There are many factors that condition a reference to private life, and it’s those other factors that give us a sense of the person’s true stance.
As Melissa points at, there’s a reality of mistrust in “inter__(fill-in-the-blank)____” exchanges. A person who has felt or feels marginalized carries a certain degree of “cultural trauma”, which, as with any other trauma, usually brings about hypervigilance and expectations of prejudice and mistreatment from others who don’t necessarily belong to the same “group”. I know that when I interact with somebody who is queer and/or Latino, my initial attitude towards them is very, very different. Much more open and trusting, like i don’t have to brace myself for that one comment that’ll shatter the illusion of being seen, of being “safe”.
I feel like sometimes, that defense, which is a logical self-protective stance based on a historical and personal history, can really get in the way of engaging in deep, necessary conversation and accepting “allies”. Some folks whose background and identities position them in a more privileged place are truly “enlightened” and committed to fighting social inequities, but can feel blocked and not “let in” because of their privilege. To a certain point, some people may feel like they have to give “personal credentials” to be seen for what they are, true allies, to be understood as complex individuals who have carefully thought about stuff enough to be genuinely aware and committed to helping change things.
The irony is that that very experience of feeling left out and unseen is the daily bread of marginalized individuals so at times I wonder if putting those “allies” in that position of invisibility isn’t an enactment, a kind of unconscious “revenge”.
The thing is, real change is more likely to happen if forming alliances with those who are “privileged”, by widening the scope of “who’s allowed” to fight the fight. The way I’ve worked it out for myself (and it’s a work in progress) is to be aware of where my mistrust comes from when interacting with an “ally”: actual signs of prejudice or the so-far unfounded expectation of prejudice?
That’s true. But I would suggest that most “enlightened” people with privilege can (or should?) recognize the reasons for it, and expect to have to, to some degree, prove themselves before expecting acceptance. I’ve come to see my acceptance into feminst, anti-racist, queer, or whatever else non-privileged activist groups or social networks as a privilege, rather than a right. I fully understand their suspicion, and frankly I tend to be fairly suspicious of fellow straight white guys in similar situations.
How do you mean?
True, KnifeGhost. That recognition shows itself in actions and stance, not words, I agree. And yet, sometimes dynamics are created where these actions and stance are still misconstrued and the person may feel like they need to state things verbally by making a personal reference.
I guess I’m trying to make a distinction between self-serving cluelessness and genuine attempts at being trusted and believed. Superficially, some cases may look similar and yet be completely different. It’s not fair to dump everyone in the same category. Otherwise, we’d be missing the opportunity to forge valuable alliances.
Hmmm…
I think there’s a big difference between friendship and being manipulated. The example that Piny is putting forth seems to me to be a manipulative personality who is playing on the fears and insecurities of some very vulnerable people. In no emotionally meaningful sense can such a relationship be called “friendship” – it’s not between emotional “equals”.
No reason the hominem being ad-ed should come into the discussion at all. If the statement is “That struck me as racist because…” and not “You’re (a) racist because…” it’s a lot easier to repeat the statement and ask that it be listened to or answered on its own merits. People do hear “You’re a racist” when “That was racist” is what actually got said, anyway, but it’s a whole lot easier to get a view seen and comprehended when it’s demonstrably not a personal attack. Just repeating “No, I’m saying that what you did/said seems racist because…” requires patience, but IMO it’s more effective than a full-on attack even when a full-on attack is what the situation seems to beg for.
I’ve indulged in attacks now and then, and I’m pretty good at them. But I don’t kid myself that I’m trying to persuade; I’m just losing my temper.
Forthrightly declaring your own subjective responsibility for a statement, as in the first example, is also a good idea. Most of us have been seriously grated by that pseudo-objective Voice of Authority already, and are not willing to hear it again.
I am, of course, speaking out of my own experience on various sides of various arguments. And I do share some of piny’s experiences with “best friends.” Ironically, or maybe not, some of those treacherous “best friends” have been people who are pretty much like me demographically.
Word.
This is a good point. I tend not to automatically mistrust people who seem interested/open/informed but who may not have firsthand experience. The suspicion comes in when they seem to be a little casual about boundaries–which means that I’m more suspicious of someone with sexual interest in transpeople than I am of someone who just wants to hang out. I do assume some shared knowledge from other transpeople, but at least try not to assume too much (part of this comes from my relatively sheltered experience; I don’t want to ignore problems other transpeople have faced that I’ve been free from.). And I do enter trans-focused and queer-focused space for that sense of community it provides.
I think that I get angry more when friendship becomes a sort of invulnerability loop than when it is mentioned, but I see what you’re saying about a double bind. Although I’m kinda trying to point out that knowing people does not mean knowing about them; inequality doesn’t necessarily precludes the former kind of intimacy.
Sure. And wrt this particular statement, I stick most people who make it in the clueless category. I mean, does a man stepping on a landmine know what he’s about to bring down on himself? I’m trying to explain why these words are attached to a detonator.
Well, the problem with this guy’s claim to friendship is his reasoning, to wit:
I say I am your friend.
Therefore, I am your friend.
Therefore, everything I do, I do as a friend.
Therefore, nothing I do can be harmful to you.
Therefore, you have no reason to complain about anything I do to you.
He’s saying that (a) he gets to decide what friendship means and (b) he gets to claim the label in perpetuity. He’s using the cachet of ally status to screw us over, and exploiting the idea of “ally” as a title rather than as a process.
Yeah, piny, I was making more of an abstract point than actually responding to the specific example you wrote about. The “guy” sounds like he should be squarely put in the category of clueless ass. But since he is, in a way, engaged, even if for suspicious reasons, would it be possible to confront him and question his “friendship” with actual reasoning? Is it even worth it?
Not given the way he’s reacted to a couple of people who’ve tried. His level of investment probably makes it that much more difficult to attack his motives. It seems like the best strategy is just to ignore him and create as many barriers as possible. And hopefully try to apply a little, um, context to his daily interactions.
Piny, the guy you’re describing is not willing to actually oppose transphobia because he is himself a transphobe who sees transmen as pawns in his transguy-blowjob-adventures instead of people, right? But surely there are folks who are attracted to transmen and even prefer transmen as sex partners, but who are not fetishists: they don’t just overlaying their own mental model of desire on each member of a demographic. Do you think that that folks that want transfolks as sex partners ought not to even try to do advocacy work at all, or would you rather have them around as long as they (a) actually see transpeople as humans and are committed to the issue beyond using it as a cruising strategy and (b) are willing to do real work? In other words, are you saying, “if some guy is trying to bone us then he wants something from us and I don’t trust him”? Or are you saying, “just because some guy likes to fuck transmen, doesn’t mean he cares about or even likes transmen, and he may even be a transphobic transman-user masquerading as an activist”?
Thomas, I must admit that this is making my head go a little desky.
The latter. I am not, repeat not saying that everyone who displays interest in or attraction to transguys is automatically a chaser, a fetishist, or a predator. Just as I also was not saying that everyone who does not display interest in or attraction to transguys is a transphobe or a horrible person. You do not have to sleep with us. You do not have to refrain from sleeping with us.
Of course SOFFAs can be allies; I’d be surprised if anyone who could interact that intimately with a transperson would not have some contact with the political/social issues that transpeople deal with. Intimacy in particular can be a touchpoint for all kinds of ideas about bodies, dichotomies, gender roles, and power disparities. I have a great deal of respect for SOFFAs who do that work for the sake of their own moral imperatives and for the sake of their partners’ needs.
However. Sexual and relational intimacy are neither infallible predictors of that kind of committment, nor themselves substitutes for that committment. In some cases, this kind of contact can support inequality. You’d be surprised how frequently people forget that.
This is guy is taking advantage of both misconceptions. He is insisting that sleeping with us is ally work and that it should stand as proof against any complaints about his behavior. He wants a cookie for wanting our cookies. That is why I don’t just call him a “transphobe,” because that confuses his confusion (willful or otherwise) with more obvious hatred. He does oppose transphobia; he just defines in a very shallow and convenient way. And that is why it would bother me if someone read this complaint as a complaint about someone’s preferences, irrespective of the way he seeks to gratify them.
So, in case you were wondering, yes, please, feel free to stick around and please feel free to ask us out. Just remember that you’re gonna have to deal with this guy, too.
Piny, I apologize if that was a stupid question. Your answer is what I expected, as nothing I’ve seen you write before has sounded like you have an axe to grind with cisgendered folks who have transfolks as SOs or sex partners. But I didn’t want to just assume I knew what you thought, especially after you said in 18 above that you were more suspicious of folks that seemed interested in sex.
(BTW, I wasn’t asking for self-interest reasons. I have no particular attraction or aversion to transwomen — some I find attractive and some I don’t — and I don’t have sex with men. Mostly, to the extent that I’m aware of trans issues, it’s because transfolks tend to draw fire from the same folks that view me as an enemy because I’m a sadomasochist.)
Longtime reader, first-time etc., etc., piny. Well, for values of longtime that apply to your writing here only so long, and all.
As a transwoman of color, I have to say I’ve met this guy, too, both in racially-related and trans-related contexts, though mostly he’s been she, in my case. The best version was a woman who, I think, dated or propositioned or slept with everyone who was even a little bit trans at our small college, and not really anyone else, but who actually undid a lot of ally work; she was the girlfriend of the best-known out transman at my college for a couple of years, and whenever people professed that they didn’t like said transguy–pretty often, as even aside from her, he was kind of abrasive–and were asked why, the answer was always the same: “It’s his goddamn girlfriend. I didn’t know he was trans when I first met him, I messed up on pronouns, and she jumped down my throat and was a real asshole about explaining his gender identity stuff.” These were all people who were willing to accept that he was a guy, who were willing to understand trans issues, and were flat-out attacked for ignorant slips–and they were all turned off of becoming allies by this one “ally’s” desperation to prove that she was the biggest trans-advocate ever by yelling at them.
This, of course, toward the end of having sex with us, it seemed, transmen and -women alike. Because we’d be really impressed by how strongly she defended us. Against those stacks of people who didn’t really have a problem with us in the first place, and ended up with the impression that being an ally, and/or being trans, entailed being a jerk.
all of this is too harsh on hugo. these things were relevant in regards to his area of study and teaching and often the context of posts where people questioned his knowledge of women’s experiences.
[...] resting post asking if there is such thing as a White culture. Piny, over at Feministe, has a great post about the whole “some of my [...]