http://blog.pulpculture.org/2006/05/09/ignorance/

Finally: this is what’s at the heart of my deep gut reaction to radfem dismissals like the ones we’ve been hashing over here and elsewhere: sexual transitioning means this, BDSM means that, “the pursuit of orgasm is inane,” “gender trumps race,” yadda yadda. Because they are, in the course of solidifying a framework that helps to reassure them that

>Reality is when something is happening to you, and you know it, and can say it, and when you say it, other people understand what you mean and believe you.

…*yes*, my experience was real, *yes* this really happened, *yes,* I’m not alone, I’m not crazy, other people get it…

…they are turning around and denying that very thing, that SO IMPORTANT THING, to somebody else. No, your reality doesn’t matter. No, your experience isn’t valid. Yes, you are alone. No, I don’t get it, and I can’t get it, and I won’t get it; there must be something wrong with you.

THAT is the problem. Not the orgasms (or lack thereof); not the arguments; not the name-calling and thrashing about. “I know you better than you. This is reality; I define it. What’s going on inside you *doesn’t count.*” And all in the name of a movement that was designed to counter all that in the first place! “You’re not alone…oh, wait, you do/think/feel *that?* Okay, NOW you’re alone.”

and that’s why people get even angrier at the supposed allies than at the “enemy.” Because one doesn’t expect any better from the “enemy.” This feels like…betrayal. On top of everything else.

***

and a follow-up thought to that, elsewhere: perhaps that’s what’s really going on from the other direction as well. Feelings of betrayal and abandonment. I could certainly speculate that that’s one thing that’s behind anti FTM sentiment from feminists, perhaps: you’re going over to the Other Side! after all we’ve worked for!

but ultimately, I just keep coming back to: ain’t nobody else’s business if he do. His Body Belongs To Him. you’ve got your own, to do with as you will, and no matter what he does with his, yours is not affected. honor that boundary or don’t; but then, if you insist on treating the other person as an extension of yourself, you’re probably gonna get a reaction.

Those feminists who insist that the world can only be compulsory gender binary free when transexuality doesn’t exist don’t believe Piny exists as Piny.

I think this is a profoundly important point.

In this paradigm, with its unowned assumptions about biological determinism and its beliefs that somehow we all respond to gender uniformly, neither piny, myself, nor any other trans person exists in the way that we say we do.

In fact, we are duped and stupid. Our voices combined with whatever facts we want to muster will not change this fundamental paradigm as its root.

Having said that, I don’t know what to do about it.

And on a slightly different point, I’m not sure I agree that transition isn’t subversive. Unless we’re defining subversive as successfully achieving political revolution, the endless process of redefining people’s assumptions about my gender so that I can obtain: a new driver’s license; health care; a job; the correct name of all manner of forms (birth certificates; passports; transcripts; library cards; financial documents; health documents; etc.); is something I think.

Each undoing of a hook that has trapped my gendered body is a kind of subversion in my book. But then I’m passionate about transsexuals and transsexuality. So I’m opened to accusations of bias.

I think in the end what pisses me off about the whole transition-isn’t-subversive thing is the entirely dismissive tone. Like transitioning requires as much thought and effort as taking a shit after eating a big bowl of bran. It’s all over if you just push hard.

Transitioning is a verb for a reason what with all the actions and choices and revisiting of choices and recommittment of choices required to effect all that is necessary to achieve the desired results. Frankly I’ve come to believe that we trannies do ourselves a tremendous disservice by not talking about the details of transition. In retrospect, all of it, and all who accomplish it – especially those with fewer financial resources and less privileges – I find astonishing and amazing.

But, as I said before, I’m biased.

When someone asks me why I’m homosexual I ask them why they’re heterosexual. What is their heterosexuality made of. They can come up with all sorts of things to support that it’s natural (for procreation) and common, but not what it’s made of any more than I can say what my lesbianism is made of. But both indisputably exist. Same with cis-sexuality and transexuality or cisgender and transgender. And all on their own. Nothing to do with socially determined roles in either case. This is demonstrably true and the opposite arguement just can’t be made in the face of reality. That isn’t to say that among transexuals as among homosexuals, some people don’t go about conforming to roles, just as cisgendered people do. But this is clearly not intrinsic to the state of being either transexual or homosexual.

It isn’t about DISAGREEING. It’s about his LIFE. It isn’t a fucking parlor game. And that is my exact same response to people who rabbit on about how they support me as an individual human been/whatever but “don’t agree with my (lesbian) ‘lifestyle.’”

Yes, belledame222, this whole debate does sound depressingly familiar. ‘You’re a lesbian because you had a bad experience with a man.’

‘That’s not true.’
‘Something must have turned you into a lesbian…’
‘No, I’ve always been a lesbian.’
‘You must have internalised some negative messages society sends about what it means to have relationships with men. You’re afraid of them and that’s why you’re a lesbian.’
‘No it isn’t.’
‘You’re so brave and feminist and you rebelled against society’s demands for compulsory heterosexuality.’
‘No, I’m not particularly brave. I’m just me. This is who I am.’

I have actually had all of the above exchanges at some time.

Those feminists who insist that the world can only be compulsory gender binary free when transexuality doesn’t exist don’t believe Piny exists as Piny. They can’t afford to believe in Piny because their political ideology can’t accomodate him. I suspect that they don’t answer some of his direct questions directly because they can’t from their position. I’m feeling seriously inclined to make a list of the unanswered questions before I lose track of them…I could be wrong about an actual inability to answer, and I’m ready to listen. In any case I believe Piny is owed – at the very least – the courtesy of a reply.

I’ll be back with a list of questions asked and unanswered that I’m genuinely interested in hearing responses to.

>This is all to say, yes, I disagree with you politically when it comes to issues around gender and transitioning, and I cannot with integrity pretend otherwise.

It isn’t about DISAGREEING. It’s about his LIFE. It isn’t a fucking parlor game. And that is my exact same response to people who rabbit on about how they support me as an individual human been/whatever but “don’t agree with my (lesbian) ‘lifestyle.’”

There isn’t anything to “agree with.” It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. It’s NOT YOUR BODY. It’s NOT YOUR LIFE. whether I have sex with this person or that person. whether piny transitions or not. NONE. OF. ANYONE ELSE’S. BUSINESS.

and if you truly don’t get that, (or indeed that there is indeed a direct parallel between that kind of patronizing hetsupremacy and this kind of patronizing femsupremacy) then frankly, your protests of being “on my side” aren’t worth so much to me.

istm that that’s kind of the whole fucking point of this thread.

particularly the “don’t listen to you” part.

yes, it was me who questioned this “there’s feminists, and then there’s trans people” idea–while i see the point of cis women acting as allies to the trans community–the implication here seems to be that non of the trans community can be feminists and allies of feminists at the same time. this of course begs to question, why *can’t* trans people be both–and seems to me from your previous responses that the reason is because feminists are “women” and trans people are like men–they can act as allies, but they can’t *be*.

so if you have an issue with that thought, then maybe you should address the person who said it?

You know what Piny… you don’t know anything about me or my family. Make all the assumptions you want, but don’t tell me that it’s me putting up barriers between feminism and transexuality. You can’t be allies with people who don’t listen to you and believe the worst of you.

For the third time: quote something directly so I at least have some idea of where the fuck you’re getting all of this. Okay? Thanks.

Also for the third time (or is it fourth?): you still haven’t answered any of my questions.

On to what you seem to be saying. This is a direct quote from you, although the emphasis is mine:

What I’m actually saying, and what I’ve said from the beginning, is that transitioning *is* about gender roles and it is not subversive or feminist, except in the sense that any woman’s personal quest for fulfillment is feminist.

See? You say here that transition, in general, is not feminist. You don’t qualify this statement as applying to some kinds of transition, or transition in certain contexts. I am therefore justified in saying that you say that transition is not feminist. Because that’s what you’re saying. And since transsexuals tend to transition, and since “transsexuality” tends to encompass transition, you kind of are putting up a barrier between “transsexuality” and feminism.

Of course, this comment could also be a misattribution of what brownfemipower said. “Secondly” and “Thirdly” had sweet fuck all to do with what I wrote, too.

You’ve made assumptions about me and about transsexuals in general that I disagree with, despite never having met me. Like deciding that I think you’re an “enemy.” That’s what arguing involves. I’m using the language you’ve used here, and the statements you’ve made, to draw conclusions about how you feel about gender identity. I disagree with some of those ideas. There’s nothing out of line about that.

Finally, just fuck off right now with the demands for me to modulate my tone, all right? I say things because I believe them to be true, not because they might or might not hurt someone’s feelings. If you feel the need to shut me up for the sake of your own comfort, then you’re not worth much as an ally anyway. I haven’t threatened you in order to get you to stop pissing me off; I’ll thank you to do the same.

And if neither set of bits is any better than the other, shouldn’t we be obligated to support those who wish simply to possess a different set? By this logic, those who try to box transpeople into gender-role preconceptions must automatically be full of shit, am I right?

Any attempt at an objective standard ultimately does box transpeople and gender-variant people into gender-role or biological preconceptions. Consequently, objective standards are not only meaningless, but hurtful. The only working “definition” is self-identification/self-definition. And yes, that’s subjective.

I’m not sure that imposing any objective gender standard, however broad, will be constructive.

Indeed. Excellent post, Piny — sorry, I got here late.

–IP