Obviously, I don’t pretend to speak for any intersexed and/or trans people. What I was saying (and stated more than once) is that I believe it is wrong to posit *any* people–including trans and intersexed people–as instruments of your own personal growth and enlightenment. To me, statement about how much one has “learned” from trans and intersexed people wedded to statements about how “this example” inspired one to do better are problematic in this way–or, at least, they tread *very closely* to this territory.

Disabled people are subjected to this kind of treatment all the time. Stories about those of us who “overcame adversity” in order to achieve something according to normalized standards “inspire” others to be better people. I am not an object who is available for anyone’s inspiration, not a tool to further anyone’s growth as a person. Neither is anyone else I know, and that includes my trans and intersexed friends.

No, you did not directly make a claim about wanting praise, but I was not the first to draw this conclusion. See Debbie’s comments above. If that was not your aim, then I can think of no reason for bringing it up in the first place beyond, “Oh, this book about intersexed people reminds me of *me.*” Which is just as indefensible. No Enlightenment one-upsmanship here. I’m a poststructuralist (To that end, gender deconstruction actually makes intuitive sense to me when it isn’t deployed in such self-serving ways.), and that means I don’t buy into Enlightenment promises.

And no, this is not an argument in support of some sort of biological essentialism. It argues more strongly that individuals should be treated as individuals, and we should wait for them to tell us who they are.

[footnote: the work by Vilain et al. was on, i think, mice. I only mention this in case someone "discovers" it, and thinks it invalidates the possibility that similar processes are operating in humans. There's a lot of homology of genes in different species, and, in a group such as mammals, it's fairly easy to find homologous genes in different species. For that matter, there's a gene that regulates the development of the eyes of fruit flies, and it's fundamentally the same as a gene that regulates development in human eyes.]

Moreover, it’s engaging in the very “enlightenment one-up-man-ship” that you seem to be railing against. Neither Quercki nor I said anything about wanting praise, you brought that subtext to the table, and then proceeded to explain how much more enlightened you are because you would never do that.

Instead of saying, “Here’s your cookie” or, “You don’t deserve a cookie,” why not actually discuss the issues people are bringing up? Is there no room here for someone to say, “I had my eyes opened, so I did this thing, this baby step, and here is the reaction I got to it, and it really made me think”? Is it now off-limits for anyone who isn’t trans/intersex/LGBTIQ to talk about or work on trans/intersex/LGBTIQ issues? Or is it just that anyone talking about any issue is supposed to come to the table already fully aware, with no room or need for new knowledge and new understanding to grow?

This is rapidly degenerating into “someone on the internet is wrong!” and I’m really not interested in that. I was hoping to read an actual discussion of some of these issues, and instead all I’m seeing is petty snarking.

“His post was offensive as hell – How – dare – he tell me what my perspective is.”

Yep, pretty much.

Well, – I – wouldn’t have been less offended. A perspective is a perspective, adding a qualifier to it doesn’t mean all people with those quaifers have the same view. His post was offensive as hell – How – dare – he tell me what my perspective is. You want an example of asshole behavior, there you go.

“Um, I’m actually not the person who made that first comment, that was Quercki, and I didn’t say anything about supporting the book, so take another look at the comments before you give me a smackdown for something someone else wrote.”

Yes, I know. I remember exactly which commenter you are. You’re the one who *really wanted* to write all about your gender-neutral parenting skills, but were scared because I am TOO MEAN. And then you proceeded to write all about them despite your fear of, um, me. Whether or not you expressed explicit sympathy for the book, I do read you as engaging in the same facile, superficial sort of gender deconstrution that several intersexed and trans people have already said that they find objectionable.

” Also, you seem pretty insistent on taking people’s metaphorical language and use of imagery, reading it literally and then ridiculing it, which is kind of an asshole move.”

No, no, no. I only do it when people use STUPID, ESSENTIALIZING imagery as a way of discrediting a marginalized group. (See what Nick said. He is well known for spewing this kind of transphobic bullshit throughout the feminist blogosphere.) And when they do it, moreover, to make generalizing, false claims about a community. What you call “imagery” here: What Nick was saying was so hateful that his facile, bullshit imagery was, in fact, the only thing I was able to laugh about in the situation. Also, I have no moral qualms with repaying assholery with assholery. At all. I do it on a regular basis, in fact. Mocking is not always called for, but, well… Dumb fucking imagery kinda opens the door.

“Would you have been less offended if someone had said, “from a trans perspective,” rather than, “through trans eyes”?”

I wasn’t particularly offended by Nick’s word choice, but by his overall bigotry. It was just a way of highlighting the essentialisms being deployed. And I *still* think the Clear-Eyed Gaze thing is funny.