I’m posting this here because I said I would, and because this comment doesn’t exactly jibe with tekanji’s stated objective.
There’s a thread on calling a truce on the sex wars over at Alas.
Belledame said this:
can I just say one last time:
*why* is this always, always, always forever framed in terms of female prostitution only?
I swear sometimes it’s like gay men don’t exist. much less transgendered people (speaking of people for whom money-making options are severely limited).
And I gotta say, the fact that one of the biggest anti-trafficking/prostitution networks out there, COTW is run by someone who also happens to be a virulent transphobe (Janice Raymond) doesn’t really make me terrifically optimistic about what they might propose to do about (for instance) the katoeys in Thailand.
And Ms Xeno responded with this:
Because PHMT is, you should excuse the expression, a drag. Yes, male prostitutes exist, but does anyone have proof that they make up numbers on par with those of female prostitutes ? Also, if there’s legions of “Janes” out there running around and handing men sex for money on the street, I’d really like to that proof, too.
And little light said this:
Thank you, belledame, for pointing out the general omission of male and transgendered prostitutes, a mistake I’ve made, here, too. I really don’t think this is a PHMT argument. It’s important. Maybe, for instance, only a small percentage of sex workers are transgendered; but a large percentage of transgendered people, worldwide, are in prostitution, and often in a great deal of danger because of it. Ordered that way, I have to say, that makes it a priority to deal with as an issue. Priority to the point of not discussing the huge majority of prostitutes who are cisgendered women? Of course not–and the whole problem with PHMT is the notion that it derails efforts to discuss helping women. This doesn’t. (And, xeno, I don’t think it’s mostly Janes exploiting male prostitution, either. That’s mostly johns, too.)
And Ms Xeno said this (emphases mine):
Start a thread somewhere then. Or direct us to a thread where transgender issues on the subject are under discussion. I didn’t see anything in the original post discussing transgender folk specifically, so it would never have occurred to me to throw them in the mix. But, again, I find belldame’s use of the subject to be a diversion. Now we’re to have women and transgendered folk as our responsibility, while once again men laugh all the way to bank and are somehow mysteriously exempt from this picture. I don’t know why that should be.
And I said this:
I’m gonna take this over to my blog, but:
These “transgendered folk” overwhelmingly are women, and I think that “it didn’t occur to me to throw them into the mix” was sort of the blindspot being referenced.
And then Ms Xeno said this:
Yes, great. I’m more than happy to be the goat here, despite the fact that belldame was looking for an excuse to throw some more guilt on the fire. Do you plan to point a finger at the pro-industry feminist camp for this “blind spot,” not to mention the johns, or just those of us who don’t unconditionally rah-rah the exchange of money for sex no matter whose doing it ?
You mean, like the “pro-industry feminist” who pointed out the omission of transpeople, only to be accused of creating a diversion from the real issues by an “anti-industry” feminist or three? Or the two who chimed in to offer support and information of their own? Should I be castigating them? Should “pro-industry feminists” derail the discussion of real women for the sake of discussing trans, or should they ignore brutalized transwomen when they’re not looking for a cheap shot? I’m confused.
Here’s the thing: by and large, the “pro-industry” camp is not the problem. “Sex-positive” feminists–e.g. Carol Queen and Michelle Tea–don’t ignore trans sex workers or transphobia, don’t subscribe to ideologies that reference transwomen as men, and don’t write in ways that make it abundantly clear that they believe that transwomen sex workers are men. They don’t argue that transwomen enjoy sexual harassment. They don’t argue that transwomen sex workers are privileged or exempt from punitive laws. They don’t argue that transwomen are rapists rather than raped women. They read writing by transwomen, attend events focused on transwomen, and include transwomen on their panels and at their readings. They are doing the work. In fact, that work is frequently brought up as evidence that they’re male-identified patriarchy fuckers obsessed with men and male problems. And this is just IME, but they don’t get really defensive when someone points out an implicit dichotomy in their argument between transwomen and women. They also don’t request that mentions of transwomen be taken elsewhere, as they have no place in a discussion about women.
And as to the second part…Oh, my God, that’s brilliant! No trans activist has ever challenged men for being transphobic, or for seeing trans bodies as disposable objects! No trans activist has ever complained about transphobic attitudes on the part of law enforcement, the courts, social-service organizations, or society in general! It hadn’t ever occurred to anyone! Why, there certainly isn’t an enormous body of writing by trans activists and trans sex workers calling men out for exactly that attitude towards transpeople! I need to write this down. I’m gonna go tell Emi Koyama that she finally has a purpose in life. She’ll be so pleased.
Similar Posts:
- Is there a prostitution solution? by Jill September 12, 2007
- Maybe just throw holy water on them by Jill September 26, 2007
- A Step Forward in the Fight Against AIDS by Jill May 12, 2006
- Serial killer targeting sex workers in Atlantic City by Jill November 23, 2006
- Spitzer Will Not Be Charged by Cara November 7, 2008
Well, this is ugly. Two throw in my two pence:
Transgender folk service thousands of Western sex-tourists overseas.
And,
Little boys are in huge demand too. Here and abroad.
Oops. Am I just upping the level of “responsibility” here?
I find it interesting that “Ms Xeno” accuses feminists who don’t conform to her own view to be “pro-industry”. I don’t think most feminists (including Michelle Tea) want to encourage women (cisgendered or otherwise) to get into sex work, as much as they want women who are already in the sex industry to not be harassed, stigmatized or arrested for it.
This might be ignorant, but… what does PHMT mean?
Grr. As I am a newbie, I don’t want to get involved in this too much, but I will add how frustrating and disappointing this particular conversation was to me.
As a feminist, I consider transgendered indivduals’ rights to be inextricably tied to mine.
I think we’re all “responsible” for anyone who has been shit upon by the patriarchy, no matter who they are.
Bryan–Patriarchy Hates Men Too.
Ahem. That shout be “hurts,” not hates.
I’ll shut up now. Thanks.
I wonder: is “pro-industry” in any way analogous to the label of “pro-abortion” for pro-choicers?
On the other hand, is “pro-sex” in any way analogous to the label of “pro-life” for anti-choicers?
I’ve stopped using the term “sex positive.” It’s divisive. Also, it usually is used in juxtaposition to opposition to porn and prostitution. The antonym of “sex positive” would be “sex negative,” and I don’t think it’s sex negative to oppose porn and prostitution- certainly no inherently so.
That’s not to say that there is no such thing as “sex negative.” But the way “sex positive” is used often by implication throws that label too broadly.
I’m so sorry that happened to you on a post I created, piny. For the record, I think that the subject was entirely relevant and that ms_xeno had no right to tell you to take it elsewhere.
Thomas wrote:
I’m begining to think it’s only “divisive” because certain feminists believe that anything but complete agreement with them is being “pro-industry” and therefore find excuses to cry foul.
And their objection in that case is based entirely off a misinterpretation of the label. It’s not a dichotomy that means, “I’m sexually positive and anyone who disagrees with me is sexually negative!” It’s “We currently live in a sexually negative culture and I believe that fighting against that culture, fighting for a sex positive culture is necessary.”
While I can’t speak for any feminist but myself, I identify as sex pos and I don’t think it’s inherently “sex negative” to oppose prostitution and porn. Indeed, given the way that our sex negative culture handles those two industries, I have no trouble seeing why many women do. I just don’t think there’s anything wrong with not being fundamentally opposed to them, either.
My point is that there is a lot of middle ground between “these things should be banned, full stop,” and “these things are above critique, full stop.” Both positions, I think, are problematic because they ignore that reality isn’t that cut and dry.
Personally, I class myself as sex-neutral.
Know what I love ? Everybody complains about whatever term one uses if she doesn’t like commodified sex. But of course, anytime one tries to create a different term, the insults, smears, and suspicion-mongering just accelerates. Yeah, great, Nick. I hate prostitution, so I must be like a pro-lifer. Thanks loads.
tekanji, I didn’t order anyone to take anything anywhere. I made a suggestion. I don’t think it’s transphobic for me to get angry with belledame because it looked like she was trying to pretend that traditional male-female power-over relationships don’t exist in prostitution and porn, just because there are transexuals involved in it.
Furthermore, I don’t think it’s transphobic to ask for more information on a subject one knows little about. But I guess that too is just one more strike against me in this pre-rigged game. Next time, I’ll just make up a bunch of shit about transsexuals, like the trolls do. Then instead of attacking me for my ignorance, you can… attack me for my ignorance.
Your “truce” is a sham, tekanji. I’m sorry to have fallen for it. I’m doubly sorry that under my old name, I actually got along fairly well with Nick and piny, but now that I’ve established my hatred of sex “work,” I guess I’m to be cast into Right-wing bigot hell. Just lovely. But I’m not taking it back. Like I said, every cause needs a villain. Can’t tell you how proud I am of my shiny-new demotion.
The same thing happens on both sides. “Sex-positive” isn’t okay. “Sex-radical” definitely isn’t okay. Nick’s analogy pointed out the problem with “pro-industry:” it assumes that women in the “sex-positive” camp are pro-industry. My mom does not like abortions, would never have one herself, and would prefer that women not have them. However, she would never take away another woman’s right to abortion or pressure another woman out of her own choice, and is a fierce defender of the right to reproductive choice for all women. She is not pro-abortion, and the term would be inaccurate and offensive to her. She is pro-choice.
You got angry at me for pointing out an implicit dichotomy between “women” and “transwomen” in your comment. I call that dichotomy transphobic.
I’m not sure what this is referring to; maybe I’ve misread you. When did you ask for information about transwomen sex workers? I see an initial conflation of them with “male prostitutes,” followed by a comment in which you drew a line between women and transgendered folk, and told belledame to “start a thread elsewhere.”
No, this thread is just criticism of the way you reacted to mentions of transwomen. I’m not trying to cast you into right-wing bigot hell–in fact, no one here has called you a right-winger or a bigot–but the defensiveness is pretty irritating.
You got angry at me for pointing out an implicit dichotomy between “women” and “transwomen” in your comment. I call that dichotomy transphobic.
I’m missing something here. I did not bring up trans folk, in any way, shape or form, on that thread initially. I believe that honor goes to belledame. How is an attempt to steer the discussion of how transwomen are treated when they sell their bodies for money not itself creating a dichotomy ? Was belledame’s point that We’re All In This Together ? Or was her point that You Think *You* Have Problems, But Look At How Much Worse *They* Have It ? Color me suspicious, but I have my money on the latter.
Never mind. Don’t even bother to answer, unless it’s for the benefit of the home team, because I won’t be back to read it. You’ve got me. I’m transphobic. And a pro-lifer. And I worship at the altar of Janice Raymond. And the next time I participate on a thread like that it will be solely in the privacy of my LJ, where it’ll be limited to people I know personally– people that respect me enough to not trot out passive-aggressive comparisons to the pro-life movement, et al and then complain that my anger is “defensive.”
Goodbye.
Belledame was attempting to discuss how transwomen are treated when they sell their bodies for money. You called that specific topic a digression from a discussion about how women are treated in the same situation. Her point was not to argue that they have it worse, but that their problems are a little different, and that their solutions are, too–particularly given that some of the major players in the anti-camp are really fucking transphobic. When it comes to them, and to most of the institutions expected to assist in a Swedish-esque solution, We Aren’t All in This Together. Transwomen don’t exist.
Then a couple of other people came onto the thread; they also discussed transwomen and sex work. Then I came onto the thread and tried to discuss transwomen and sex work. All three times, you said that sort of thing wasn’t wanted here. In response to me, you had the chutzpah to ask me if I was gonna complain about transphobia in general, or just when radical feminists do it. Do you understand why that was really offensive?
Oh, for fuck’s sake. I did not call you transphobic. I said that the boundaries you were drawing were transphobic, because they are. You cut “transgendered folk” out of “women” and stuck them into “PHMT.” I’m not saying it was intentional on your part, or that you hate transpeople. I’m saying that your phrasing delegitimizes transwomen and makes it really difficult to discuss transwomen who work as prostitutes.
Neither I nor anyone else here has said that you were a transphobe, a pro-lifer, or that you worshipped at the altar of Janice Raymond. The pro-life analogy was strictly about language. I’m not sure you could see clearly enough through the red haze, but another commenter immediately responded with an analogy comparing our chosen terms to pro-life rhetoric. They were both worthwhile points.
You still haven’t answered my question about when you asked for information. All I saw were “suggestions” that we stop discussing the topic.
Finally, my calling you defensive had nothing to do with any pro-life analogy. It was about this:
On a reread, let me clarify: Belledame did not bring up transwomen as “not women,” but as people not served by the current discourse on women who work as prostitutes. She was arguing a dichotomy between all transpeople and women as people like Janice Raymond define them. That doesn’t imply that transwomen are not women, or that their issues do not qualify as women’s issues or are not important for purposes of discussing women in prostitution.
Calling a reference to them PHMT, or lumping them in with “male prostitutes,” on the other hand, does. So does “suggesting” that transwomen in particular need to be discussed somewhere other than women in general. So does arguing that a transsexual–hi!–is derailing the discussion when he joins the conversation to point out that the overwhelming majority of trans sex workers are women. And on that note, I resent you pretending that I don’t have political concerns of my own, and I resent your inability to separate my complaints from any conflict with tekanji.
But of course, anytime one tries to create a different term, the insults, smears, and suspicion-mongering just accelerates. Yeah, great, Nick. I hate prostitution, so I must be like a pro-lifer. Thanks loads.
That wasn’t what I said, and I’m sorry if I seemed to imply it. I think there’s a fairly strong similarity, adjusted for context, between “pro-abortion” and “pro-industry”: in both cases failing to subscribe to the idea that something should be criminalised and eradicated is treated as if it was a ringing endorsement of a practice in all circumstances.
blowjob
I picked up the Mojo one while shopping for Muzik, and am also enjoying bits of Uncuts free Bowie tribute album.
celebrities
i lay there like a piece of meat, being seen to by a butcher with seven and a half fingers left.
Boobs Sex
Spoon\’s Chez Spoon (formerly SpankMeWithASpoon)
piercing
\”Please be quiet,\” James says. We\’re surrounded on all sides by mothers and children.
swinger dating
Jen had everything, except her ultimate fantasy, Brandon Urie. She wasn\’t expecting anything to happen….
swinger personal ad
It had been three weeks since Janice and Richard\’s first experience with their beloved dogs. Since then it became almost a nightly ritual for the two of them.
Anime Porn
Tristan Taormino (one of my favorite sex writers and educators. She\’s awesome)
dildo
how do i get salma hayek and penelope cruz in bed with me at the same time?
diflucan
i thought about it for a few seconds, and then i agreed. so long as i could tie him up this time.