Friday, December 11, 2009

"'No' to the notion of Bilerico"

On edit: You may want to start here. Or, for a more charitable view, here.*

*a follow-up, less charitable view by the same author

Otherwise, here's the direct link:

And no, Bil, it's not good because it's (ffs) "controversial," already. You get a modest increase of hits now, because people rubberneck at the transphobic fail. You -lose- readers after the initial flurry of outrage, because, well, see above re: fail. And any readers you -gain- from this are not people any self-respecting "LGBT" advocate, no matter how notional the "T", wants to have.


p.p.s. THIS. **

Q: What are the sources of transphobia? Is it best combatted by telling it to go away?

A: Its source is not mere prejudice, but old and complex power relations that must be changed, a task that is neither quick nor easy, and is not accomplished by adding a letter to an organization's name. It is based in heterosexism and heteronormativity masked as "radical" critique...This needs to be called out and addressed by the gay community. It should not be up to the transgender community to battle alone, thus furthering the divide.

...By arguing that those born male must retain identification with maleness, even if not with masculinity, his critique lags well behind the radical curve, and begins to merge with the opinions of conservative traditionalists. At one time the use of bronze tools was the latest in technology. To advocate their use today would be silly.

Gold's opinion isn't silly, however, because it is still held by many. It is a hateful ideology. It is alive and well today and often deployed against the trans community. We may yet see it rear its ugly head in the ENDA wars of 2010. I pray that we do not.

**yes, it's also on Bilerico. I appreciate not wanting to give the blog as a whole any more traffic. I felt a bit weird-since I was already sending them traffic-not even at least linking to one of the follow-ups by trans contributors, not to let Bilerico off the hook but because this is a much better post, and honestly I don't think it necessitates Gold's bilge for posts like this to be on their front page in the first place, especially AT Bilerico, which seems to be one semi-apologetic argument ("it's an ill wind..."). That said, I'm resuming my policy of not reading/linking to them after this. I like a lot of the individual contributors there, but it just doesn't even feel like Bil sees what the damn problem is, even now. The suggestion of having trans editors would help, I expect...then again I apparently missed a bunch of other fail as well (Polanski apologism, too? -LeVay- apologism? Seriously? Argh)

ETA Better. (removed Gold as well as the O.P.) It'd be nice to believe that this is happening because it's really understood why and to what degree this was problematic, not just because the wheel finally squeaked enough to get some grease and the bottom line looked like it might be in danger from this one, after all.

ETA again: if you missed the original fail, a lot of it is cached in fisk form at Autumn's post at PHB. Wherein it is also speculated (not the only place by any means) that it is by the way rather interesting timing considering ENDA is up again and apparently so is the possibility of once again throwing trans folk under the bus.

Also, via a commenter from one of the above-linked posts (Angela Brightfeather):

...We need to be on the offensive with Mr. Gold and tonight while driving home and listenting to Michaelangelo Signoreli's radio show on OutQ radio, he announced that due to all this fuss on Bilerico, he will be talking about Mr. gold's post next week on his show. I immediately called him and told him that I object to giving Mr. Gold any airtime on his show and would consider it an insult to myself to let his kind of non-thinking comments be given any air time at all.

So be ready folks. This isn't over yet and I fully expect that while Mr. Gold will not make a personal appearance on the show, I am sure that there will be any number of gay men calling in about those whinning Trans folks who are such a problem to deal with.


Jeff Fecke said...

Bil has now rather fulsomely apologized:

Which is something, I guess.

I did think the original post was useful insofar as it reminds us that just because people are sane on some issues, they aren't sane on every one.

Comrade PhysioProf said...

It seemed that the dude started off on the right foot in asserting that trans folk are not "diseased", but then he went right off the rails in concluding that, therefore, they are "deluded" and that reassignment surgery is "mutilation".

genderbitch said...

I appreciate the rage and all but could we not use the word sane to denote a lack of bigotry and conflate mental illness with bigotry and unreasonable willful ignorance?

It's very psychophobic and ableist. Also I think the word "fuckwit" is ableist too, but I can't remember off hand. I'd check at FWD to see, just to make sure.

Brown Shoes said...

That was some noxious bigotry, right there.

belledame222 said...

I don't remember seeing "fuckwit" as problematic anywhere-always put it on a par with "shithead"-but it's no problem to change it.

belledame222 said...

anyway, no, the followup by Bil is also full of fail, as many have made clear in the comments.

GallingGalla said...

Never change, Bil. We need someone besides Julie Bindel around to point to as an example of TOTAL UTTER UNCHANGING NEVER EVER GONNA GET BETTER CISFAIL.

Also, I agree with genderbitch r.e. the use of "sane" in this context - it is ableist.

belledame222 said...

Just in-he got rid of Gold and took down the post. squeaky wheel and all...

personally I think it'd have been better to archive the post somewhere so it's "on the record" in case there's attempts at revisionist history down the line, but enough people were asking for it to come down that seems like one of their better options.

Comrade PhysioProf said...

It seems to me that the better choice would have been to leave the post up, but to have annotated it with FAIL! Disappearing it is bad for exactly the reason you stated, belledame, and also because it is good for people to have the opportunity to see with their own eyes the full range of opinions that exist, no matter how disturbing.

belledame222 said...

Well, I think it should never have gone up in the first place, since the people it hurt the most are all too used to seeing it and you -can- find that shit outside of one's supposed sanctuary. But once it was up for that long and the damage has been done, it seems more on to at least leave a testament to what all those comments were complaining about for future reference.

laughriotgirl said...

Thanks for being massively awesome