Author: has written 5300 posts for this blog.

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

58 Responses

  1. Latoya Peterson
    Latoya Peterson May 13, 2009 at 2:24 pm |


    I was shocked as hell yesterday. Let me find out I’m the optimist in this conversation. I was so glad they ran me on the same day as Katha Pollitt…

  2. preying mantis
    preying mantis May 13, 2009 at 2:27 pm |

    “blaming when when their husbands cheat”

    What the fucking fuck? Seriously, that “Bad Mommies, Bad Wives” post barely made sense.

  3. Lance
    Lance May 13, 2009 at 2:27 pm |

    I love her attitude. It basically boils down to, “If you’re going to criticize me every time I blame crime victims for their victimhood, we’ll never get anything done. Seriously, stop that.”

  4. sly c
    sly c May 13, 2009 at 2:28 pm |

    1. Incite pointless blog war by trolling.
    2. Obtain massive amounts of undeserved attention in self-inflicted fight.
    3. Profit!!!

    Oh, wait. This one actually does work. I mean, nobody found it the least bit suspicious that sheer numbers of blogs that devoted space and time to what in any other business would be a newly launched direct competitor?

    You may be in it for the discussion. I don’t think they are.

  5. Lucas
    Lucas May 13, 2009 at 2:31 pm |

    See no evil, hear no evil…

  6. Poetry
    Poetry May 13, 2009 at 2:40 pm |

    Good job, Breslin, for throwing in some ableist language as well. Calling things “retarded” makes you sound so very mature.

  7. Mighty Ponygirl
    Mighty Ponygirl May 13, 2009 at 2:41 pm |

    I guess the X’s on Double X were the number of strikes going against it.

    at this point. And isn’t it intellectually reductive and culturally retarded to imply that the only site for women worth doing is one that follows an abstract set of political rules upon which no one can agree?

    Whoops, that would be strike # 3. And you’re done.

  8. Holly
    Holly May 13, 2009 at 2:57 pm |

    I mean, nobody found it the least bit suspicious that sheer numbers of blogs that devoted space and time to what in any other business would be a newly launched direct competitor?

    I found it fairly transparent, but it’s also not the same old game, although Slate has always been from the old-school “webzine” era when people were trying to port the magazine business model directly. The blogosphere, or whatever you want to call it, isn’t really a business that works on that same “direct competitor” model anyway, which is why it doesn’t really matter. Also, I don’t know if I speak for everyone here, but I couldn’t really care less if XX makes money, or doesn’t make money, or some of the writers are trying to make a career out of it… just another radar blip in the vastness of the net, really.

    The “feminism is sooo ovah, retards” stuff is pretty damn hilarious, though. It’s like watching a B-movie in blog format.

    What I am real curious about is the audience & comment-generating curve of a site like XX. Everything has zero comments so far, and I am guessing that it’s a matter of some critical mass building.

  9. Meg
    Meg May 13, 2009 at 3:05 pm |

    OK, I hadn’t heard of DoubleX before this post, so I might be way off here. But the way I’m reading it, DoubleX hosts a whole slew of articles about feminism (~8/10 of their recent [only?] “news and politics” articles), and then a writer got all upset because people started discussing whether the site is feminist? Is it possible someone’s just trying to create a little controversy for the sake of free advertising from feminist sites?

    (If postfeminism really has gone above and beyond feminism, why is “retarded” reintroduced as an acceptable pejorative? Is discrimination against the mentally disabled now good for women? Do disabled women no longer exist or are they just unimportant? What does the phrase “culturally retarded” even mean?)

  10. Mighty Ponygirl
    Mighty Ponygirl May 13, 2009 at 3:15 pm |

    Meg — there was a great ill doctrine video blog about Asher Roth and the racial crossroads, you should watch it. It’s about how a lot of people are trying to declare that “since progress has been made, we are now at a point where I don’t have to care about your feelings anymore,” which is sort of the antithesis of progress. Amazing essay, you should watch, because this is exactly how this little screed came off: I’m so enlightened now that I can use these slurs because it’s so ironic and we’re past feeling hurt about it.

  11. Persia
    Persia May 13, 2009 at 3:18 pm |

    Everything has zero comments so far, and I am guessing that it’s a matter of some critical mass building.

    They fucked up the registration system; I got an email about it. And now, apparently, I’ll be unsubscribing from their updates.

    I’m really glad now I was a lazy slacker and didn’t pitch them any articles.

  12. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler May 13, 2009 at 3:24 pm |

    Well, that’s some grade-A question-begging right there. “We’re not writing about feminis because feminism is dead because we’re not writing about it”? Did I get the jist of it?

    @Mighty Ponygirl inter alia: I suppose she could have meant “retarded” in the broader sense of “slowed down.” I’m fairly certain she didn’t, though.

  13. The Opoponax
    The Opoponax May 13, 2009 at 3:33 pm |

    mean, nobody found it the least bit suspicious that sheer numbers of blogs that devoted space and time to what in any other business would be a newly launched direct competitor?

    Which then totally backfired when they decided the best response to the clusterfuck they deliberately started to create buzz amongst readers of feminist blogs was to declare that feminism is dead and thus their blog/site/whatever is not going to be feminist at all.

    Oh, really? You’re not part of the feminist blogosphere? Well then I guess I can cross you guys off my list, then.

  14. Mireille
    Mireille May 13, 2009 at 3:43 pm |

    I want to support writers that I enjoy and respect, particularly Latoya Peterson and Katha Pollitt, but I am not going to fall prey to the obvious shitstorm-for-pageviews tactic they’re using. Hopefully blogs will link directly to the worthwhile articles where I can send hits to writers that deserve it. Maybe once they hit they’re stride and aren’t being intentional ass-hats, I’ll check out the site. For now, I’m boycotting.

  15. Linoleum Blownaparte
    Linoleum Blownaparte May 13, 2009 at 4:22 pm |

    So basically, DoubleX:Feminism :: Slate:Liberalism

    *loses interest*

  16. alec
    alec May 13, 2009 at 5:00 pm |

    Can we understand that ‘retarded’ has more than one meaning?

    retarded –verb (used with object)
    1. to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.
    –verb (used without object)
    2. to be delayed.
    3. a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine

    I understand the negative connotation but I think in the context of Ms. Dreslin’s piece, she didn’t mean it as such.

  17. Mireille
    Mireille May 13, 2009 at 5:33 pm |

    In the context of “culturally retarded” I don’t see how any of those definitions make sense.

  18. Lirpa
    Lirpa May 13, 2009 at 5:56 pm |


    retarded –verb (used with object)
    1. to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.

    It actually makes perfect sense.

    Although, it is a touchy subject, considering the widespread usage of the word “retarded” to make fun of mentally handicapped people, and the fact that we don’t actually often hear it used entirely correctly.

    At the same time, maybe it would be a pretty good idea to start using it the way it was intended, instead of pretending that the word, in all of its definitions and potential uses, is an insulting and discriminatory thing to say.

  19. chingona
    chingona May 13, 2009 at 6:04 pm |

    Well, that’s some grade-A question-begging right there. “We’re not writing about feminis because feminism is dead because we’re not writing about it”? Did I get the jist of it?

    Except that they are writing about feminism! I went over there yesterday, and every other article was about feminism (or how it had died and what killed it). It seemed they were trying to position themselves very self-consciously toward feminism – either as post-feminist (ha!) or beyond feminism or the right kind of feminist (Hirschman).

    Then to get pissy because people analyze that from a feminist perspective … give me a fucking break!

    And frankly, I don’t understand how you can aim to write a web magazine for politically engaged women who also care about work and family issues without a lot of default assumptions that are basically feminist. Cause without feminism, none of that other stuff even makes sense or is even worthy for public discussion.

    It’s … disappointing. Because it does seem like they have a lot of good writers, but they are staking out an editorial position where they want to get brownie points for not being mean and nasty old feminists.

  20. SnowdropExplodes
    SnowdropExplodes May 13, 2009 at 6:06 pm |


    I would read “culturally retarded” as being “culturally backwards” or “behind the times”. In the context of those other definitions. Except that I don’t think that’s the way it was being used.

  21. piny
    piny May 13, 2009 at 6:10 pm |

    I think I’d believe that retard was being used in its traditional–or non-clinical–sense if I thought she was a good writer. She’s not.

    In any event, “retarded” has strong lexical ties to a particular meaning, and writers must use it in that context.

  22. chingona
    chingona May 13, 2009 at 6:47 pm |

    Okay … and I know I shouldn’t be letting myself get so irritated by something so stupid, but this: “I hope the feminist mantle doesn’t fit Double X. I hope this site is bigger than that.” I hope the site is bigger than believing in the fundamental humanity of half the world’s population? Oh, that’s so 1970s. Aren’t we over that already?

  23. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub May 13, 2009 at 7:10 pm |

    At this point, I don’t care who else is writing for this crap site. If we’ve got so many horrible issues for, you know, saying that the blame for rape rests on the shoulders of the rapists and embracing the idea that women “ask” for rape is actually NOT feminist and is a misogynist idea that we have fought against, this site is not worth linking to or reading.

    Shorter me: don’t want feminist cooties? Then you don’t need links from feminists.

  24. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler May 13, 2009 at 7:29 pm |

    Um, Alec? I was kidding. You? Just wrong.

  25. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler May 13, 2009 at 7:38 pm |

    @chingona: all right, she’s common-or-garden not worth reading. Pity.

    That said, by “broader” I think—hope—she meant taking women’s basic humanity and equality as read and not going over that territory over and over again. That she thinks that is the entirety of feminism is its own problem.

  26. Mireille
    Mireille May 13, 2009 at 8:24 pm |

    Nuh-uh! Ok, fine, yeah, it does make sense, but it’s an incredibly poor word choice, the definition that makes it not offensive seems almost archaic. English is a living language and to use it in the fashion, it’s hard to read it as anything other than “stupid”.

    Slowed down, or backwards… well… sort of, if you consider this a “post-feminist” society. Plus, I doubt she put that much thought into it.

  27. annaham
    annaham May 13, 2009 at 8:49 pm |

    I’m of the opinion that Breslin’s use of the word “retarded” is not quite as nuanced or clever as she might like to believe. It’s just…well, ableist.

    Looks like DX is yet another site that I won’t be reading, based on the nature of many of the feminism-is-dead pieces that they’ve already premiered.

  28. The Opoponax
    The Opoponax May 13, 2009 at 8:53 pm |

    English is a living language and to use it in the fashion, it’s hard to read it as anything other than “stupid”.

    While I agree that the use is ambiguous here, and we’re probably giving too much credit in assuming she must have meant it in the classic sense, the meaning quoted above is absolutely not “archaic” at all. It’s just much better used in a context where the meaning is crystal clear. Also better used as a verb than an adjective.

  29. sly c
    sly c May 13, 2009 at 9:21 pm |

    “I couldn’t really care less if XX makes money”

    Yes, exactly. You, like many other people are in it for the discussion, and think about this in terms of a non-competitive model. I strongly doubt the editors of XX share those commitments.

    And no, i don’t think it backfired. Yes, they lost readership from some folks. But we’re *still* talking about them. And I think that’s probably worth it in their minds.

  30. DaisyDeadhead
    DaisyDeadhead May 13, 2009 at 9:22 pm |

    I want to be more than a victim of the patriarchy

    Too late, hon.

  31. tata
    tata May 13, 2009 at 9:24 pm |

    …he only way to judge a female-oriented site is by whether or not it’s “feminist.” What gives? Aren’t we over that already? I could have sworn feminism was cultural road kill, at this point.

    This is a profound misunderstanding of the time in which we find ourselves. After all, she’s thrown feminists to the wolves. That makes her patriarchy’s collaborator. Nothing new about that.

  32. Lauren
    Lauren May 13, 2009 at 9:52 pm |

    I might read it long enough to see Katha Pollitt take Linda Hirshman down on a public forum.

    *crosses fingers*

  33. chingona
    chingona May 13, 2009 at 10:50 pm |

    That she thinks that is the entirety of feminism is its own problem.

    Well, yeah.

  34. Pinko Punko
    Pinko Punko May 14, 2009 at 12:04 am |

    I think they used the R-word as bait, for the eventual “humorless and hysterical” follow up. Their piece was distilled and concentrated ridiculousness. It was a classic troll. Designed for flames. Annoying, wrong and inflammatory. I’m sure they are backslapping with huzzahs. Sad.

  35. Lauren O
    Lauren O May 14, 2009 at 12:05 am |

    I was nervous about the launch of this Double X site in the first place. Why does there need to be a separate site for women’s issues? So male Slate readers won’t get cooties? Articles about men’s issues will, I’m sure, remain on the main Slate site, because they’re general interest.

    But I decided to give it a chance and clicked over, and what do you know? Slate’s Vagina Ghetto says feminism is dead. So I won’t be reading that. And with all the women’s issues excised from Slate, I may not continue reading that. Of course, I’m just a woman, so Slate probably doesn’t care about losing my readership.

  36. JetGirl
    JetGirl May 14, 2009 at 1:17 am |

    I used to enjoy Susannah Breslin’s work, but she lost me with these last few screeds. She has gone from pleasantly snarky to just plain nasty, and I will likely not read her again.
    As for Hirshman — UGH. I have no particular liking for Moe Tkacik or Tracie Egan’s work, but Megan Carpentier is a great writer. So are Sadie Stein, Dodai Stewart, Anna Holmes and Hortense. Way to crap all over the younger generation — and I say this as someone closer in age to Hirshman than to half these talented writers.

  37. belledame222
    belledame222 May 14, 2009 at 2:08 am |

    -blink blink-

    So basically someone’s trying to cash in on early-90’s style “post-feminism” without actually being conscious that that’s what they’re doing (as well as employing several actual still-feminists to write for ‘em); then, when one of their pieces doesn’t go over well, go “yah well who needs you anyway? WE’RE STILL BIG! IT’S FEMINISMS THAT GOT SMALL!” Like, two days into the enterprise, is it?

    …yeah, that’ll go well.

  38. belledame222
    belledame222 May 14, 2009 at 2:11 am |

    mind you, journalism itself as a whole is doing swimmingly, not to mention the whole “be as much of a reactionary ‘contrarian’ asshole as possible and fame and fortune will be yours!” is not at all past its sell-by date.

  39. belledame222
    belledame222 May 14, 2009 at 2:22 am |

    From her own blog:

    The site is very nice, and it’s for the chicks but also the dudes, and I’ll be posting there, like, every day, and I’m really happy. It feels … fancy.

    For my first post, I wrote about how we are awesome and everyone else is lame, except I dressed that sentiment up in a political hat and told it it had to talk polysyllabically, or else.

    and, yeah, the title. so edgy I zzz


  40. Kim
    Kim May 14, 2009 at 3:09 am |

    There’s a reason I don’t read Slate. Sounds like they’re moving in the right direction to alienate me from all of their enterprises.

  41. Mighty Ponygirl
    Mighty Ponygirl May 14, 2009 at 7:30 am |

    1. a female dog.
    2. a female of canines generally.
    3. a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman.

    How many of you, when you hear the term “bitch” hear it in the term of a female dog? Not so often, huh? Usually a slur against a woman, huh?

    If I were writing a piece on a kennel, I could see using the word “bitch” in the sense that I’m talking about a female dog. If I were writing about a woman I disliked, then I’m not sure how I could fit in the word “bitch” and have it mean the first 2 definitions listed above–even by proxy, if I were describing her homelife and I wrote “she has a husband, two kids, and two dogs, a male and a bitch,” most people would interpret that word as being an opportunist word to reinforce that the owner herself is a bitch.

    If I were writing a piece on organic development, I can see how the word “retarded” could mean something not growing at the rate at which it should. But she was talking about how stupid and worthless feminism is. She literally used retarded within the framework of talking about something as “intellectually reductive” and then threw the word “retarded” into the mix to describe feminism’s cultural relevance.

    Don’t apologize for this woman or try to spin what she’s saying into a positive. She used the word retarded and we have absolutely no good faith effort to base an alternative meaning upon. Now, if you don’t feel that “retarded” is a slur and you’re otherwise not working on it yourself, there’s no harm here because there’s no foul. But if you have any sense of retarded being a slur against people who are developmentally disabled, stop wasting your energy gilding the lily on this and just recognize it for what it is.

  42. Emily
    Emily May 14, 2009 at 7:47 am |

    @39 – Well, there’s no plausible argument for a technically correct and non-ablist use of “lame” in that quote.

  43. Napalm Nacey
    Napalm Nacey May 14, 2009 at 9:44 am |

    Thank you, 41. Woah. I just quoted Ben Hur!

  44. Level Best
    Level Best May 14, 2009 at 9:51 am |

    “yah well who needs you anyway? WE’RE STILL BIG! IT’S FEMINISMS THAT GOT SMALL!” –belledame222

    Hilarious as well as accurate! And now I will continue my avoidance of their blog.

  45. sally
    sally May 14, 2009 at 10:00 am |

    I think that when she says the site is not “feminist,” she’s probably referring to the specific brand of feminism found on self-identified feminist websites (including this one) which spend a lot of time focusing on more abstract and/or rhetorical concepts (e.g., should it be “transwoman” or “trans_woman”?; the meaning of the term “grey rape”; etc.). This kind of feminism focuses very intently on ideas of expression, like the concepts of “voice” and “silencing,” and on media criticism of images perceived to be sexist. The focus on these more abstract concepts can, at its worst, end up resolving into a sort of language game where a large part of being “feminist” is using the exact right words and exact right images.

    To that extent I am sort of sympathetic because I think a lot of energy gets wasted on the internet fighting about those things to the exclusion of addressing concrete wrongs suffered by women.

    But other than that, I’m not sympathetic at all. A woman who claims she’s not a feminist is a woman who’s never really felt that her interests as a woman are threatened. Just let the writer find out she’s getting paid 75% of what a male freelancer at the same publication is getting for the same work, and she’ll become a feminist pretty damn quickly.

  46. a rose is a rose
    a rose is a rose May 14, 2009 at 10:53 am |

    i cruised on over to double x out of sheer curiosity. i must take umbrage with most commenters. it’s absolutely WORSE than anyone stated. one of the first articles i spied was entitled: michelle (as in obama) put on some pantyhose

  47. debbie
    debbie May 14, 2009 at 11:00 am |

    You know, I’m pretty bored with the idea that the way we express ideas is somehow so abstract that is has nothing to do with concrete wrongs or real oppression. Maybe you don’t get why the difference between transwoman or trans woman is important, or why the very idea of grey rape is so pernicious, but I think that one thing that feministe does very well is show that these things do matter. Trans women have written repeatedly on this site about why that space that seems so insignificant to you, says something about their basic humanity, about their right to be considered women and not some other category. Seriously – if you’re not familiar with the bullshit around Vancouver Rape Relief, look it up, and see for yourself why this is important.

    Of course this is giving you the benefit of the doubt and hoping you haven’t actually considered why or how your words are hurtful, dismissive, and ignorant.

  48. Fiendish
    Fiendish May 14, 2009 at 11:59 am |

    Debbie, I completely agree. Language isn’t just an expression of thought; it shapes thought. If there had never been a movement toward inclusive language, we’d still use racial slurs as part of everyday speech and think it wasn’t a “real issue” because words don’t physically hurt anyone. But when you verbally assign someone second-class status, even when you don’t consciously mean it, those words have impact.

    Sally, you probably wouldn’t be comfortable on a site where women are referred to as “bitches” or whatever. Why should a trans woman be comfortable on a site where she’s referred to in terms that are hurtful and offensive to her? Could it be time you checked your privilege?

  49. Shinobi
    Shinobi May 14, 2009 at 12:09 pm |

    Wow, as someone with double Xs herself, I find that website more than a little insulting. I might as well pick up a Cosmo, at least the writing will be more coherent and I will know to expect advice on how to be better at “being a girl.”

  50. piny
    piny May 14, 2009 at 12:10 pm |

    We didn’t make up the term “grey rape,” though. That’s a conflation of a movement and its backlash.

    “Grey rape” is contrary to the understanding of sexual violence popularized by those dinosaur feminists. Their emphasis on consent and female subjectivity was a hell of a lot clearer and more consistent than the fallen-woman standard that preceded it, let alone the more sheepish misogyny underlying “grey rape.”

    I thought gender-feminists were supposed to be doctrinaire and nuance-free. Now we’re supposed to accept that moderation will release us from all that troublesome complexity?

  51. sally
    sally May 14, 2009 at 12:12 pm |

    Debbie and Fiendsh – It’s a question of interests and energy. All things being equal, yes, I would make sure that none of my speech hurt anybody else and I would want others to do the same. And no, I don’t think you’re wrong for advocating speech that doesn’t hurt you. I also don’t disagree that there’s a connection between speech/words and real-life actions. However, when it comes down to my interests and energy, I am going to spend my time & energy on more tangible things (lawsuits, economic analysis, job training, legal reform, education . . .) instead of terminology. These things aren’t mutually exclusive but in life you have to chose where to allocate your resources.

  52. piny
    piny May 14, 2009 at 12:22 pm |

    You know, I don’t assume that this blog post speaks for the site. And I don’t have any problem with a site that collects a bunch of radically divergent opinions on women and feminism. I think that would be really interesting, even if the responses were badly skewed towards writers like Hirshman.

    The problem with this post is that it’s so badly written that it doesn’t present as a reponse to an ongoing discussion. The debate is so mangled by the site’s inept presentation that it all seems incoherent rather than contested. Doesn’t anyone on XX know how to index or link properly?

  53. debbie
    debbie May 14, 2009 at 12:37 pm |

    Right, but again you’re repeating that dichotomy. Do you think I spend all of my time on the web telling people that their language is offensive? Or do you think, perhaps, that my concern with the language might be an outgrowth of the other things I do that have given me a very concrete understanding of how and why language matters?

    And i think it’s a little telling that you assume that the people who pointed out your glaring privilege with regard to language must be trans women themselves. It just adds to the nasty taste your comment left in my mouth.

  54. sally
    sally May 14, 2009 at 1:02 pm |


    This is kind of a derail, but your comment about “And i think it’s a little telling that you assume that the people who pointed out your glaring privilege with regard to language must be trans women themselves. It just adds to the nasty taste your comment left in my mouth” is actually an example of why I, personally, don’t spend my time on debates about language because they often turn into a quagmire. If I assume that you are a member of the class in question and therefore have a very personal stake in the words I use, then I am “nasty.” But if I don’t assume that you’re a member of the class in question, then I am letting you, an outsider, speak for that class and therefore “silencing”, essentializing, or misunderstanding the class itself (i.e., privileging the statements of an apparently self-assigned spokes person over members of the class themselves). There’s no way to win.

  55. debbie
    debbie May 14, 2009 at 1:56 pm |

    I didn’t call you nasty. I said your comments left a nasty taste in my mouth. And to characterize this discussion as a quagmire is a bit…..much.

    Calling a person out on their privilege is not something that only members of non-privileged group can or should do, it’s something that privileged people should be doing more of.

  56. Holly
    Holly May 14, 2009 at 2:09 pm |

    Sally — are we really supposed to believe your comments are in good faith? There’s “no way to win?” This isn’t a game with winners and losers. Yes, there are problems inherent in making assumptions about people. And yes, there are potentially problems in having non-trans people speak about transphobia sometimes, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s always a bad idea. In fact, it’s often a really good idea, and I don’t think that’s too hard to understand. It is not a “no way out” double bind that you are trapped in with “no way to win.” Give me a break

    Also, you’re right — it’s a derail. Please quit it, speaking as a moderator. Your comment about “shouldn’t we spend our time on something better than talking about how to address each other respectfully” is also in danger of being a derail. That kind of comment, in my experience, can rarely be made in good faith. You should know perfectly well that just because someone takes a few minutes out of the day to engage in a discussion of this sort, about respectful language, it doesn’t mean that they’re not also doing a WHOLE LOT of real, tangible work in the rest of their life. And it doesn’t mean they’re incapable of distinguishing the two. Get real and get back on topic, please.

  57. piny
    piny May 14, 2009 at 2:18 pm |

    I agree that these discussions can be very murky if you don’t have a good grasp on the concepts involved.

    There’s no reason you can’t respond to the arguments as arguments, without making assumptions one way or the other about the position of your interlocutors. There’s no reason Debbie the ostensible cis woman can’t talk to you about your use of language, and no reason you can’t listen to her. Her opinion doesn’t constitute silencing. On the other hand, I think that avoiding these conversations because you’re afraid that the scary hardassed queers will trip you up might count as silencing.

    I’m curious to hear how someone who doesn’t know how to respectfully refer to a trans woman is supposed to explain her right to respectful treatment, language included, from corrections officers or media representatives.

  58. piny
    piny May 14, 2009 at 2:20 pm |

    Sorry, Holly–I didn’t see your comment. I’ll stop participating in the derail myself.

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.