Sure thing, Joan Kelly, will do.

Re this post and the preceding ones.

Yeah, enabling Howly Blog does put you beyond the pale. I'm afraid so. I mean, truthfully, personally, I never cottoned to you much anyway, so no great loss. But, seriously? You are sucking up to a couple of vile trolls who would basically be Fred Phelps with a couple of small adjustments. Glad to see you've found a "spine" of some sort, though. It does take guts to "agree to disagree" about blatant hatemongering, fuck knows.

And, for the record, the tu quoqueing you've been doing? Yeah, those women (yes, women) are *also* toxic hateful assholes. Amazingly enough, the existence of some assholes doesn't excuse vile bigotry, which is, let me repeat, exactly what you are oh so magnanimously choosing to ignore as "disagreement." Let's not even get into the "what? I'm not saying I -like- infanticide, I'm just saying it beats the alternatives."

So, yeah, posting this will no doubt feed the martyrdom complex as well as the vomit monster machine, and, yeah, I keep swearing I'm giving up the dwama, but you know, I can live with it. Because, wrt the whole "if you don't like them, just don't read them?" You're full of shit. They post flaming gauntlets like that and especially leave hatespoor trackbacks to any trans blogger post they find for a reason. They wanted a reaction. They got it. And now, so have you.

Enjoy.

There is a special place in hell for people blocking meaningful health care reform in this country

Particularly for the profiteers off the current system and the politicians who are ranting about socialism and so on whilst comfortably partaking of government funded health care (the best there is!) for their very own worthless caracasses.

In it, this spot in hell, they all get infected with each and every one of the diseases that they deemed not worthy of coverage for someone, and are chained Tantalus-like inches away from someone holding out the required meds/ treatment.

Then they're told they can have the treatment if they fill out all the paperwork...in blood. Except by the time they finish one form
they're told that form is now obsolete and they have to start over from scratch.

I'm just saying. You know, in case the threats of political stonewalling and marches and petitions and shit don't work out.

Happy fucking Pride, eh?

40 years, people. And:

Some cops in Forth worth decided to celebrate Pride weekend with a good old fashioned gay bar raid.

One of the victims is in ICU with a brain injury; he may not survive. The cops' excuse?

"Monday, police chief Jeff Halstead said the officers' actions are being investigated. However, he also said that officers that entered the bar during the scheduled inspection were touched inappropriately.

"You're touched and advanced in certain ways by people inside the bar, that's offensive," he said. "I'm happy with the restraint used when they were contacted like that."

See, no one's actually DIED, see. Well, yet. As of today. Lucky they got off easy, eh? They could've been nailed to a motherfucking fence. How dare they be "drunk and disorderly" (the putative excuse apparently) and act...gay. In a -gay bar.-
And yes, of course whatever touching may have gone on was some guy grabbing a poor hapless cop's ass, not, I don't know, trying to defend himself from being -beaten down to the point of brain injury-. Gay panic for the fail! Bonus points 'coz -it's a motherfucking cop in a fucking gay bar.- On PRIDE WEEKEND.

"They were hyped up. They were loaded for bear," said Todd Camp, a veteran journalist who was there celebrating his birthday with friends. "They were just randomly grabbing people, telling them they were drunk."
Camp told me he has been in bars during TABC/police "checks" before, "and it was never anything like this." Usually, he said, officers discreetly walk through, looking for anybody who has had too much. This was different. "They were shoving patrons," Camp said, "asking, 'How much have you had to drink?'"

...

"[Gibson] was taken down hard," said Camp, with "four or five" officers wrestling him to the floor inside the club. Cellphone photos shot by patrons and posted to blogs show a person being held facedown by officers in a short hallway inside the club, then show a dent in the wall where his head was apparently banged....

Hey. Here's a wacky notion about "public health care:"

If you're a government official and against "public health care?" As in, the government paying for the public's health care? Then go off the fucking grid and stop accepting our tax money for YOUR health care, you miserable son of a bitch. Bootstraps away, eh? -You- pay for a fucking chronic illness or catastrophe out of pocket. No donations, no insurance, nothing beyond your basic salary. Go on, it'll be funny.

And no, at this point most Americans aren't too stupid to understand we're getting screwed over.

Seriously, do we need to tack a gorram Venn diagram onto every feminist blog, or what?

little light commenting at feministe:

THIS IS THE GODDAMN PROBLEM. To you, WOC and queer people are allies to feminism. They are adjunct groups, special interests, separate causes distract from women’s issues.
Let’s unpack that a little.

Women of color, in bringing up their concerns, are allies to (regular) women, who are just doing plain old feminism. Women of color are allies to feminism. Queer people are allies to feminism. Issues of racism, gender identity, and orientation, plus the accompanying oppressions and concerns, are “interesting” side dishes to feminism, which is for women.

Women of color and queer women are women. We are women. Our issues are women’s issues. They are inextricable from our womanhood. They are part of our feminism, and part of we want feminism to pay attention to, because these things are women’s issues. Your version posits that there’s regular women, who just do feminism, and then there’s those allies who drag those regular women in the trap of paying attention and giving energy to other causes–like the concerns of the women next to them who are brown, trans, and queer.

What does that make these regular women, the core of feminism, so gracious as to allow in the interesting sidebars on race and gender and orientation and ability and class, so vulnerable to falling into the trap of paying too much attention to those issues? White. Straight. Cissexual. Able-bodied. Not working-class. Those are “just plain women” in your frame. Their issues are “WOMEN’S issues.” Other women? Women who are different? Their issues aren’t “WOMEN’S issues,” except for the ones they share in common with white, straight, upper-class, cissexual, able-bodied women. Their issues are an occasionally-interesting distraction from real women’s issues.

Thanks but no thanks for your inclusion, pal.

And while we're on the subject of racism:

Yes, I know, "racist" is the worst thing one could ever, ever, ever accuse anyone of being and one must therefore reserve such speculations for, like, actual lynchings, if that ("he's a nice boy! he doesn't have a racist bone in his body! he didn't mean it PERSONALLY. he just got...upset"). Nonetheless. It is hard to know what (else) to make of, well, pretty much anything that comes out of Reclusive Leftist these days, but specifically, now (once again via Palin Puma Watch):

Warning: post contains a quotation with racial epithets.

Apostate, bless her, is still trying:

I agree with you that the sexist stuff is inexcusable. However, please believe me to be sincere in saying that it does seem as if there is simple *adoration* of Palin in the PUMA camp. This adoration is not in keeping with your stated disagreement with most of Palin’s platform.

Plus, at least half of your commenting community sound like Republican women to me. I may be wrong about this, but such is my impression. After a certain point, your commenting community begins to define the tone of your blog.

To which Violet replies:

Apostate, your comment 136 about people “adoring” Palin reminds me of an old and horrible phrase: “nigger-lover.” That used to be what racists called white people who committed the sin of not sharing in the racism of the day. If you refused to join in the slurs, if you stood up for the simple humanity of a black person, if you tried pointing out his or her qualities and abilities, you weren’t seen as being just or decent; you were a “nigger-lover.”

It is a sad commentary on the zeitgeist that by simply refusing to engage in the bashing of Palin, by standing up for her as a person, for trying to see the real woman, for treating her with basic dignity and honesty, I’m “adoring” Palin.

As for the “everyone” you refer to who interprets this as adoration, that is an artifact of your circumstances. From what I know of you, the only feminists you come into contact with (online and in real life) are exactly the same lemmings who have engaged in the kind of sexist Palin-bashing I’m describing. The mostly young feminists online have devolved into a caricature; I’m embarrassed by them. Planned Parenthood allowed the Obama campaign to use its mailing list to send out a smear email about Palin.

The women in my circle, in real life and online, are long-time feminists who are deeply disturbed by what has happened.

By the way: I usually like Shakesville, but the last time I was there they were uncritically repeating the rape kit smear. I haven’t been back since.


What. In. The. FUCK.

Aside from the gratuitous use of racial slurs, the inherent WTFery of a white woman lecturing a woman of colour about racism, and the disingenuous bullshit about how she's just been defending Palin's humanity instead of actively encouraging people to vote for her, read these comments and tell me with a straight face there's no adoration going on. Read Violet's repeated assertions that she recognizes Palin as "kin" to her and tell me she's just objectively defending a woman against sexism...*

So, first of all, seconding the rest of PPW's commentary there (which you should go read), and this and also this, insightful analyses of what else might actually be going on with the Palin fanbase.

I'll just add this, because now I'm good and pissed:

You know. Given just how much projection is going on there ("lemmings" "devolved into a caricature" "embarrassed by them" "smear," and that's just in that one post). And given that there is otherwise very little Earth explanation as to how exactly someone gets from "likes Palin, an unpopular view in the larger feminist community" to...that;

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that maybe, just maybe, -that- was what VS (along with some others) was really wanting to call the "O-bots" all along.

I mean. -Such- betrayal. -Such- outrage. Is it -really- all because gosh darn it we should have just supported the woman, -any- woman, over the man, -any- man? Really. And yet, at that same place: the campaign to throw the vote, however "unwillingly" to McCain; and even now, a number of snarks at Michelle Obama (ain't she a woman?)

So, say the nomination had ultimately come down to Edwards versus Clinton, and had narrowly gone to Edwards (assuming of course he hadn't fucked up with the stupid sex scandal, which of course besides being the political suicide that it was would be duly and correctly excoriated by most feminists: everyone loves Elizabeth, he was another arrogant shit, but anyway moving on). Would the PUMA's have existed at all? In this form? And still be going, and going, and going, and fucking going? With freepers all over the fucking place now, yet? Really.

I mean, anything's possible; we can all speculate a thousand "what if" scenarios, right, and the goddam election, I keep having to remind myself, is -over-. Mostly because, well, now the -hard part-, and the adrenaline is hard to let go of.

But also, yeah, crap like this.

This post-PUMA thing, as I'm looking at it, insofar as it may be relevant at all, is shaping up as an unholy "confluence" between the dregs of what was already a noxious form of "cultural" feminism, which already had more than its share of thinly-if-at-all-veiled racism, creepy calls for "purity" and crypto-fascist nostalgia for mythical times, among other reactionary markers; and actual full-on right wing reactionaries. Now with more xenophobia and nativist bunker mentality!

Which is, of course, -exactly what the world fucking needs-. FEMINISM, especially, we -need- this, fuck knows. I mean the real problem with mainstream feminism, it turns out, is that it's -not focused on white and/or straight women enough.

Oh, yeah: it's hard out there for a white, straight woman.

[from someone called "Cindy"]

The following I’ve written as an open “letter” to Americans (from my perspective as a straight, white woman):

We are American women.
We have done eveything society asked of us.
We behaved in school.
We looked as pretty as possible at all times.
We learned to cook.
We learned to sew.
We went to church.
We dated nice boys.
We got married.
We took our husbands’ names.
We gave up our identities.
We took jobs for less pay.
We bore you children.
We lovlingly taught, nursed, guided, and nurtured these children.
We volunteered at our children’s schools.
We baked cookies for community fundraisers.
We volunteered at political campaigns.
We volunteered at nursing homes.
We took care of our elderly parents.
We have been loyal American patriots.
What have we done wrong? Why do you hate us?
Were we not pretty enough for you?
Did we not scream loud enough during childbirth?
Are we not dying at the hands of intimate partners fast enough for you?
Why do you hate us?

Poignant, innit?

Almost as poignant as the plight of Joe the Plumber (whom?): you bought a dream which was never even -meant- to be applicable to 80% of the population in the first place (and unwanted by another good 15% or so I'd say); and now that the dream is clearly being revealed as a bill of goods, you:

a) cling frantically to the politician who promises to keep the increasingly threadbare, -even to you-, fantasy going, no matter what the cost to you, let alone anybody else in the entire world (whom?)

b) incredibly, are now whining, to the 95% of the population to whom this means exactly jack and shit, for -sympathy-, even as you continue to do everything in your passive-aggressive power to fuck them over. All while denying strenuously that you're doing any such thing.

Ummm...sorry, what was the question? Right, right. "We" hate "you, plural," because, um.

a) You're beautiful, like a Prell commerical (or whatever the fuck that was. Also, popular and shiny, and we covet your red scrunchie.

b For your freedoms, unless it's for your not-freedoms.

c) Because "we're" "the" "axis" "of" "evil." Thugs, 'bots of various sorts, etc. etc. etc.

d) Because we, the WINO's aka "Women In Name Only," forgot the "feminist" rule that you're not supposed to attack a woman (i.e. a "real" woman, whom I guess at this point the only one would be...you), no matter what she does to you first.

Certainly not because "you" are a whiny, plaster-of-Paris, self-absorbed, genteely bigoted, rightwing -git- who's becoming everything you claim you're afraid of and (collectively) would be dangerous if you gave any signs of being able to find your way out of a grease-proof paper bag unassisted.

I'm sorry; was that sexist of me? Too -mean-? -Unfair-? Unladylike unfeminist?

Because, you know, I feel just awful about it.

Damn.

ETA Then again, with endorsements like these, how could you possibly go wrong, am I right?

http://www.greenconsciousness.org/weblog/2008/01/reclusive-leftist....

I, who am a dried up angry embittered angry cynical paranoid angry hag, burst out laughing out loud, over and over and over as I read the Reclusive Leftist. She is anti war and I am not, which is usually the Great Divide but not here. She cares about women even if she doesn't get what it will take to create room for women under Sharia to breath. (it will take a lot of killing).

elsewhere, from the same charming commenter ("Green Consciousness;" she's some sort of eco-feminist too, see, Animal Liberation Front and so forth):

http://www.greenconsciousness.org/weblog/2008/06/another-so-called-...

Muslims are a threat in every country they immigrate to and from -they bring their anti-semitic hatreds, their misogyny, their separatism, their gender apartheid and their dhimmi tactics against the infidels which include a moral threatening outrage over imaginary and legitimate criticism. They cry victim to shame and guilt trip the people they victimize. We must defend our democracy from these Muslim war tactics or we will be their victims.

Obama used these tactics successfully against the Clintons by calling them racists every time they made any factual statement the BO campaign could twist to their advantage. People had to know what they were doing when they jumped on that race baiting band wagon but they wanted BO to win more than they cared about fairness...His backers proudly wear teeshirts with the name Hussein to proclaim their solidarity with his Muslim heritage.

If legitimate fear and loathing of fascist Muslim culture and religious practices can be made to seem racist, soon the hate laws will cover Muslims. Then Muslims will use these laws the way abusers use injunctions against their victims. The way that group of Muslims baited authorities on that airplane where they prayed in the aisles, asked for seat belt extenders, went to the bathroom in groups and generally tried to provoke a lawsuit.

I struggle --- constantly struggle with a hatred that is growing in my own heart, not toward Muslims who I coldly recognize as my enemy, but at those who pretend to stand for women while protecting slave masters who seek to dominate us by overwhelming numbers or by force. Muslims as individuals are both good and bad but it is the women I am concerned with and about - those who feel a desire to be their own boss and oppressed by their religion, practices and culture. The correct thing to do is to help the decent people leave the Muslim faith and find a way to live free. Very hard but battered women do it, all abuse survivors do it. You cannot live free and stay Muslim. This attitude must become part of our foreign policy in that we insist on secular political systems in countries we support. Because the Muslim religion does not tolerate nonbelievers, we nonbelievers must not tolerate the Muslim religion to gain power in our democracy which is vulnerable to it...

tangentially:

I don't have time to get into it fully tonight, but wrt this from hexpletive, which you should read the whole damn thing?

I mean, there are only so many ways to say "omfg Heart you're a hateful pernicious idiot," but -really-:

I don’t care how many condoms get handed out in the Third World somewhere

You WHAT. You...no, I said I don't have time, and I don't. Not today.

But speaking of regressive policies that we really would rather AVOID voting their proponents into office if we can help it, that right there, you know, is a -great- place to begin for why Bush sucked and McCain/Palin will continue to suck, and why, once again, some "feminists" really need to stfu and go back to the waiting arms of the Religious Right from whence they sprang, thanks.

Also: what saorla said.

Well I care about condom distribution in the developing world (third world is pejorative now), I live in Cambodia. In Cambodia whether the sex work is through trafficking or voluntary the women call themselves sex workers. They feel that "prostitute" is pejorative. The major of sex workers in Cambodia turn to sex work through poverty, rape or trafficking and they are damned sure they want protection through condoms. People living with HIV are discriminated against and Cambodia has a high rate of HIV transmission.

http://saorla.blogspot.com/2008/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse.html

It's nice that you have the luxury not to care when you live in a country that withdraws billions of dollars in vital aid when condoms or abortions for sex workers are funded.

http://saorla.blogspot.com/2006/10/religious-right-and-development-aid.html

http://saorla.blogspot.com/2007/07/flicker-of-common-sense.html

You have a choice not to care. You could choose not to be callous about that choice. But your government makes sure to put these women in further danger.

Oh and by the way, there's virtually no porn in Cambodia and definitely no hardcore stuff but sex work is at every level of society.

ETA: oh, you've got to be fucking KIDDING me now. No, Heart, Saorla is not a "john" or a "sex tourist," or a man for that matter; and, no, no one owes you independent proof of their identity ffs (who the fuck do you think you ARE?")

Edited, again, again: so, she apologized, apparently.


ETA again: the original unedited thread is recapped at Renegade's, here, if you've an interest.

Yes, I'm "pro-trans." It's an integral part of my "gay agenda," get it?

i.e. Meanie Meanerton continued.

Sorry, I appreciate Debi taking the time to rebut the idea that

"women are being divided into two camps - pro trans and anti trans.

I can't really say more than Debi and the other commenters have said wrt "hello, trans women ARE women, duh shit they're concerned with "womens' issues," ring ring ring clue phone." So I'll just attempt to address my concern here one last time, in my usual tactful delicate way:

What the fuck do you MEAN, "pro trans and anti trans"?

And, who is "we," by the way? Because I may be a "woman born woman" by Jo22's definition (I am sure I've long since given up claim to the title 'feminist,' but she does say 'women,' here), but really, include me the hell out.

Know why? Because I -already- am alienated when you say:

Feminism should of course take all gender issues very seriously, and they do, but there are other things we are fighting for and against, too...At the moment, all I am seeing is women being divided. There are those who think that the suffering of men who believe/ed themselves to be in the wrong body, should be discussed over and above other feminist issues that some trans women do not seem as bothered by. Abortion rights for example....

I hate to break this to you, Jo, but not all cis women prioritize "abortion rights" as highly as you do either. For instance, you know what the next thing I was going to write about was, before this caught my bloodshot eye? The fuckheads trying to rescind gay marriage rights, AGAIN, on the California ballot. It's not an either/or, Jo: I'm gay, AND I'm a woman: this affects me as both. As it happens, I am more interested in this -personally- than I am in reproductive rights. I also write about "abortion rights" occasionally, possible reproductive rights, certainly bodily autonomy rights ("my body, my choice" means a lot of different things to some of us, see, but is all part of the same principle); but you know what, I'll be damned if someone tries to tell me that I excuse me "we" need to put that first because it's automatically understood to be all womens' first concern: it is not.

Particularly, not in the way I suspect you're thinking of it, and I don't have time at the moment to go hunt up all of bfp's and elle's and others' writings on how actually, no, "abortion rights" are NOT the be-all and end-all of -reproductive rights- when it comes to -all- women; race and class tends to alter that equation in a number of ways that I am not going to get into at the moment.

Point being: well, no, let's keep this simple. Know why online feminist discussions keep coming back to trans issues? Because some "feminists" are being GIANT fuckheads about, and -to-, actual trans women. To the point of being jaw dropping bigots and interfering in what in any other context would be, SHOULD be understood as basic fucking womens' rights. Human rights, even, in some cases. That's it. That's all. Start actually listening to actual trans women, including the ones that don't tell you what you want to hear, (hint, there's probably more of the latter than the former), and you might not be having this problem.

But I mean, I can bloody well guarantee you that if a significant number of "feminists" were being this jaw droppingly obtuse about gay and lesbian cis people, you'd be hearing about nothing else.

As it happens, the way lesbians are positioned in feminism is, well, complicated? and I'm well aware that there are some lesbians who are being obtuse right along with the het women who think it's all just rilly simple: Men vs. Women, and can't understand why -any- other woman doesn't see it that way. And gay men, well...gee, they're men, aren't they, and so clearly eh skip it that's another post.

But you know, I'm just gonna come out and say it. Reason I get so fucking pissed off about this? Because the line between transphobia and homophobia is really, really, REALLY damn thin. And every single ignorant-to-hateful argument that's being made by the "anti" camp is very VERY damn familiar to anyone who's been around professional homophobes for any length of time. Starting right off with "against politics, not people."Please. Listen, you don't put up entire websites questioning -other- peoples' entire subjective -existence- because it counters your -ideology- and then get to complain about how "divisive" -other- people are being, okay?

And now, try googling "pro-gay." Try combining it with "divisive." See what kind of stuff you pull up. Particularly try combining it with, I don't know, "the church." Read some of the sites "critical" of "pro-gay" in some detail. Take a good long look. I'm serious. Here's one:

http://exodus.blogs.com/liveoutloud/2004/08/how_progay_theo.html

http://www.newmanmag.com/display.php?id=9626

(not hyperlinking the fuckers)

Still, you have to wonder: Is pro-gay theology really infecting the church at large? The evidence indicates that there is cause for concern...

oh, and look, Exodus has a whole section on "transgender" as well, what a surprise. I wonder what they say. I bet they're totally "pro-trans," because they're anti-gay and therefore...Oh. Oops.

http://exodus.blogs.com/liveoutloud/transgender/index.html

Transgenderism is a mental disorder

http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=216&zoneid=6

Sunday, April 24, 2005 -

Surgical Sex by Dr. Paul McHugh
Paul McHugh is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University.

Copyright (c) 2004 First Things 147 (November 2004): 34-38.

When the practice of sex-change surgery first emerged back in the early 1970s, I would often remind its advocating psychiatrists that with other patients, alcoholics in particular, they would quote the Serenity Prayer, “God, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Where did they get the idea that our sexual identity (“gender” was the term they preferred) as men or women was in the category of things that could be changed?...

http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/art5.htm

Homosexuality is tearing apart many denominations across the country. A growing number of conservative denominations have pro-gay groups that attempt to promote a theology that affirms their homosexual activities. Even some conservative Christians are faltering in their convictions as they discover homosexuality among family members and church friends..

..."Church people get into politics for various reasons," Heathman says. "Some are very loving and don't lose sight of the individual, but others are fighting the battle with the world's mindset rather than remembering the spiritual warfare involved."

Heathman says one of the biggest problems with some legislation intended to combat homosexual rights is that it isolates one particular sin. "If we're going to be balanced, we need to be talking about sexual sin in general, not just homosexuality."

...Forget the "church" and "sin" parts for a second. Notice the bit where they're really compassionate and "loving" toward the "individual?" How they're clearly NOT "homophobes" or hateful or picking on the poor struggling homosexuals, just trying to help? To, dare we say, -examine-?

Any of this ringing a bell for you? Because it sure is for me.

And then of course, on the not so kinder gentler note, we have the likes of Sally Kern, who I'd also meant to get to and didn't, at the time, and -still- would've put ahead of yet another post about oh I don't know, whether Obama really should've been endorsed by NARAL?

http://thestateofamerica.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/totalitarian-gay-left-wants-to-silence-ok-rep-sally-kern/

In previous posts, news about gay opposition to ex-gay meeting evidences the totalitarian nature of their political agenda. The same is the case with laws like ENDA, same-sex marriage, hate speech, and the like. Those kinds of laws give special rights to gays at the expense of all others. Those laws suppress First Amendment rights of any business owner who disagrees, anyone who is a moral critic of gays, or any previous moral or natural law. Special rights gay laws are totalitarian in nature...

Funny how -no one- ever thinks they're the ones in the wrong; here, too, we have people falling back on "help, help, we're being oppressed by those noisy upstarts and deviants." Noisy, and no doubt, MEAN.

No, really: -is- any of this getting through at all? To anyone, I mean -besides- the people who already get it? Anything? Bueller? I hope so; because if y'all don't like being called "transphobic," you're REALLY not gonna love "homophobic." Because, I mean, being -gay-, well, that's -totally different,- right? Everyone knows it's okay to be gay...I mean, well...everyone except The Patriarchy/right wing..which we're so totally not...just because we keep positioning hetero cis issues as automatically more important than anyone else's...if anyone else even really exists, which you'd often never really know...

p.s. and for the bloodieth time, most of the trans people being mean and yelling at you because you won't listen right now? are queer AND transgendered, -both-, so please, save the arguments about how reactionary transsexuals are because they're all just like Renee Richards which you know because you heard it from a friend of yours who reads Sheila Jeffreys and everybody knows that anyway.
Thanks. Appreciated.

and yeah, I'd like to move on as well. Stop being fuckheads** and maybe we all can, how's that?

**and, if you (To Whom This May Concern, I put it out as a gorram letter to the universe) are -not- a fuckhead, which of course you aren't, then howzabout call out the people who ARE being fuckheads? I mean, specifically, really jaw droppingly bigoted fuckheads? Because, you know, -they're there.-

ETA: and this.

heinousbitca
2008-08-03 04:13 pm UTC (link)
...

i don't always do well with the conflation of different forms of oppression but i might as well put my big shiny useless liberal arts school degree in knowing shit about the feminist movement to say that a lot of the shit getting truthout-ed these days on the part of cisgendered feminists is almost EXACTLY the same kind of shit that was going down about homos in the feminist movement in the 70s and Black women in the feminist movement in the 60s. i know more than a bit about being a homo and my mom, who was excluded for being Black and then for being gay, can talk one's ear off about how all this looks the same, because it is all the same. the feminist movement is about ALL women, not just this pick-and-choose game. it doesn't magically change jack shit when the issue's one's gender identity, and i don't get why it's supposed to be okay when the bullshit excuses start flowing.

ETA again: Also? This.

Let me tell you a little something, when you are bruised, or battered, humiliated and treated like some kind of freakish 'other' it hurts. In a planet that is awash with womens blood, I shouldn't have to tell you that it is the same shade of red, or that it is diluted only by the tears of pain. That screaming that you hear are the collective death rattles of trans women who have met a violent end because of the same kind of ignorance and hatred that you regularly preach. This is not a simple matter of an ideological disagreement, this is life and death. Do you need to be splattered in their blood to take this seriously?

I wish I had the luxury of just dismissing your writings as nonsense. I wish that I could just turn my head and say live and let live to the shit that you regularly spew on the internet. As a WOC with a legacy of slavery, jim crow, beatings, lynchings, and rape I know that words like these[fuckhead mAndrea's, linked there] are exactly how hatred is perpetuated. When you turn someone's life into a comedic routine for your own amusement you are othering, and creating them as less than human. When you can look someone in the eye and decide that they are not your equal, it serves as justification to be violent towards them. Why should you care what happens to them if you cannot even recognize their shared humanity with you?

ETA again, again: Also also? This.

So let me, as a heterosexual ciswoman, someone you fuckheads might actually care about, explain in terms even you should understand, why trans women’s issues matter. I mean, sure there’s the whole “I have a soul” aspect, the whole “I have the capacity for empathy” aspect, the whole “my feminism makes some fucking sense” aspect, but clearly those aren’t playing a major part in the “anti-trans” mindset.

How about this: when you shit on transwomen,** you are giving the Hatred Patriarchy a feminist-approved target. When you say transwomen’s issues are not Our Issues, you are telling men, TV producers, porn producers, idiot boys on Internet forums, the whole lot, that this group is up for grabs. Demonize, stereotype, abuse and murder, it’s okay with “feminism”. And do you really, honestly think they’re making the same magical distinction as you? That they’re saying, “Muahaha, let’s oppress this group of people who think and act and appear to be women, completely abstract from our oppression of Real Women which takes place two doors down!”?

Because, um, they’re not. They’re abusing women. And you have said that’s okay.

Fuckheads.

"An open letter to cis feminists:" a guest post by Queen Emily.

.

Reposting in full with her permission, as originally posted at Sexual Ambiguities [with some more added hyperlinks]. Also see x-post at Questioning Transphobia with Lisa's commentary.


An open letter to cis feminists

Stop fucking up.*

I have complained numerous times that the feminist blogosphere, such as it is, has one main conversation about trans people, one that is returned to again and again and again - the political implications of our transitioning. Click here** if you want yet another example of pointless bloody "analysis."

I don't CARE about whatever horrible thing some feminist has said anymore. I care that these discussions centre on cis concerns, even (maybe especially) allies respond mostly to the slurs, but rarely address the real issues.

Now, if you want to have those conversations, here's an idea. Subject yourself to the same kind of analysis. Honestly interrogate if and how you might have more or less privilege than trans people. And no, for the millionth time, trans women are not the fucking Patriarchy.

Or how bout this for an idea. Spend some actual time and energy on trans issues. Here is one thing you are barely talking about - the continual violence against transgendered people for being transgendered.

Blog about Angie Zapata. Blog about Ebony Whitaker. Blog about Sanesha Stewart (to name just three trans women murdered this year).

Try subjecting all that torturous analysis to something actually useful - how violence against trans people occurs. Try thinking about the fact that it is overwhelming trans women of colour being murdered. Try thinking about the intersections between race, transness, misogyny and sex work.

Try writing about the way that institutions collude with this violence - that medical professionals may willingly leave you to die, that police may not prosecute, that lawyers use "trans panic" as a defence to justify the death, and then to add insult to injury, the media effectively blames the dead person for their own deaths AND misgenders them.

And for fuck's sake, don't blame the fucking victims.

I DARE YOU.

* if this doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you.

posted by queen emily



**belledame again. Yeah, it WOULD be better to focus on other things beside what the latest drooling imbecile online said, wouldn't it. Unfortunately, they kind of tend to draw one's attention. Me, I clicked over there when making the hyperlink, got as far as the "no special rights" crap and saw red.

As it happens, I had been planning to write a "dear straight feminists" post myself for a while now. I have no idea what mAndrea's personal deal is and don't much care; but I've seen, like, maybe a handful (ew) of actual lesbian (cis) "feminist" women be able to read, even WRITE this kind of crap and somehow NOT immediately go,

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING SHITTING ME THIS IS HOMOPHOBIA ONE OH FUCKING ONE HELLLLOOOOOOOO

I do not know what their damage is. I will never understand what the fucking disconnect is. One is now over there in the comments quoting Oscar Fucking Wilde. I can't deal with the stupid today, I really can't.

"People: the other white meat"

--Renegade


Mostly, though? The people who actually spout or endorse this kind of bullshit, as opposed to just sort of blipping it over because oo well not my table really? Even the ones who AREN'T total fucking wastes of space like this one? Straight women. (And some straight men, of course, which is, if possible, even more special-er, always). Burbling about: how they want to -do away with gender- (please); how political lesbianism, or whatever the catchphrase for "just avoid men and make sappy noises about how WONDERFUL women are without ever having to have icky sex with them" is these days, is something they humbly aspire to, meanwhile just having to make do with their very own Nigel whilst pointing righteous fingers at everyone else in the entire world; and how TERRIBLE "queer politics" are, this or that kind of sexual act or desire that guess what! is mostly going to affect people OTHER than their crunchy abstinent selves, the ones who are ALREADY being spat at and being called "perverts" and "degenerates" and their internal reality isn't legitimate anyway, much less acting out sexual desires...

Sorry. Got carried away. Where was I?

Anyway. But you know, besides that, yeah, there is another post somewhere here, about the curious place that gay (cis) people/issues and particularly lesbians have in mainstream (het) feminism. Certainly you don't catch this kind of bottom-feeder button-pushing bigotry, -within- feminism as such, just for being queer, usually. And, hell, well, lesbians, at least for some people, there's that dubious pedestal again...well, this is, I suspect, another post.

But yeah. There's really other shit to talk about, here, was the point, other -issues- that aren't all about centering straight women and their needs as well as (even more so, Emily is right) cis women and -our- needs; and I need to get on more of it myself.

I'll be coming back to this.

Kyle Payne, please report to HQ for your eternal damnation.

Just an update to say that even though I did see this entry, somehow I missed the bit where apparently he's PLANNING TO WRITE A BOOK BASED ON WHAT RAPE SURVIVORS HAVE CONFIDED IN HIM. (thanks, Ilyka and Wolfa, for highlighting this):

One day I’ll write a book. Well, hopefully several. But this book in particular will be a compilation of all the stories shared with me by survivors. Women (of a variety of different backgrounds) raped, beaten, groped, stalked, threatened, drugged, coerced, tortured, pissed on, and emotionally abused by men (of a variety of different backgrounds). It always strikes me, when listing these abuses, that the words are almost meaningless out of context. Maybe that’s part of the problem. Why would we take men’s violence seriously if we cannot begin to understand, on an emotional level, its effects on the lived experiences of women? I would never try to publish this book - these are not my stories to tell. But sometimes I tinker with the idea of creating something - maybe a work of art - that could somehow demonstrate to people that this problem is real. That the “shocking,” “disgusting,” and “evil” stories they hear about barely scratch the surface.

--oh, right, sorry, he'd "never try to publish it." So this is, what, a coffee table book? Privately bound, kept under the bed?

Which, you know, makes me feel a lot better, because now we know that if nothing else, he's for sure -been directly told- all these stories in confidence, and you know, he's just such an -honest- guy, I totally trust him to keep his word about not eventually deciding to start sussing out publishers after all. I mean, hey, bail is expensive.

Please note the date of when he wrote this, p.s.

"First, do no harm," continued!!!

Yeah, boy, this Doctor Crippen is a PRIZEWINNER. I honestly didn't think I had any more to say. But, procrastinating on -shit I actually need to do-, I went to check in, idly curious to see if Internets monikering himself after an infamous case where the doctor in question murdered his wife is his idea of, y'know, Teh Funny; or if his name really IS Doctor Crippen--after all, the first names are different--and it's just, well, a rather brilliant coincidence that this one, at minimum, also happens to be a misogynistic fuck what has -something- seriously wrong with him. Doesn't matter hugely either way, understand, just...morbidly intrigued.

But so this is his current top entry--you know, I'm just going to repost it in its entire charming glory.

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/

We are currently running computer searches on all our patients with dementia and by this evening I will have more information as to our prescribing habits. As a prequel though, just a short mention of the sanctimonious hypocrisy exhibited by so many heart-on-sleeve relatives of demented patients. Take a look at the discussion forum on the Help the Aged website. In particular look at this letter from a “caring relative” who styles herself as "pinkslippers".

I hope someone can give me some reassurance about this drug. Mum lives in an emi home for the past 18months. The home has complained that she is difficult with the staff over her personal care. She has always been very anti- interference from strangers. She was prescribed quetiapine 25mg which I understand is quite a low dose but three weeks ago it was increased to 50mg because of increasing agitation and refusing to co-operate.

Now I have noticed she has become physically much weaker and is always slumped in an armchair asleep whereas before she was quite strong and fiesty.

It is very worrying when you read reports of these drugs on the internet but also you feel at the mercy of the doctors and the care home. They think I am always fussing about Mum’s medication but to my mind they want all the patients as quiet and comatose as possible as it saves on staffing .

Thanks for any comments


Pinkslippers

Help the Aged


Now some hard facts, pinkslippers. The reason you mother has been potted in an EMI unit is because you were not prepared to have her in your house and look after her yourself. Was it when she started caking excrement around the walls of the kitchen that you gave up? Or was it when she kept pissing in the fireplace? Or the way that she kept embarrassing you by farting all the time? God, it didn’t half smell, did it? And have you forgotten those times when you tried to change her underwear and she swore at you using language that you did not believe she knew? Well, Pinkslippers, it was bad enough for her when you tried to change her underwear. She had vague recollections as to your identity. Now it is strangers who try to change her underwear. She thinks they are molesting her, so she screams abuse and scratches them. It is very distressing for all, particularly her.

She was losing weight because she was not eating properly, do you remember? Probably not, because you only visit three times a week, and never at meal times. That sweet young auxiliary nurse, who used to sit with your mother for ages, and thought she had made friends with her, tried to feed her. You weren’t there, were you? Did they tell you what happened? Your mother threw a plateful of mince and mashed potatoes at the nurse. She missed. It hit another patient who started screaming.

And then she started wandering in the middle of the night, and tried to get into other patients' beds. You remember that, don't you? They did tell you on one of your flying visits.

Perhaps the doctors and nurses should have tied your mother down. A straitjacket and gag would have helped too. But they didn't do that. They battled on for several weeks but it was getting worse and worse. Finally, after much thought and discussion, they put her on quetiapine. They discussed it with you, do you remember? Probably not. You were just off on holiday to your house in France. A very small dose at first, then a slightly larger dose. She doesn’t scream any more. She doesn’t play with her shit any more. She doesn’t throw food any more. She is reasonably peaceful. They try to feed her but it is not easy. She is old. She is frail. She is dying. Slowly, too slowly, but she is dying.

Is quetiapine the perfect drug? Hell, no. It’s awful. And don't you hate the name? So close to Quiet-apine. What was the drug company thinking of? Is it better than the older drugs? Hell, no, it’s just new. And very expensive. In a few more years we will discover it has some horrible side effects and then we will all change to the latest anti-psychotic. Big Pharma is working on it now. It will be even more expensive.

Is this perfect medical management? God knows, but can you suggest anything better?

It’s distressing, isn’t it, Pinkslippers? I have an idea. Take a look round the EMI unit. How many elderly Indian and Pakistani patients are there in there? What's that you say? None? Heavens, I wonder why that is, Pinkslippers? I tell you what, why don’t you give up work and take your mother home and look after her yourself?

What’s that you say? Couldn’t manage? Too distressing? Too much of a strain? Ah! I see. In that case, maybe you should shut up.

*****

You know. For -some reason-, I don't feel compelled to bare my throat with all the gory details of -why- this post infuriated me quite as much as it did this merry morning. Let's just say that pinkslippers' story rings some bells, and if the relative currently responsible for the relative who has dementia were to hear "advice" like this?

--Well. I -was- going to say, it wouldn't do any fucking good at all. But actually, reconsidering, knowing her character, at least, it -might- lead the woman in question to justifiable homicide, and that, I am thinking, could only be a blessing.

-Yeah-, asshole, why doesn't she -give up work- and -look after her herself-?

And, what the rancid FUCK is the business about "Indian and Pakistani" patients? What -are- you trying to say, dear? I...no. Can't even fisk this today; cannot do.

Just: Seriously, who IS this festering cock?

All I can say is that I hope he really only plays a "doctor" on the Internets, because if he's for real? Is there a better advertisement for -avoiding- doctors, anywhere, particularly in the UK, where he's apparently based? Especially if that -isn't- his real name?

"Yes, hi, I really -want- to be 'treated' by an arrogant, hateful, sexist, racist, sadistic motherfucker who finds random people on the Internets trying to get help--two women for two so far--drags them into the spotlight of his -rather large and well trafficked- blog, and proceeds to mock and abuse the crap out of them for the delectation and/or delightfully outraged reactions of his commentators.

What. The FUCK.

Still more people unclear on the motherfucking concept

I reject your term of so-called transphobia! Especially as applies to me! Who's afraid of the big bad transpeople then! Just because I don't want to share my space with them or accept them as who they say they are! I'm the one who's really being discriminated against! My ideology and/or non-trans status is totally equivalent to being transgendered! (p.s. they could choose to be like me if they -really wanted to-, and in any case, they -should-)

I reject your term of so-called homophobia! Especially as applies to me! Who's afraid of the big bad homos then! Just because I don't want to have to look at them engaging in the same damn acts I do in public or think they should be able to adopt children! I'm the one who's really being discriminated against! My ideology and/or heterosexuality is totally equivalent to being homosexual! (p.s. they could choose to be like me if they -really wanted to-, and in any case, they -should-)

How odd, that a "radical feminist" and a reactionary Catholic liberal-bashing self-ID'd "Reagan Republican" man who is, let's be clear, not at all bigoted, manage to sound, oh so very fucking alike.

and yes, I bloody well am qualified to make that assertion.

p.s. did I mention the part about go fuck yourself?

p.p.s. come in here, try to push that medieval Janice Raymond shite about how no really, it's -totally different- because in fact transpeople are a sinist0r creation of the Patriarchy to eliminate lesbianism, you are in fact a Friend of the Lesbians, hell, are one yourself (most likely without any of that disgusting male-identified desire for other women) or, you know, you will be some day as soon as you finally can clear those penii out of your gaze or decide to divorce your third husband or at least give up his motherfucking name or stop mentally going "ew, icky" at the thought of actually going down on a woman or whatever it is that's holding you back; and so help me, I will chew on your eyes.

on edit: also see this post at Questioning Transphobia

He don't get no respect!

And I feel just awful about it.

Oh, this is not how I meant to draw attention to the original post (the above-linked) or at all, possibly. Basically, the original post is kind of wonderful, a genuine example of feminist "self-examination" that led the author to some new conclusions. Specifically, on her attitude toward transwomen. An excerpt, just so this isn't a total mockfest, because I don't want to let the really valuable part of this get lost:

Less than two years ago my “opinion” of transfolk was one of extreme othering, of downright transphobia - I didn’t hate transpeople but I knew nothing about them and deemed from my place of ignorance that they were weird, freakish, incomprehensible.

Then I met, or rather came across, a transwoman named Alison...

...I didn’t want a man in a dress in the Women’s Dome. Yet out of that discomfort, out of that politeness, came a process in which I began to question for myself what it means to be a woman, what it means to be trans. I began to question my own bigotry - and it was not an easy journey...

I found that transgenderism / transsexualism is not the weird fetish of disturbed freaks, but a genuine - and very difficult - lived reality. I looked at some of the statistics for mental health and suicide rates among transpeople - both those who transition and those who do not. I read the blogs of transfolk, mainly transwomen - some who are out in real life, some who are not. I looked into medical evidence about the causes of transgenderism and found that there is no certainty about the true cause - whether it is physical / biological or whether it is mental / emotional / social or whether the individual cause varies from person to person. Sometimes intersex biology is relevant, sometimes not. From all this I learned that gender identity is a real phenomenon, even if we do not all consciously experience it; and I learned that gender dysphoria (where gender identify does not match biological sex attributes) is a real phenomenon, even if few of us are unfortunate enough to experience it.

What I found is that the definition of class Woman is not a simple matter, and I am not the person who can define what a woman is.

Radical feminists - especially those who are separatists or who advocate (as I do) the need for woman-only space - often struggle with this. We often act as though we know exactly what a woman is, and that a transwoman is not a woman. Even if we recognise that the question is not straightforward, we still struggle with the inclusion of transwomen in women-only spaces.

...I understand that this is hard. We want to protect those among us who have been hurt, who are still hurting. The question is not whether we want to protect women who are asking for safety. The question is whether we can actually achieve that by the exclusion of transwomen, and whether it is even acceptable to offer such protection when it comes at the expense of transwomen, by perpetuating the poorly analysed othering of transwomen, by ignoring the hurts and the violence that transwomen experience precisely because of their (desire to have) membership of class Woman. I don’t think so.

much more, go read.

So, so far, so good, and it is good. I was hesitant over whether to say anything because, well, one, as a cisgendered woman it's not exactly my place to say "thanks," I didn't think, and a number of transwomen, many of them friends, were/are already doing just that, which was nice to see. And, two, well, while I don't think I've had any run-ins with the author, Maia, I am aware that my stamp of approval is sort of the kiss of death among people she's friends and allies with, and I honestly don't/didn't want to get in the way of that, especially if it would mean interrupting what looks to be a rather delicate process.

But then so I'm reading along and immediately run into a comment by possibly my most favoritest male radical feminist ("ally," excuse me) ever, the ever-charming Rich, and, well, all my nascent good intentions promptly go out the window.

Boyo sez:

You might consider how offensive all of what you wrote is to male allies who don’t transition.

Tell me why I — as someone who rejects masculinity, patriarchy, fatherhood, patriarchal sexuality, and even using patriarchal medicine and law to transition and gain access to womanhood — should be excluded from spaces that you’re willing to share with males who often have willingly done the exact opposite, up until (and often after) the point where they transitioned?

What makes them “better” than me? True, I’m not a “woman” like they are, but I’ve never been (and refuse to be) the “men” that they also are, have been, and often will always be (can they take back rapes they’ve comitted? Or even the times they “just” used patriarchy as their pimp in obtaining “consent?”).

Get that? It is offensive to accept transwomen as women, because Rich, a non-transitioning male-born man, is not invited to the wimmins' slumber party.

I do believe this is the mythic desire for a "cookie" which has been so bandied about. Although, judging by past encounters, I imagine the argument would be that in fact the only cookie that matters is the Patriarchal cookie; the radfem cookie is not a cookie, women -have- no cookie to offer, especially to men. Um, probably. (Also, if it's anything like the vegan, organic delicacies offered my the former womens' bookstore collective downtown, it's rather hard to digest).

But, if that's the case, what the fuck is this dude's problem, you ask?

I suspect the real answer to that one begins with "How long do you have?" But, anyway! It gets better!

most transfolk agree that transitioning itself is “privileged” (so post-ops are privileged over pre-ops) as it protects non-conforming people from abuse. If that’s true, pro-radical feminist males who don’t transition are less privileged than those who fit into the much neater and publicized trans category (especially the pro BDSM and pornstitution stances that often comes with trans rhetoric). Thus, I don’t feel out of place saying that many transwomen are MY oppressor, as they help to turn the wheel of gender that grinds me down.

I don’t think my perspective on this is a needed one. I don’t think females should, necessarily, give two shits about what I have to say...

(And yet, we note: he's still talking).

OTOH, I think my perspective complicates the message you’re trying to send about inclusivity, which, I suppose, is why so many transwomen seem to want events that exclude people like me! That’s not very nice.

Mkay. Putting aside for the moment any hints of some murky past and/or interior experience, assuming that Rich is just basically this guy, you know? who really digs radfem theory and hates his own male privilege and lives to serve the Revolution, or whatever it is. Ah, yes, the Revolution.

Meanwhile, though, you're confused, Twinkie, let me clear you up:

1) If it's a women-only gathering, and you aren't a woman, by your own definition as well as anyone else's, you don't belong there.

2) If it's a transfolk-only gathering, and you aren't, by your own lights, transitioning, trans-identified or even remotely trans-sympathetic, guess what! You don't belong there.

3) and this is the really key point: Even if you fit all the demographic requirements, Rich? no woman, no -person- in hir right everloving mind would include you in anything if it were at all possible to avoid it, because oh my GOD you are an unsocialized, hateful asshole. Whiny, nasty, humorless, deeply clueless, self-centered to the point of solipsism, pretentious, contemptuous, entitled AND self-loathing which is always a really lovely combination, and just generally really dull and awful.

And yet, apparently, you've managed to carve yourself a little niche on the fringes of the fringiest radfem, even -separatist- communities. I admit I haven't monitored the situation closely enough to ascertain exactly how this works. It would appear to my jaundiced eye, however, that among certain small and esoteric circles, self-loathing is a hot commodity; and hairshirts, while astonishingly unattractive and irritating to most of the population, are the fashion item of choice. Particularly if it's worn by a male. A male who, as you remind us so insistently, has given up so very, very much:

(responding to this post,)

Ewwwww.

Rich, your whole argument - one that merits consideration - is overshadowed by the overbearing and aggressive tone you adopt.

Could you please re-state your thesis in a less violent way?

Rich Says:

You’re showing a profound lack of respect for me right there. My identity is non-violent. My internal identity is that of a feminist ally and you have no right to question that. Your identity is no more real and no more existentially provable than mine. You’re the one uttering hate speech there, the one being phobic.

...then, to all the ladiez in the house:

There’s no way I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that I’m not a rapist to you. I’m not asking for your unconditional trust, or even conditional trust, any trust. Beware of males, whether they identify as men, women, or anyone else, who do otherwise, who expect you to value their identities over your own safety. Being pro-feminist and an ally means giving things up, not asking for more things.

Thanks for the advice, d00d, really, but you know who/what girlie me is most leery of? Creepity creepsticks like you. You, just you, and people like you, male AND otherwise, fuck knows there are plenty of wimmin-born-wimmin who're just as creepy... You: using transwomen as your own personal projection screen and punching bag, gratuitously bringing up rape when absolutely no one else has (really), befouling yet another small sliver of light on the Internets with your toxic, self-serving spewage.

And the creepiest part is in fact not your maleness (yes, we know, you'd cut it off and out without anaesthetic if only you thought it would help, but you know it won't, silent emo tear) but the way in which you position yourself as one of the Hundred Neediest Cases...because you, by your own definition, "g[ave] things up."

Well, as a male-identified Patriarchal Submissive (tm), I have to say I've always admired that one dude, Orwell. Specifically, now, this insight comes to mind:

...there are two morals, one explicit, the other implied [in King Lear].

...First of all...there is the vulgar, common-sense moral drawn by the Fool: "Don't relinquish power, don't give away your lands. But there is also another moral....It is: "Give away your lands if you want to, but don't expect to gain happiness by doing so. Probably you won't gain happiness. If you live for others, you must live for others, and not as a roundabout way of getting an advantage for yourself."

...Tolstoy was not a saint, but he tried very hard to make himself into a saint, and the standards he applied to literature were other-worldly ones. It is important to realize that the difference between a saint and an ordinary human being is a difference of kind and not of degree. That is, the one is not to be regarded as an imperfect form of the other. The saint, at any rate Tolstoy's kind of saint, is not trying to work an improvement in earthly life: he is trying to bring it to an end and put something different in its place...

[Tolstoy] was not a vulgar hypocrite, as some people have declared him to be, and he would probably have imposed even greater sacrifices on himself than he did, if he had not been interfered with at every step...But on the other hand, it is dangerous to take such men as Tolstoy at their disciples' [or own] valuation. There is always the possibility--the probability, indeed--that they have done no more than exchange one form of egoism for another. Tolstoy renounced wealth, fame and privilege; he abjured violence in all its forms and was ready to suffer for doing so; but it is not so easy to believe that he abjured the principle of coercion, or at least the desire to coerce others.

There are families in which the father will say to his child, "You'll get a thick ear if you do that again," while the mother, her eyes brimming over with tears, will take the child in her arms and murmur lovingly, "Now, darling, is it kind to Mummy to do that?" And who would maintain that the second method is less tyrannous than the first?...

There are people who are convinced of the wickedness of both armies and of police forces, but who are nevertheless much more intolerant and inquisitorial in outlook than the normal person who believes that it is necessary to use violence in certain circumstances. They will not say to somebody else, "Do this, that, and the other or you will go to prison," but they will, if they can, get inside his brain and dictate his thoughts for him in the minutest particulars...

For if you have embraced a creed...from which you yourself cannot expect to draw any material advantage--surely that proves that you are in the right? And the more you are in the right, the more natural that everyone else should be bullied into thinking likewise.

--Orwell, Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool

This is all a bit high-flying, I realize, and distressingly free of gender-related anything, except for the example of mom-n-pop's respective power styles in the traditional nuclear family. Back to you, then:

Rich Says:
15 March 2008 at 3:20 pm

“Could you please re-state your thesis in a less violent way?”

I consider *your* post an act of rape. Please don’t speak to me.

and then:

“Rich, comparing a post to rape is dehumanizing to those who’ve actually been raped.”

No shit. I was pointing out the utter ridiculousness of what was said to me.

It’s also dehumanizing to have someone try to “man you” in order to un-man themselves. I’ve never had a female lesbian separatist tell me that my speech is “too violent.” And yet, in order to push me around, control me, in order to divide hirself from me, in order to prove that I’m not “one of the good feminist folk,” a trans advocate can call my speech violent (and thus my entire identity violent), in order to make hirself look safe by way of comparison.

Zoe = Sugar and Spice
Rich = Ewww

I’m sorry, but that was another case of someone in the trans camp aping the superficial kind of essentialism that they like to try to pin on radical feminists.

Thanks for encouraging that kind of behavior Maia.

***

It's a work of art, really. One scarcely knows where to begin.

So, instead, I'm going to just jump ahead to this:

No one actually cares what you did or didn't give up, Rich. No one, that is, except maybe some of the female lesbian separatists of whom you speak.

I won't even ask what it is that you supposedly gave up, although you give hints of the things you consider privileges that some transfolk have, or had, and you apparently do not: power and influence in the real world; families with themselves as fathers; acceptance into women-only gatherings.

Worst of all, they demand that people accept them for who they are, to live in a way that would make them happy, and oh my god it looks like sometimes some of them might actually be dangerously close to getting it.

Clearly, This Must Be Stopped.


Because, say-hey! It looks like giving up your lands didn't really work, did it? You don't get any respect, dammit. Not that you're ENTITLED to any such thing, of course. But the least people can do is RECOGNIZE your SACRIFICE and not give a drop of that precious commodity to anyone else, least of all the terrible, terrible transfolk.

Because, if you can't be happy, they sure as shit can't be happy.

And it's this dog-in-the-manger, poisonous impulse of yours, Rich, that I find most inimical here. I don't give a shit about your tortuous rationalizations for your philosophies, whether you're "not not a man" and some "not not a woman" thinks you're the bees knees for making yourself so very, very miserable. I don't care about what an epic failure you clearly are, or whose fault it supposedly is. I do care that you use even your fringey, minging influence to try to hurt people who really don't need any more pain, thanks.

And, I suppose, I'm rather morbidly fascinated by the spectacle of it all.


You know the best part, Rich? The very best part? Here you are, a man, being attacked by a woman, a woman-born-woman, yet. Oh, yes, this is an attack. Absolutely. I think you're loathsome. But more important, it is, according to the radical lesbian female separatists you're so devoted to, or it damn well should be, my prerogative to be as nasty as I want to be to you, O Phallused Privileged Untrustworthy Potential Rapist One. Hell, I -can't- oppress you; I can't abuse you; I can't silence you; I have no power, isn't that so?

And I'm sure that if/when you do go running to whine and clutch and cower behind the sensible flowing skirts of your matrons, sorry, allies, they'll have a few choice words to the effect that there's no need to take me and mine seriously, after all I may have been born with girlbits, but I'm one of THEM. You know, THEM. Hardly a woman at all, really. Certainly no feminist. Clearly this is all in service of my pr0ntastic pimps who have their big manly hands up my ass even as I type. Poor little Rich boy. There there, dear. Don't worry: we still think you fight the fight of the righteous. You are right, oh yes you are, at least about this, today.

But sadly: that's as good as it's gonna get, isn't it?

You still can't get into the Sooper Seekrit Inner Circles: that's how it should be. You'll never be fully trusted: you don't deserve it, you just said so yourself. You'll never be fully accepted: you're not worthy, inherently so. And fuck knows a man can never hope to find romantic fulfillment and attachment with a radical feminist and/or lesbian sep....

Oh, right. Never mind.

The thing is, though, Rich: see, me, that other kind of feminist, person, human, for an example:

I don't lay that shit on my friends and allies. I don't require that people give things up, particularly if those things are really no skin off my ass. I don't demand that make themselves miserable, particularly people I care about. I want them to be happy. I want me to be happy, too. What's the fucking point, otherwise?

I don't tell people they can never, ever be good enough unless they contort themselves into some Procrustean bed (and probably not even then, but keep trying!) I don't require that people be born with any particular bits or wear stars on their bellies, dress in any particular way, fuck (consensually) in any particular way, spout my dogma, dance to my tune. And I don't want to be a part of any revolution or utopia or community or movement or whatever the fuck it is that does.

If it were up to me, the Utopia thing, the how to make a better world by individual choices and self-examination, personal-is-political, let's-make-a-safe-space-through-delineating-borders-of-our-communities bit, anyway? All I'd say is: just don't be an asshole all the time.

By which relatively modest standard, Rich, I am afraid you fail.

And yet, you would think, of all the other apparent impositions which you or whomever put between yourself and success or happiness, people like you, the Malvolios, the sad bastards of this world, that that one ought to be the easiest to rectify.

And yet, and yet.

Oh, well.

the last straw(feminist)

i can't believe this shit. oh wait, yes i can.

those scarecrows are awfully fucking lively, some days, aren't they?

gah.

on edit: this, to me, is both real feminism and real Christianity. and no, it doesn't take a lot of "advanced" tutelage, this. it's really quite simple. shame so many fundamentalists of both stripes apparently can't see it that way.

The reason

At this point? Simply and bluntly: because I don't need any more higher than a kite maintenance down the rabbit hole drama queens in my life. Which, oh dear GOD and little fishes, you -so are.- If that wasn't abundantly clear before, it certainly is now. And, -that- last little cutie was so incredibly -fucking- inappropriate. Both of you. Way. Out. Of Fucking. Line.

Yeah, I get it. You're butthurt. Know what? Spank your inner moppet, whatever. Last shred of sympathy: gone daddy gone.

Now: any time you want to get off that cross, I imagine someone could use the wood. For instance, you. It takes a lot of wood to build bridges, and honeys, you just burnt a -shitload.- Congratulations.

"The great thing about believing everyone is out to get you is that eventually it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy."

Never thought I'd be saying that to or about you; although in retrospect, maybe I should have.

And, finally: know what, I'm busy too. Too busy for THIS bullshit, I tell you right now.


Enough.


obligatory disclaimer, if you don't see yourself here it doesn't apply to you, etc. etc. etc. Move along, nothing to see here. Really. Just...clearing up some detritus. I hope to Christ, anyway.

p.s. Guide for the Perplexed: The -next- time something like this happens, with someone -else- I mean, here's what you do:

you write directly to the person who you're so confident is your dear friend and for good reason, mind you, and, instead of playing bullshit games, say, simply,

"Hey. I just heard about this. Why am I not a part of it? I'm hurt and confused and pissed off."

And, if you're not gonna do that, but instead go at it slantwise, when dear friend answers you in like style, and tells you politely but firmly that there are good reasons why not now, if you can't take her at her word, sure: be as hurt as you want to? but stop trying to access something that you have just been -clearly- told you are not going to be accessing, and back the fuck off.

But then, if you were the sort of person who were capable of doing such a thing, you'd never have been excluded in the damn first place. Get it? It's got fuckall to do with -ideology- or -style.- It's called: Hi! Boundaries! It's called: Hi! Sanity! It's called: Grow. The fuck. Up.

And that's all, folks.