thesavagesalad:
PSA post to my fellow feminists
trans*women can’t appropriate a woman’s identity
why?
because they are women.
Maybe this needs repeating- but being a woman transcends your genitalia or your chromosomes. Being a woman is how you identify. That’s it. That’s all it takes to identify as a woman. If you know in your heart of hearts that you are a woman- that’s all it is.
So don’t be that douche bag that has the audacity to degrade a trans woman or demand her to prove her womanhood. She owes you no explanation.
Now if you really are a feminist, you will defend her existence to the death and ensure that she always has a safe space and voice with in the movement.
^^^
feministguy:
The opening scene of the most recent 30 Rock episode has Liz Lemon’s new boyfriend saying, in response to her protestations that she doesn’t like Valentine’s Day:
But you’re a girl! You are a girl, aren’t you? Why haven’t I seen any baby pictures?
I’m disappointed that Tina Fey would make a joke that basically hinges on the notion that a transgender woman isn’t a real woman.
I’m disappointed, but not surprised.
"
I don’t want to be a feminist anymore. Like a five-year-old, I want to close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, stomp my feet on the floor and scream “No! No, you cannot make me, I won’t, leave me alone!” I am, simply put, too tired. So very, very tired.
I am tired of fighting with my friends. I am tired of arguing that someone groping and slapping my butt isn’t “what I have to expect”, just because I’m at a bar, and the one attacking my butt has a drink in the other hand. I am tired of hearing “boys will be boys” and “when you’re dressed like that …” and “that’s just what guys do”. I am tired of trying to drown those sentiments in loud, repetitive no’s, screamed over and over again, till my throat is sore and my voice weak – just to hear them repeated, as soon as exhaustion threatens to silence me.
I am tired of being afraid. I am tired of seeing someone writing something offensive, sexist, racist, ageist, ableist, somewhere online. I am tired of seeing those writings getting likes and lol’s, and SO TRUE’s. I am tired of being consumed by confusion and anger, typing, typing, typing and typing a seemingly endless response, including research, links and statistics, and then hesitate clicking “submit”. I am tired of knowing that I hesitate because I am afraid of the flood of responses that will come. I am tired of knowing that I will be bombarded with lighten up’s, stop whining’s and get a sense of humor’s for so long, that I will start to wonder if I am indeed wound up too tight, a nagger and humorless. I am tired of the fact that I’m afraid of being called a cunt, even though I don’t find genitalia insulting or demeaning.
"
(via notafraidofruins)
This is a really frustrating feeling. It really, really is, and the problem is even worse for the trans* and POC community (who are liable to suffer much more than just name-calling), and the whole thing just gets so ridiculous and infuriating sometimes.
(via wonderwomanv2)
Yannow what super-duper sucks? Being tired of being a feminist in the fucking queer community and having anti-racism, anti-ableism and anti-cissexism treated as a joke, or worse - as is the trend in Sydney at the moment - as “thought-policing”.
I mean, I expect this shit from the straight community, though I hate it. But you queers should know better. :/
"When someone tells me she has feminist concerns with sex work, knowing that sex work is my only solution to the problem of poverty, I have a lot of trouble taking her feminism seriously because she is not taking the reality of my life seriously. Acknowledging that “there has to be a better way” isn’t good enough. I need to not live in poverty. Not after the revolution. Right now. Knowing how I feel about some feminists’ disregard for my experiences of intersecting oppression, if someone offers me a version of feminism that doesn’t confront its own colonizing or transphobic practices, I’m not going to take that very seriously either."
To the would-be sex work abolitionist, or, ‘ain’t I a woman’? | rabble.ca (via workingsex)
When someone tells me she has feminist concerns with sex work, I tell her to fuck off.
But the above is good too.
Cos I know some of you happen past this blog now and then:
People of Colour and trans women refusing to accept minimisation, offensive stereotypes, exclusion, discrimination, unsafe environments and general all-round disrespect is not the same thing as Nazi-fucking-Germany.
And drawing those comparisons - or laughing at them - trivialises not only their very real struggles, but the atrocities of racist, homophobic & ableist torture and murder visited on six million people that was the Holocaust.
Get some perspective, some compassion and some fucking maturity.
Your behaviour is disgusting.
FAILS.
YOU LOSE BY DEFAULT.
ESPECIALLY if you’re comparing one of the most brilliant, brave, sensitive and truly politically radical people in this rotten queer burg to HITLER.
It’s a logical fallacy at the best of times and would be even if this person were actually an asshole… but they’re not. Just because this individual consistently calls out oppression and discrimination in this messed-up, cliquey popularity contest we call a queer community here in Sydney, just because they keep pushing us to be better and to learn more and to improve and momentarily poops your little party of not caring a damn about who you hurt does NOT make them a “fascist”. What it does make them is eons more socially and ethically responsible than you.
The comparison is so disproportionate as to be pathetic.
It’s not just that, though. I mean, seriously. Godwin’s, without fail, trivialises the very real atrocities wrought through the Nazi regime. Pissing all over the brutal (RACIST/HOMOPHOBIC/ABLEIST) murders of six million people just so you can have a whinge about how you no longer have carte blanche to say/do whatever fucked up thing you want to without someone calling you out on it… chrissakes. Take some fucking responsibility. Grow the fuck up.
THIS IS GODWIN’S LAW
Excerpt: “Note that the Law is not supposed to apply to serious discussions of Fascist Germany or its policies, but rather describes the logical fallacy of Hitler/Nazi comparisons. It is generally accepted that whoever is the first to play the “Hitler card” has lost the argument as well as any trace of respect, as having to resort to comparing your adversary to the most infamous mass-murdering dictator in history generally means you’ve run out of better arguments.”
Seriously, queer community. Shit all over two of my most favourite people ever (and people this community is damn lucky to have anywhere even near it) in one week? All because you can’t take responsibility for your own bigotry and exclusiveness? Pathetic.
And for good measure:
Politically Correct: “I Do Not Think That Means What You Think It Means”
Excerpt: “These days, I can pretty much guarantee that when someone uses the phrase “politically correct,” it’s in the context of someone getting upset that they can’t say whatever they want, whenever they want, without consequences. Saying “politically correct” has become a shorthand for “Ugh, all those people who are in some way different from me are so sensitive, and I can’t just go ahead and say shitty things about them like you could in the good old days.” There’s a reason for that. The “good old days” weren’t good for everyone. They weren’t good for minorities, and women, and the disabled, and pretty much everyone who wasn’t a relatively affluent white Christian man. I think that people who use it manage to show the world some very important facts about themselves in just two words. Facts like they’re intolerant. They’re bigoted. They’re privileged. They’re inconsiderate of other people. And they’re assholes. So I propose we do away with the phrase “politically correct,” and replace it with “not being an asshole.” Because that’s what it really boils down to. People who are against “political correctness” are upset that they can’t be an asshole without being called on it. Not using racial slurs isn’t being politically correct, it’s not being an asshole. Not saying that women belong in the kitchen, raising kids and being subservient to their husbands is not being politically correct, it’s not being an asshole. Think about it: “I think political correctness has gotten way out of control” can easily be replaced with, “My ability to openly be a bigot is being limited and I don’t like it.””
Pretty much.
Reblogged from mareofsteel January 28, 2012
mareofsteel:
gailsimone:
clownyprincess:
Rule: flatter shoes can be as chic as towering torture chambers
ladythestripper:
clownyprincess:
The loathsome Maggie Alderson (Australian-based author of chic-lit, prior editor of several fashion magazines and a self-proclaimed feminist) has written a…
What a mean-spirited, baffling and bigoted piece of trash that article is. Everything from the shaming of women, to the drive-by insult to trans folk, to the blinkered and ignorant lecturing is wrong, wrong, wrong. And as a side point, it also happens to be a shitty piece of writing, fake ennui marinated in meandering and unearned snobbery without point, wit, or seemingly, talent. Repulsive.
It is very mean spirited, but thankfully she’s already apologized for it. A commenter on her blog named Starlet put forward pretty much all the points people are making in this note thead, and Maggie said she was sorry and even said “I wish I’d kept my trap shut.” I just want to point that out so that no one will send her any further hate mail or nasty comments, since it seems she’s already been enlightened and the issue resolved, so I’d hate to see it reignited just as it’s wrapped up.
But… it’s NOT all wrapped up. Perusal of the comments reveals this quite eloquently. Maggie HASN’T seen the error of her ways. She’s apologised for the hooker trannie sentence and that’s it - she even says she doesn’t understand why people think the column is misogynistic and cruel and keeps blathering on about how she never ‘intended’ offence.
SO: I continue to encourage people to leave their eloquent, considered and measured comments on this column. Maggie doesn’t get it and she IS an influential voice to many Australian women. She genuinely believes her only misstep was the trannie hooker line - AND she continued to use the perjorative ‘trannie’ casually afterwards - eg: in explanation she said to a follower ‘I stupidly mentioned trannies in a thoughtless way’.
She is NOW hopelessly straw-manning by saying she’s not the real enemy, after all, consider Sarah Palin - hoping that such a monstrous comparison will distract from and minimise the actions she still has to take unstinting responsibility for.
I was also really put off by her attack on the burlesque revival. One of my favorite followers and one of the nicest people on Tumblr, iwishuponstars, privileged us some time back with some pictures of a burlesque show she was in. iwishuponstars is, as I said before, a very nice girl, very smart, shares her opinions regularly on her blog—she is not repressed or unintelligent, as Maggie’s views from the article would suggest. Another of my favorite Tumblr people, harlequinfairy, is a proud stripper, and again, she’s smart, independent, and full of class.
I am really put-off - as a sex worker/stripper/burlesque performer - by the way you talk about sex workers here. You think you’re being positive and supportive but actually you’re still being judgemental. You’re still supplying criteria erotic performers have to meet to be approved of by you. That’s not okay.
(And any reference to ‘class’ is just classist anyway. The hell with that)
Reblogged from gailsimone January 28, 2012
gailsimone:
clownyprincess:
Rule: flatter shoes can be as chic as towering torture chambers
ladythestripper:
clownyprincess:
The loathsome Maggie Alderson (Australian-based author of chic-lit, prior editor of several fashion magazines and a self-proclaimed feminist) has written a…
What a mean-spirited, baffling and bigoted piece of trash that article is. Everything from the shaming of women, to the drive-by insult to trans folk, to the blinkered and ignorant lecturing is wrong, wrong, wrong. And as a side point, it also happens to be a shitty piece of writing, fake ennui marinated in meandering and unearned snobbery without point, wit, or seemingly, talent. Repulsive.
Maggie Alderson was alerted to this by tweets directed to her last night. She was very remorseful and swore up and down she hadn’t seen the unpublished comments. She has, apparently, approved all comments now. So… I encourage people to head on over and leave a comment of their own. Because, worryingly, Maggie also doesn’t seem to realise exactly what was so bad about her column. She’s pegged to the “trannie hooker” line - but that’s it. She seems to think it was just that one sentence that got everyone upset, not realising the entire column was mean-spirited, misogynistic and rigidly policing, along with a host of other prejudices reflected in both the content and the fawning comments. Sigh.
January 27, 2012
The loathsome Maggie Alderson (Australian-based author of chick-lit, prior editor of several fashion magazines and a self-proclaimed feminist) has written a misogynistic and grotesque column where she polices exaggerated-feminine fashion styles, is whorephobic and transphobic, and reduces Dita Von Teese’s worth as a human being to the type of shoes she occasionally wears.
Several of my friends and I posted comments critiquing her and in an act of prejudice, she is moderating them - while allowing comments that praise her and engage in similar woman-hating rhetoric - to go through.
SO.
I’m reposting mine and my friends’ comments here. I encourage you ALL to go and add your critiques, and reblog this post with them included. There’s a twitter hashtag going - #maggiealderson - where I urge everyone to expose her prejudice.
This kind of woman-hating crap being passed off as feminism is insulting to everyone.
THE COMMENTS:
There is so much in this article that I find incredibly offensive but I wanted to start by addressing a major fallacy that I constantly see perpetuated everywhere. Flat shoes are just as bad for your feet, and often WORSE than heels. About 6 years ago, I suffered from plantar fasciitus every couple of months. It’s an incredibly painful inflammation of the soft fleshy outer part of your foot which makes it very difficult to walk. Surprise, surprise, it was caused by wearing ballet flats on a daily basis, particularly wearing them on hard surfaces like concrete and bitumen (which comprises most walking surfaces!). After my 3rd visit to my Dr with it in as many months, he laid down the law to me and said absolutely no ballet flats, and advised me to wear nothing less than a 1.5 inch heel.
It’s an incredible struggle these days to find a cute pair of decently priced shoes that isn’t a ballet flat or a stiletto heel! I have no doubt that this is in part due to this stupid belief that flat shoes are more comfortable and better for you. I feel the same way about heels as I do about corsets; if they’re fitted well, they’re incredibly comfortable to wear on a daily basis. Two things that get an incredibly bad rap as being uncomfortable, but really aren’t. I have a small selection of cute heels, between 2 and 3 inches, which I have no trouble wearing on a daily basis (including dance classes!). The few times in the last couple years that I’ve tried wearing ballet flats (with the vain hope that perhaps their design has changed enough to be comfortable), I’ve barely managed an hour or two before my feet were in agony. Obviously, not everyone is going to have as bad a reaction to flats as I do, but there is definitely evidence out there that shows how damaging flat shoes are. If we just had access to shoes with small heels (that aren’t orthopaedic specialist shoes), perhaps this fallacy wouldn’t be so wide-spread.
Now that that’s out of the way, lets get to the more offensive parts of this article. I’m a proud feminist and devotee of vintage fashion. I feel the most comfortable and the best about myself when I’m wearing my winged eyeliner, my red lippie, a cute outfit with heels, and my hair curled in the manner of the 40’s and 50’s. I never leave the house without first applying sunscreen, blush and mascara, at an absolute minimum. How DARE you insult, belittle and demean MY choices, especially from behind the shield of ‘feminism’. Last time I checked, feminism was all about CHOICE. Giving women the space to be able to choose how they want to live their life, without limitations due to gender. How is dressing in a manner that makes you feel good about yourself ‘anti-feminist’? These looks are hardly deserving of your judgement of them as ‘repressive’. As someone who has been dressing in such a manner WAY before it was ‘in’, I copped plenty of abuse from the fashionista set for daring to step outside what was considered fashionable. I can’t tell you how absolutely freeing and EMPOWERING it was to be a very pale girl (flying against the tanned trend) wearing these beautiful girly dresses combined with my full face of make-up, and absolutely NOT give a damn about what other people thought of me or the judgments people like you were making about how I dressed. And for the record, my look is NOT high maintenance, nor does it take me especially long to look as perfectly put together as Dita. It is something I do FOR MYSELF, because it makes me feel good, not because I feel pressured by outside forces, or because I’m worried a picture will end up on Facebook, or because I’m trying to hook a man. So it’s certainly not repressive in that respect either.
Following that train of thought, burlesque is also incredibly empowering, and hardly anti-feminist; I think you’re confusing your own moral reservations and judgements with feminist ideals. To reduce this wonderful art form, one that celebrates femininity and the female form, to such simplistic terms as ‘objectification of women’ is disrespectful to the women of burlesque, past, present and future. I really think you should educate yourself about the history of burlesque, as it has such a rich past that is full of strong women making political statements, taking back the ownership of their bodies and their sexuality. Regardless of your own moral aversions to striptease (and yes, burlesque IS stripping and anyone who says otherwise is in denial), these women are an incredible inspiration, and embody feminist ideals. Dita Von Teese is an incredibly intelligent woman, who many look up to, for far more than her impeccable style. She’s a savvy business woman, an incredibly creative artist, a woman who promotes positive body image and self love, who dares women to be different, step outside the mould, reclaim their sexuality and do things that make them feel good. Hardly anti-feminist!
The very act of policing women’s bodies, passing your own judgement on other people’s choices of fashion, make-up and footwear, THAT is anti-feminist. It only serves to promote the very misogyny that we’ve been fighting against for so long. You have absolutely no right to put your own value judgements on other people, deciding why it is they’re choosing to dress in a certain manner. Unless, of course, you’ve specifically spoken to said people, and determined that they’re just mindless sheep, forced into these choices by those evil outside forces, conspiring against feminism! As a self proclaimed feminist, you really ought to know better.
(abimused)
Wow, Maggie. I hate those towering heels too. I’m in awe of anyone who can walk in them. I’m sure if I tried my hip and back would be out for days.
However, I think it’s actually possible to write an article praising flat shoes without transphobic and whorephobic comments slung in to hold the readers’ attention. Is your writing not good enough to hold our attention without those cheap shots? That’s just lazy and hateful writing.
You have a platform for speaking out provided to you via the media. How about trying to be a little smarter and cleverer with it. Now THAT would be Old School Feminism.
(MYS)
Dear Maggie,
Whorephobia and transphobia are neither chic, stylish nor clever.
Just ignorant, classist, and further marginalising to people who are already thought of by mainstream society as less-than human.
What makes you think that trans people and sex workers don’t read your blog?
(SA)
Maggie, I also prefer flats over heels. But there’s no need to go hating on every other demographic of woman who isn’t you. Next time, try writing an article that isn’t so steeped in discrimination and elitism. Geez.
(KellyMyDear)
How hopelessly retrograde to sneeringly slut-shame and deny agency to women in stripping under the guise of “feminism”. As a feminist, a sex worker and an occasional burlesque performer, I resent the implication I am nothing more than an object or that my work - whether in burlesque or sex work - encourages objectification- with no further complexity, narrative or dynamic.
As if it isn’t enough that sex workers have to deal with those in the burlesque industry denying that burlesque is strip tease with sneering whorephobic classism, now so-called “feminists” deride burlesque by calling it a “fancy name” for strip tease. With sneering whorephobic classism.
Both sides demonstrate hopeless ignorance of not only the history of burlesque - it was the FIRST form of striptease and stripping has always been inherent to it - but the agency, self-determination and awareness of strippers and other sex workers.
This is patently ANTI-feminist, as one of the guiding rules of feminism is the recognition of a woman’s autonomy and capacity to choose her path - even if you, Maggie, don’t like it.
Furthermore, you police women’s bodies and images with snide remarks about “too much makeup”, or big hair, or styles of dress - exactly who ARE you, if you believe in women’s rights, to deny womens’ ability and right to express themselves visually in whatever means they see fit? Why would you presume that women are so stupid they’re merely “taken in” and “manipulated” by advertising and marketing? Has it ever occurred to you some women LOVE looking like “drag queens”? That for some women the artifice of exaggerated femininity is fun - is enjoyable - is a very conscious and deliberate ownership of a constructed image? Or is your own insecurity in the face of such brazen self-determination so threatened you can only conceptualise it as helplessness? Not very feminist. At all.
Finally, you round it all off with a grotesque example of transphobia with your reference to “trannie hookers”. “Trannie” is a highly perjorative term, associated with violence and murder against trans women, and is not a term to use casually or flippantly - unless you want to imply you hate trans women and have no empathy or consideration for the particular discrimination they face - which is VERY closely connected to misogyny, is actually an aspect of misogyny.
And as someone whose worked the street - extremely high heels aren’t suitable. But way to perpetuate an ignorant stereotype!
This kind of misogyny, whorephobia, transphobia and prejudice dressed up as “feminism” doesn’t serve anyone, Maggie. And YOU should know better.
If you wanted to express YOUR personal preference for flat shoes, I’m sure you could’ve done it without insulting a whole bunch of other women (inculding trans women - who are also women, Maggie).
Seriously, Dita has “won you over” by wearing flat shoes and carrying the same bag? If only you could read any number of intelligent and insightful things this woman has said that go far beyond the regular wearing of flat shoes - surprise, surprise, Dita is an independent woman who has her own strong opinions, a variety of life experience that have informed her decisions, sexual, financial, business and social autonomy and - GASP - is able to choose her footwear - and openly admits to adoring towering stilettos, all by her own widdle self! But, no, instead all you need to do is reduce Dita to the clothes she wears and she becomes worthwhile to you? How strangely like the sexist standards you proclaim to be against!
Frankly, I’d rather be dressed by any one of Sydney’s esteemed drag queens than wear anything dubbed “stylish” by you.
(Starlet)
What’s the problem, Maggie? I know for a fact you’ve received more than one slamming critique for this woman-hating post, yet the only ones you’re approving are the bum-crawly ones? Afraid of criticism? Surely someone who’s been in the media biz as long as you have can cop a little dressing-down.
That you can approve Jasmine’s brown-nosing without regard for how incredibly classist and anti-feminist and woman-hating it is just indicative of what’s really motivating you here: hate and prejudice. To allow something as classist as “And don’t even get me started on the striptease and pole-dancing crazes – sorry, but if it were really about fitness/athleticism/art, you would be doing gymnastics, ballet or aerial” to go through just because that commenter is kissing your butt is gross. Because it’s not as if pole-dancing is perhaps made to seem more accessible than ballet, gymnastics and aerial (speaking as someone who has studied all four arts)? Or perhaps women just want to do something that makes them feel sexy? Oh but we should laugh and ridicule them right, cos women shouldn’t feel sexy – that just makes them hopeless victims of the patriarchy? And sexy woman are disgusting sluts, right?
Are you lot seriously so intimidated and threatened by this sort of woman that you would pass your little bitch-fest off as fashion critique?
That’s pathetic.
(Starlet)
January 24, 2012
This is a fabulously written article by a trans man directed at other trans men. There’s been a very intense discussion happening over the last few years about why it is inappropriate for trans men to use the perjorative ‘tranny’ to describe themselves, as it’s primarily been used against trans women. Trans women have been writing and talking about this brilliantly for years and are, as the article indicates, the foremost experts to be heeded on the subject, but this article really is great - it’s concise, sensitive, warm, intelligent and gently-humorous without pulling punches.
Trans brothers, dear dear dear men, whom I respect and look up to and adore, allow me to quote noted gender theorist Inigo Montoya:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’m writing this because there’s been tons of talk about this slur recently. Trans men, some of them high profile, using tr*nny, trans women calling them on it, trans men demanding that they have a right to say it, et cetera. So before I start the serious stuff, I want to say that I’m not who you should listen to. This is really a trans women’s issue. You should listen to trans women. But they are already talking, and from your reactions, it’s clear we need to talk about this. From one trans guy to a bunch of others.
I’m not mad, guys. Well, ok, I’m a little mad. But mostly I just want to help fix this. We’ve made some bad mistakes. I used to use this word too, and I own that. I fucked up. We fucked up. Now let’s work to make this better.
Tr*nny is a slur. I think we’ve all agreed on that. Diverse sources, from Julia Serano to Kelly Osbourne, all agree. But for whom is it a slur? We know what image is summoned when we hear n*gger–a Black body. When we hear fag–a queer male body. When we hear d*ke–a queer female body. These words evoke certain identities. There are clear images associated with them. Fags are effeminate. D*kes are too masculine to be proper women. What clear image is evoked by tr*nny?
You know as well as I do: it’s the image of a trans woman. A “male” body, or rather, a body doctors would assign as male, in women’s clothing. A person attempting–and always failing, in these images–to be female. That’s what the image has historically been, and with only a few tiny changes, that’s what the image is now.
Whenever I have this debate, I suggest people google “tr*nny.” I stand by that suggestion. Click over the image tab and you’ll see trans women and drag queens galore, a few car parts, and fabulously enough, a picture of Kate Bornstein with a photoshopped mermaid’s tail, but almost never a trans man. When you do see trans men online associated with the slur, they’re almost always calling themselves tr*nnies. They’re not having the word pinned on them by cis people. This distinction is excruciatingly important.
The fact that cis people don’t call trans men tr*nnies very often illuminates two important things about trans male experience: the degree to which are and have been invisible, and what a weird place we stand in as female-assigned men in a patriarchal world.
The invisibility is a big part of what’s scary about being a trans man. We’re so unspeakable that there isn’t even a common word used to degrade exclusively us. When we look into history for gender variant people, we see trans women, and we see this word used against them. We see few trans men, and just like those historical trans men are mostly invisible, so are the structures of oppression used to keep them down.
Reclaiming tr*nny feels like a way to have a history. But that word was never our history. It feels like a way to name and confront those invisible oppressive structures. But it doesn’t do that work, because while the structures that oppress trans women have many elements in common with the ones that oppress us, they’re not the exact same ones.
That’s because, like I said, trans men are in such a weird position in relation to patriarchy. To the patriarchal eye, we seem to following the sexist imperative that being a man is better than being a woman, which of course the patriarchy is all for. But we’re doing it by violating another central patriarchal imperative: that people with vaginas are women.
So we move through this sexist world in a peculiar manner–able to wield our male privilege when we’re allowed to function as men, but subject to a particularly painful brand of transphobic and homophobic sexism when we’re understood as women.
Sure, sometimes trans guys get called tr*nny. But let’s please be real: It’s not that often, and it’s a recent phenomenon. Maybe we’ll get to the point where it’s a common enough slur against trans men that we can start to have the reclamation conversation. But man, I hope we don’t. It’s depressing and comical, us wanting our very own slur.
Sure, you might have a trans woman friend who doesn’t mind you calling yourself a tr*nny. This is because women, like men, don’t always agree with one another!
Sure, you may be very attached to the word “tr*nny” as a part of your identity. You can identify as anything you want! But if it is absolutely imperative for you to use that word, and you using that word makes trans women feel unsafe around you, I’m not sure what to tell you. Maybe you should do some work within yourself, trying to discover why you have such an intense need to own a word that makes people feel unsafe. All of which is to say that, ultimately, your identity is your identity, but you don’t need to share all of it with everyone if it makes them feel unsafe.
Raise your hand if you’re a young white trans guy who went/goes to a liberal arts college and is reading this on his Macbook. (My hand is raised.) Please know that most people who get tr*nny used against them on a daily basis are poor trans women of color. Please try to remember that working to include poor trans women of color in our movement is like, one of the most important things we need to do right now.
Which is more important, working to make trans women feel comfortable and safe in our community, or using a word that makes us feel all tingly and transgressive?
Resist transmisogyny. You do not need someone else’s slur to connect with your own history. Stop using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Stephen Ira is a writer and an activist who was assigned West Coast and showbiz but identifies as East Coast and books. He writes poetry, fiction, and essay-shaped objects which have been published in Spot Literary Magazine, 365 Tomorrows, and can be found on his own blog, Super Mattachine.
skankassqueer:
crazy-:
A documentary that explores antagonism in the lesbian community as a result of the increased visibility of transgender men.
A drama film based on the real-life story of Brandon Teena, a transsexual man who was raped and murdered by his…
yeah, trans women have more visibility in film, but how many of them are:
- serial killers like Norman Bates or Buffalo Bill or Bobbi Elliot?
- played by cis women in “ugly makeup” like Sabrina Osborne
- portrayed as crossdressers or drag queens rather than trans women
- full of transphobic and transmisogynist tropes and stereotypes
take that all away and basically you’re left with Breakfast on Pluto. that’s about it.
Word to the word.
Though - and it has been at least ten years since I last saw this film so I don’t remember it very well and it may have problematic elements - Better Than Chocolate had a woman who was trans in it and attempted to deal with some of the stereotypes and stigma, including the drag queen associations (a performance art piece by the character is ‘I Am Not A Fucking Drag Queen)
(Source: bravesansa)
becauseiamawoman:
she-hulk-smash:
labocat:
Taken from the Honest Girl Scouts campaign. For a campaign trying to get people /not/ to buy cookies and /not/ support the GSUSA, this is doing an awful lot to suddenly make me want /to/ support the GSUSA. (and I’m saying this a a former Girl Scout of about 6 years who hasn’t bought cookies in years because they’re too expensive).
I see so much acceptance here, and especially in a time in children’s lives where acceptance is so important, taking that away from them is just cruel.
Fucking AMAZING. Samoas for breakfast, Tagalongs for Lunch, Thin Mints for Dinner from now on.
It warms my heart that this organization is proving itself to be such a positive influence and is instilling really awesome values in kids. All this information is making me proud to be a former Girl Scout. As soon as they eliminate the “serve God” part from the Girl Scout promise, they’ll be golden.
YUMYUMYUM GUESS IM ORDERING SOME COOKIES NOW. THANKS GIRL SCOUTS FOR BEING BAD ASS.
Is this supposed to put me off Girl Scouts? This is making me LOVE Girl Scouts.
"
Here’s my take: when you teach adults and children sex-negative messages, sex becomes an undifferentiated mass of “wrong.” If all sex is wrong, then why try to tease out good from bad, pleasurable from painful? When students are taught not to think about sex, they aren’t going to spend any time determining what they do and don’t want, or what they might be interested in. Of course, they’re going to have sex eventually, but when it happens will they be able to communicate at all through the veil of guilt, shame, and self-loathing that sex negativity encourage?
Sex-negative messages don’t keep people from having sex. They keep people from having good sex. They keep people from having pride in their sexuality, from sexual self-awareness. They keep people from asking questions about sex, and communicating with their partners. They discourage experimentation. They blur the lines between consensual sex and rape by framing all sex as an undifferentiated mass of “bad.” They combine victim-blaming with generalized guilt about sex, so that perpetrator and survivor are equally culpable.
"
Sex Positive Activism: “Sex-Negative Education and the Spectre of Rape” (via trenchantashell)
Yes, yes and yes. We also need to teach people about asexuality and that asexuality isn’t “wrong” either. Love this quote!
(via thesexuneducated)
