the company we keep
When I was around 10 years old, I remember a friend telling me that her dad had said all the gay people in the world should be rounded up and put on an island together. And the island should be blown up. We had a good laugh about it and agreed it was the best solution to the problem of gay people.
It was a happy day for me. As a Christian who was usually in the minority, I fit in on at least one subject (the subject of whether or not gay people should be allowed to exist). I was relieved my non-Christian friend understood as I did that to be gay was seriously wrong. I felt mild discomfort at the idea of mass murder but understood that tough problems require tough solutions.
Maybe some of my feminist friends who believe trans people are a tough problem who require tough solutions (in the form of open ridicule or circulation of hate speeches against them) will take some comfort from the fact that they have friends in the Christian world who will be more than happy to agree with them.
Here’s anti-abortionist Tom Quiner identifying with the radical feminist fringe, and ridiculing trans people.
http://quinersdiner.com/2016/02/25/i-self-identify-as-a/
And closing word goes to Silence of Mind. If it doesn’t give you pause for thought that you’re on the same side of the fence as dear old SOM, then nothing will:
As with all of sexual creatures in nature, gender is determined by genitalia, not preference.
That means any person can tell his or her gender simply by looking at and/or feeling (gently with clean fingertips) the equipment (genitalia) that has been installed in the crotch.
Put even more simply, men have rod equipment and women have a whole where the male rod fits. Al fin y al cabo (as they say in Tijuana), there is no such thing as a trans gender.
I suppose that if I were brainwashed into believing that genocide of homosexuals was a Christian practice, I would have become atheist, too.
In fact, I have not met one Christian who believes such nonsense.
Oh well, maybe I need to get out more.
LikeLike
I was a child trying to make sense of a god that commits genocide when people sin. The subtleties of when it’s okay for the Christian god or his Christian minions to kill sinners escaped me at that age.
LikeLike
Violate,
Actually there is no subtlety at all to the difference between the nature of God and man.
The atheist errs in basic reasoning by applying a totally arbitrary standard to both God and man.
When I studied theology at a graduate-level Catholic college, the first class was the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
And the second course was called, “God, Man and Universe.”
If a human being understands the teachings God gave to man as they have been scrupulously handed down through the millennia, and studies the nature of things (God, man and universe), it turns out that Christianity makes total sense.
In fact, Christianity is quite beautiful.
LikeLike
I think you’re being sexist by writing “whole.” A whole what? Grief?
LikeLiked by 2 people
John,
Your spelling sucks!
You should sue your 3rd grade teacher.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You having a wee Friday night tippled SOM? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here where I live, I read constantly of extreme christian fundamentalist who say stuff like that. Ted Cruz just had to admit appearing at a rally where the speaker had just gave a speech about how all gays should be stones was a mistake, after months of defending that position. SO I can say I hear it all the time on right wing shows, or fundamentalist programs, everything from gays should be put on an island to we should be killed. Look at what Scott Lively is in trouble for, he was the one behind the kill the gays law in Uganda and thinks the USA should copy Russia’s treatment of gay people. Not very nice, not nice at all. Hugs
LikeLike
SOM,
if not the genocide of Homosexuals, then what about ‘witches’ or canaanites who don’t happen to share your beliefs in the abrahamic god? blast from the past in the OT that christians ignore in ‘mixed’ company.
-KIA
LikeLike
KIA,
The atheist justifies himself by blaming God or religion for the evil that men do.
Since Christianity forms the foundation of Western Civilization it simply doesn’t make since to blame Christianity for “witches.”
The biblical tales of the Hebrew conflicts with the Philistines, Canaanites and others are stories about justice, good and evil.
To reduce those great stories to “genocide” betrays a lack of basic education and unrefined wit.
It’s like looking at Michelangelo’s David and seeing pornography.
LikeLike
Not atheist, I keep telling you
LikeLike
But I’m sure you are in danger of nuancing and refining away the clear reading of scripture
LikeLike
KIA,
The Bible is clear as can be about its meaning:
Love God and love your neighbor.
Jesus said that, not me.
LikeLike
Did he really? Do you know that for sure or are you trusting a ‘gospel’ story written anonymously?
LikeLike
And youre right, the bible is clear that witches should not be allowed to live, and that the bible God commanded mass genocides of people, men, women, children and babies included,
LikeLike
I’m with SOM on this. No, Christians do not want all gay people killed. Very few of us, anyway. I went to Quiner and saw his cartoon: you can self-identify as a woman, a black person, a cat, but not as a Christian because that’s horrible- well, Rachel Dolezal (sp?) was vilified for claiming to be black, and “furries” are far less mainstream than trans folk. If Christians don’t want to be called horrible, they should not be horrible.
I went on to his next, intrigued by the title “What is truth?” The start of the video was unexceptionable- truth is objective reality separate from what people think of it- then it went on to “Socialism is therefore false” which was a wonderful WTF moment. Quiner is entertaining, sometimes.
It’s not simply that the far right agrees with the TERFs. Someone can be right for the wrong reasons. It’s why the far right agree: because they are threatened by our subverting of gender roles.
LikeLike
@Clare
I’m confused Clare, the term subverting means to overthrow, or corrupt a system, in this case, the system being gender roles.
Yet, in practice, many of the conceptions of transgenderism reinforce traditional gender roles.
For instance, does a transman who wears a suit and tie – to ostensibly look like a man – subvert the male gender role? Or does the act of dressing up like a man in order to get the benefits of the codified gender role support the existing system of gender roles?
So, if a man wants to wear high heels and present feminine, and wants to be regarded as a women – thus wearing women’s clothing and performing femininity (which is harmful to women) is he subverting gender roles?
Or is it, oh hey to be a woman, I need to show that I can do the accepted standard of the female gender role to be thought of as a woman. Again, this is not subverting the notion of gender, but rather reinforcing the basis of what gender roles are.
Actual subversion, sticking to the clothes example, would be a male wearing a dress or a woman wearing the suit and tie or going topless, because both of those actions are contradictory to the gender roles/expectations that have been assigned to that person.
May I suggest then that gender non conforming behaviour be the basis of what subverting gender roles be about?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arb, subverting the roles expected of us. Doing what we feel, rather than what is expected if us is subversion. Not that it matters. Let’s see you attack me for my choice of clothing, rather than Clare. In fact, out of interest, what do you wear in your daily life? I want to judge if you’re sufficiently subverting roles to my standards. Let’s set up an appearance judgement panel. 😀
LikeLike
@VW
Do feelings matter if the activity in question strengthens the status-quo? I may feel very strongly that wearing a purple shirt to work is the epitome subversive gender activity. How society reacts to this admittedly mundane act is independent of how I feel about it.
Was that an attack? It seemed like a request for clarification given the meanings of ‘subvert’ and ‘reinforce’.
Given the climate as of late, I imagine it could be construed as such.
Anyhow, there is nothing here that has any particular value for attacking. Illustrating what gender roles/expectations are in society and comparing actions that reinforce them or subvert them seem innocuous to me.
Comfy clothes whenever possible, I like shorts and whatever blue articles of clothing I can get my hands on.
In terms of gender expectations, I’m fairly heteronormative. :>
By all means. However, it seems redundant as it isn’t a single individual the decides the normative gender expectations in society. Or if it is, we need to send them an email on why ugg boots are still so darn popular.
We could, but if that single arbiter of is an uggs boots fan, I doubt much headway can be made.
LikeLike
“Do feelings matter if the activity in question strengthens the status-quo?”
Back up a sec, so I can be sure I’m following you. The activity in question is wearing clothes that make us comfortable, yes? Feelings matter, we all have unique experiences of life, and unique bodies to clothe. Are you suggesting that all women should dress according to your rules, your understanding of what would appropriately subvert the status quo? Please tell me what that would look like. And while you’re there, tell me what you think trans women should wear so they don’t strengthen the status quo. I’m fascinated.
“Was that an attack?”
This is an attack. You’ve stalked Clare here, to my blog, and responded to a comment that doesn’t address you. You’ve ignored almost everything I’ve published on radical feminism, (all based on the links you gave me) and you’ve come here to exclusively harass Clare, to undermine her, to tell her again and again, that you think she isn’t a real woman, that her behaviour harms women, that she doesn’t dress to your standards.
“llustrating what gender roles/expectations are in society and comparing actions that reinforce them or subvert them seem innocuous to me.”
Yes, says the man speaking from a position of privilege. You wear what you want, comfy clothes, whatever you feel comfy in, no-one will publish photos of you online to mock your appearance. No-one will tell you that your clothes are wrong and that you’re harming women just by existing. Of course it seems innocuous to you.
LikeLike
@VW
It was one of the examples used, we can go with it if you’d like.
How do your feelings effect what society perceives to be right or wrong? You seem to attributing some grand arbiter power to me – *I* do not make up social norms.
How are societies’ rules my singular creation? Have I decreed that in most situations there is a censure against women going topless? Of course not, it is what, in many societies, have declared sanction against. Can you name one single specific agent in how the creation of societal norms?
More to the point, do you understand what social norms are, and how they are formed?
Open a window, peer out, and observe.
This is not about what I think. It is how society perceives the issue. You tell me, which is a bigger threat to the status-quo – a passing trans person fully inhabiting the gender roles of the gender they choose, or a woman or a man who chooses to dress in a gender non-conforming style (suit or dress from the example).
If Clare’s ideas are sacrosanct and not to be questioned, all good. We can leave the conversation as is.
Please quote the statements on this thread were *any* of the above took place.
And this relates to the original question how? Although, do you attribute male privilege as something that I am personally responsible for? Because, apparently, I have the power to set other normative standards in society…
And this relates to the original question how?
Replies might address this conclusion – “that gender non conforming behaviour be the basis of what subverting gender roles be about“?
LikeLike
Nice ramble. Answer my questions please. How should women dress? How should Clare dress? You clearly have an opinion.
“So, if a man wants to wear high heels and present feminine, and wants to be regarded as a women – thus wearing women’s clothing and performing femininity (which is harmful to women) is he subverting gender roles?” You are harassing Clare, you are not genuinely seeking dialogue. You want to reinforce your belief that she is a man in heels – in her face. You want to grind home your belief that her existence and expression of herself is somehow harming feminism. Read your initial comment to her again – what answer could she have given that would have taken a conversation forward? This is not about discussing ideas on your part, it is about attempting to undermine her identity.
“And this relates to the original question how?”
Oh, I see! So trans women shouldn’t dress in a manner that makes them comfortable, but if I suggest that you don’t extend this rule to yourself, it’s of no relevance. What did you say again? “Illustrating what gender roles/expectations are in society and comparing actions that reinforce them or subvert them seem innocuous to me.” Seems innocuous to you. My point was relevant because from your position of privilege of course it seems innocuous to you. You know it’s painful for Clare and you’re twisting your little knife in mock ignorance.
I’ve seen you rip people to shreds on your blog Arb, I know what you’re like. This little game of ‘calm man doing no harm’ is kind of odd. Let your anger rip on this one too and let us see your true colours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know, real radical feminists address issues which matter. TERFs obsess about trans women, often because they have been hurt. You, however, exercise your male privilege by bullying the most vulnerable group you can find.
Why should I give a moment’s attention to anything you say? If you weren’t so humourless and boring, it would not be quite as dire.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Clare
We should ask a radical feminist about that, Roughseas definitely qualifies, but you don’t seem to keen on listening to her.
The term ‘terf’ has been identified by many radical feminists as a slur, yet you keep using it. One would think that calling people something they don’t choose to identify with would be a fairly large faux pas, given the situation.
What does this have to do with your misuse of the term ‘subvert’?
LikeLike
“Your misuse of the term ‘subvert'”- do you really not know what a double question is? Or do you think readers here don’t know?
You do realize that transactivists support males raping lesbians because they are right up there with the right wingers on science denying and conformity to gender roles?
TERF- Trans-excluding ridiculous fantasists.
What do you think of that comment? Entirely unobjectionable? Remotely connected to reality?
LikeLike
@Clare
And this has what to do about the original notion of subverting or reinforcing gender roles?
Other than being a non sequitur, not much. 🙂
Sorry, just trying to stay on topic.
LikeLike
Why don’t you stay on topic by commenting on the post? Are you not slightly concerned that you, SOM and Tom Quiner are all in this anti-abortionist boat together?
LikeLike
“Not much”. Thank God. Your insanity has not yet extended to the rape allegations.
So why did you not challenge it?
LikeLike
Here’s a classic. A blogger, Beckytranssexual, has just commented on Roughseas post, lambasting the discrimination, and Roughseas is doing the “wasnae me!” routine AGAIN.
“I suggest you ask the writer of this original blogpost what they think. I don’t speak for them. I reblogged this as I thought it was interesting. Apparently it was.
There is a fairly basic definition of WAAB, I’m sure you know it.
Possibly the people who object to Ms Lee representing women, object to men assigned at birth, getting to define what being a woman is.”
LikeLike
I am still getting views from Gibraltar. Every day this week.
“Transwomen define what being a woman is.” Don’t you find that insulting? Are you enslaved to my definition of womanhood, or do you just go your own way?
Purplesage is one of the eejits who spout the rape allegations. I could not face the blizzard of insanity.
LikeLike
LOL. You suddenly know what a non-sequitur is? Funny because that describes your entire style of commentary. Pseudo-intellectual hogwash coming from a person who doesn’t know how to formulate a basic argument.
“We should ask a radical feminist about that, Roughseas definitely qualifies, but you don’t seem to keen on listening to her.”
Ah yes, according to what exactly? You? Her? When were either of you up for election like Anna Lee? President and Vice-President of which feminist organization exactly? Or are you actually just two people speaking for yourselves? And without much to back either of you up for that matter.
LikeLike
@Mr.Merveilleux
Fascinating. We’ll certainly avoid talking about the issue raised and continue on about my characteristics, I’m flattered. :>
LikeLike
You shouldn’t be. But I’m happy to bring out more of your non-sequiturs if you like (there’s no drought of them):
Me: “I simply don’t believe rights are a zero-sum-game.”
Arb: “Fantastic. So then why are spaces that females have struggled (for centuries) and fought to have in society ground zero for the discussion. If rights are not zero sum, then establishing spaces for other minorities should be a priority then, no?”
LOL. From zero sum game to ground zero? And who said fighting for spaces for all minorities wasn’t a priority?
The issue is you’re promoting discrimination and social exclusion. No more, no less.
LikeLike
Arbourist,
Kudos for your pyrotechnic display of simple reasoning.
LikeLike
More hot air and badly formulated arguments. According to your self-appointed fringe who are hardly representative of feminist ideology, Caitlyn gender should be rejected because she was over-feminized. Now Anna Lee should be rejected because she looks like a man in a dress.
At the end of the day you’re grasping at straws to defend the exclusion of a collective of people and you should be ashamed of yourself.
LikeLike
@Mr. Merveilleux
Funny, all this hot air and bad arguments – even condensed down to a single sentence seem to elude your prowess.
Does dressing like the accepted gender norm subvert gender roles?
Clare says yes it does. I disagreed and provided a reason why.
Ramble on good friend. Your opinion on what is representative of radical feminist ideology is noted. 🙂
I don’t recall requesting your nuanced opinion on radical feminism, but thanks for the pro-tips.
Shaming, O mighty defender of free speech and debate? Did you want to walk back your limits on what is acceptable to debate?
Right.
(And clearly, seeking clarification on what subverting and reinforcing in terms of normative gender roles, is transgressing on many levels. See that single sentence.)
Anyhow, the question still stands.
LikeLike
Walk back limits on what to debate? Hardly. Just pointing out your writing is nothing more than hot air.
Yesterday when I said:
“It’s the same logic:
____ should not have rights because they were born with a vagina.
____ should not be allowed to do that because they were born with a penis.”
Your answer was:
“This logic contains the inherent assumption that men and women are equal in terms of their material biological reality.”
No, it doesn’t my dear. That logic is mathematics. It doesn’t contain assumptions:
X should not have rights because of Y factor
X should not have rights because of Y factor
(Factor Y is the same)
And should I even get to your answer when I mentioned rights not being a zero-sum-game?
LikeLike
@Mr.Merveilleux
Again, thank you for your considerable Platonic contribution, describing a situation that, in reality, doesn’t exist.
I recommend you go about solving wealth inequality, imperialism, and heck, let’s throw in the slow motion the slow motion ecocide we’re involved in too.
I’m all for solving problems. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, but I don’t really need suggestions coming from people like you or Roughseas. The self-appointed *new leaders* of feminist ideology.
I’ve done quite well on my own.
LikeLike
@Mr.Merveilleux
The feeling is quite mutual. 🙂 I do appreciate the bluster though, thank you for that.
One should get the horse collaring correct – that would be radical feminist ideology, just for the record.
It always a pleasant surprise to meet another dude who thinks of himself as well versed in feminist ideology. 🙂
I’ve really appreciated our exchanges, they have thoroughly enlightened me with regards to the coreprinciples of the current wave of feminism .
LikeLike
It’s not 1988 and I’m not surfer. Hasn’t *dude* fallen out of usage?
As for the rest of your hot air- that’s all it is. Non-sequiturs followed by dog whistling. That may work in your little cult circle, and may even inflate your sense of self-importance in that little circle- but that’s it.
Now you and Roughseas can go back to writing in your underwear from your parents’ homes.
LikeLike
@Mr. M
Such invective! I’m grateful to have earned such vitriol from the likes of a master of feminism such as yourself.
Again, many thanks for your considered opinion. 🙂 (This is like christmas, over and over)
LikeLike
Excellent. Another pathetic attempt to not answer anything because you don’t have your cult crowd there ready to applaud the non-sequiturs.
Christmas indeed. Always great to unmask people masquerading as *great minds* from their parents’ homes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Does dressing like the accepted gender norm subvert gender roles?”
You’re confused. Does dressing like the accepted gender norm you were born into subvert gender roles? No, it doesn’t. Now take your whip to Roughseas if you see her in heels and a dress. Right?
Does not dressing like the accepted gender norm you were born into subvert gender roles? Yes, it does. That’s what Clare does. She’s your hero.
LikeLike
@VW
But how is that subversion VW?
Clare is a woman after-all, I believe you’ve said so yourself?
So how a woman subverts gender roles is to embody the gender roles that are expected for women.
Because dresses, heels and make-up are explicitly not reinforcing the gendered role women have in society?
That seems to be a strange formulation, don’t you think?
LikeLike
The point is: It’s not up to you. In case you haven’t noticed the world hasn’t subscribed to your litmus tests *on anything*.
I’m not sure if it’s cute or quaint how you two think people should apply your ideology to their own lives- in any event, perhaps you should get back to your cult, and Roughseas should get back to her skyrocketing journalistic career writing free reviews for self-published books.
LikeLike
@Mr.M
Contrary to VW’s belief and yours apparently, it isn’t up to me. I thought my name was The Arbourist, but perhaps I should change it to ‘Societal Norms’, just to fit in around here. 🙂
I’m certainly glad you speak for the rest of the world. I was wondering where the rest of the world went, it was so quiet in here.
Oh you mean that one is based on centering women (in feminism of all things, weird I know.)? Aye aye sir!
Roughseas isn’t even participating in the thread, yet you feel the need to trash her. 😦
Seriously, this is an education on the consequences woman face when they dare to have a difference of opinion.
Sadly, thank you for demonstrating the toxicity women face for having the temerity(!) to express a point of view. Perhaps you have some witty sexist vitriol for her as well? She’ll certainly learn her place then…
Tut tut, we certainly mustn’t think of class analysis or the societal conditions that oppress women, the individual equality wagon just pulled in and is calling for you, I’d hate for you to lose your seat.
Take care and go git’em Tiger.! 🙂
LikeLike
Of course. Blame sexism for people opposing your promotion of discrimination.
It’s amusing but just doesn’t hold water. Some of us believe all discrimination is wrong. You and Roughseas on the other hand are perfectly comfortable endorsing sexism if it suits your cult’s ideology. Exercises in self-importance within a group that’s guided by group-think.
Your con-artist sort of writing may work there, but as I said, it doesn’t work outside your cult.
Btw, woman is 1 person, women is the collective. You see to get that wrong terribly often.
LikeLike
“But how is that subversion VW?”
Sorry to leave you in the hands of Mr Marvellous last night, had to dash off. I’m also really sorry you’re failing to grasp the fundamental difference. People in general automatically follow much of the gender role laid out before them based on their biological sex at birth. In terms of clothing and appearance (your chosen area here), assuming you were born male, you appear to have done so with your casual comfy shorts, Roughseas certainly appears to present feminine based on the pic she used to use etc. Clare has examined what she wants for herself outside of the gender norm pushed on her at birth. I don’t know if she wears dresses, heels and make-up in her everyday life, do you? I don’t think it matters.
She’s an example to all of us, along with people who choose androgynous looks, that we can subvert the gender norm laid out for us at birth. We are free to choose another norm, something in between, something completely new or, do you know what, we could even just survey that options and feel most comfortable with various characteristics of the norm we are born into. That’s because we are all individuals.
Now, if you think women wearing dresses, heels and make-up are something to sneer at and criticise, I suggest you picket your local nightclubs, where you can be sure you are at least targeting women who don’t dress to your standards. You know, rather than stalking someone you’ve never seen in real life, whose daily clothing habits you’re ignorant, to harass them on someone else’s blog.
While you’re here though, feel free to comment on the actual post. 😉
LikeLike
Both RS and Arb were perfectly willing to disregard the damage they may be doing; the harm they may be causing to real-life people. People like Clare.
As you know my theory is people don’t get to cast stones and then pretend they’re the ones being victimized. If anyone is going to propose a certain group should be excluded from society, then I feel we have the right to scrutinize them and their motives.
They’re laying out litmus tests for everything from womanhood to feminism to fashion. What’s wrong with reversing the medal?
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you mean. You obviously don’t need to justify your dislike of their cult to me. I wish they’d discuss it in full, they tend to dash off (or ban) when it gets embarrassing i.e. they have to say more than waffle vaguely about the patriarchy and gender norms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@VW
Meh.
Angry dudes, be angry. He came in with scores to settle from a different thread, if being insulting makes him feel better, more power to him. 🙂 Going after RS, when she has no part here, demonstrates the casual misogyny women face all the time – men getting angry and spewing vitriol at women for boundary setting, and that,sadly, is nothing new. Sorry for the derail, the hate train will be ignored in the future.
Agreed. Can statements Clare makes be parsed for accuracy? Because what she said doesn’t conform with what is known about sociology and the sociology of gender roles.
An individual who happens to follow the normative standards of their (current) gender isn’t subverting the system of gender.
This, seems to be a reasonable statement.
Women do what is necessary to survive in our patriarchal society. This has never been about what individual women do, or a prescription of what they should do. Those notions were appended to my assertion by others, and I do not control what other people think/say.
This tangent was about exploring one very small facet of the gender hierarchy that oppresses women.
Any prescriptions (litmus tests, evaluations, etc.) attributed to this question were added by others to the discussion, but not added by *me*.
Because this is what I said – “May I suggest then that gender non conforming behaviour be the basis of what subverting gender roles be about?”
Now is there truth to that statement or not? If the converse is true, that is – gender conforming behaviour subverts gender norms – then I think you would need to explain how this is possible, as it conflicts with the current evidence and sociological theory that is accepted.
But as you said, no more on this.
LikeLike
“Going after RS, when she has no part here, demonstrates the casual misogyny women face all the time – men getting angry and spewing vitriol at women for boundary setting, and that,sadly, is nothing new.”
Sorry, forgot about this bit till Pink just commented on it. I agree there is often a very different reaction to women and men saying very similar things. But you’re not right in this case. Pink is hurt because someone he considered a close buddy in blogging terms (I’d seen him refer to her very fondly prior to this) has not only revealed herself to have a horrifically intolerant viewpoint, but she’s refused to let him air his views on the matter by banning him. It’s a slap in the face and a shock to the system. He’ll deny it, as people always do, but that’s where the anger comes from, not from your feminist theory book.
And she did have a ‘part’ here, the whole discussion exploded from her post.
LikeLike
I think SOM’s comment is perfectly reasonable. Also, I like seeing women called whole. Spelling or not, that works for me! 😉
He’s also absolutely right here, “I suppose that if I were brainwashed into believing that genocide of homosexuals was a Christian practice, I would have become atheist, too.”
Life is complex, Violet. You’re trying to pigeon hole people into tidy boxes. Do those rad/fems, many atheists and lesbians, have the right to exclude trans men from their secret rad/fem meetings? Are Christians now to blame for what you perceive to be rad/fem oppression of trans? Why do you assume that everything people say and do is motivated by hatred? Why do you perceive people as only good or bad, according to how well they comply with your own ideology?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comment Insanity. I’m glad you appreciate SOM, you make a nice couple. 😀
I agree that life is complex. And perhaps not all bad things are motivated by hate. I’m sure fear is a bigger player. Out of interest, what is my ideology?
LikeLike
I am kind of lost here but let me ask a question. Why should clothing have a gender attached to them? They are just cloth or other fabric. I don’t see that what you wear changes your gender, it is just what makes you comfortable. Some people wear things others wouldn’t. Growing up I liked tunics, and before puberty I sometimes wore skirts. After that I liked one piece zip up things like they had on Star Trek TNG. Now I am older with a belly and prefer bib overalls. None of this had anything to do with my gender, it was how I felt, how comfortable I was. And before someone asks why at puberty I stopped wearing skirts it was because things could get rather embarrassing quickly if things “came up” so to say. I guess I needed stronger undershorts or needed to wear them more often. Gender is more than your body parts. It is how you feel, what your central ID is. It is too simplistic to simply say that if you have the male rod ( penis ) you are a gender male or the other way around. IF everything you are tells you that you are not male, having a ( penis ) rod won’t help. Also it is not up for anyone to tell someone else how they feel about their gender. It is up to that person. It is like telling me a gay man it is a matter of choice to be gay. I can tell you it is not, I was born gay. If you are not gay, you can’t tell me different. As I am what I am, I must allow others to be the gender they know themselves to be. OK I am out of here this is way too much bickering for my taste. Best wishes to all. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly Scottie! Thanks so much for your comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hugs
LikeLike
With regards to the OP – perhaps finding parallels can be useful, but it might be too easy to paint the people you regard as ‘bad’ with too broad a brush.
For instance, should we be blaming (hating on etc.) the trans-movement/ideology for Islamic regimes who are forcing gender reassignment surgery on gays and lesbians? Would it be a mistake to put this level of ‘gay reparative therapy’ (erasure) in a quest to establish guilt by association.
I think the case would be stronger as forced gender reassignment surgery in Iran happens to be a current feature of the regime.
So one cartoon on a risible christian blog versus the the reality of the situation in Iran – from the GayStarNews:
From the related BBC article:
So, should we identify the trans-movement with the Iranian governments’ forced gender reassignment surgery that is, on the ground, right now, actively persecuting and oppressing male and female homosexuals? Should we conclude that because of what some whacky-religious types do, they should be regarded in the same category?
My answer would be of course not. Guilt by association is just another way to focus hate on a particular group.
So, if associating radical feminism with Tom Quiner’s silliness and saying…oooohh…look at you bad rad fems in league with the christian fringe is acceptable; would a similar (stronger) case can be made for trans-ideology and radical Islam and its horrifying prescriptions for homosexuals that happen to live in Iran?
It would be reasonable to conclude that ‘the company we keep’ may not be the best metric for evaluating a particular movements goals/ideology.
LikeLike
Let’s see if I’m understanding your ‘comparison’ correctly. You and anti-abortionists like Tom both believe trans people are incorrect about their understanding of themselves, and are happy to be involved in circulating posts attempting to mock and marginalise them. You think this is the equivalent of me forcing gay people to have gender reassignment surgery? I’m not sure where I said I was for that …?
LikeLike
@VW
Is there anywhere in my comment where how trans people perceive themselves being the issue?
People should be free to define themselves however they would like. What people do not get to control is how other people and society react to them. This is not mocking or degradation – but a mere expression of sociological reality.
Please cite the evidence of said circulating on my behalf – there must be considerable history and trail of evidence of this, as this is the internet. If discussing gender, gender theory, and feminist/radical feminist points of view is now considered to be marginalizing and mocking, how can we safely debate anything?
The best place to to start the (very christian) hunt for heresy would probably be my blog (and the gender tag).
You have not forced gay people to do anything. In my comment I proposed a counter-example of what associating one group with a religious radical group can do and posed the question – is this a fair practice?
My answer to radfems and radical christains vs. trans-ideology and radical islam, both cases, are not very useful, at least with regards to understanding the positions contained within rad fem and trans theory.
LikeLike
“So, if a man wants to wear high heels and present feminine, and wants to be regarded as a women – thus wearing women’s clothing and performing femininity (which is harmful to women) is he subverting gender roles? Or is it, oh hey to be a woman, I need to show that I can do the accepted standard of the female gender role to be thought of as a woman.” – from your original comment.
That seems fairly straightforward in degrading how trans women view themselves – both the suggestion that they are men in heels and that they are harming women in doing so. You’ve been involved with Roughseas, defending her position, in the reblog of the post that sparked off this entire discussion. I think I’ve seen you reblog Stop Trans Chauvinism posts, but I could be wrong, maybe it was the other way round.
I think it was a fair and easy comparison between you and the anti-abortionists Tom and SOM, in terms of how you view trans people (SOM ‘liked’ your comment so I assumed he’s agreeing with you all the way), and also my comparison about certain groups of Muslims not accepting gay people as they are, and telling them they are trans. Am I wrong in thinking that you and your fringe radfem movement think that most if not all gay men are confused lesbians? It’s a clear, and very interesting parallel. “You’re wrong about yourself, we know better.”
LikeLike
In fact, it’s kind of spooky how much you have in common with the radical Islam, isn’t it? A significantly sized group of people tell you they self-identify as something, you tell them they’re wrong. Your ideology knows best. Islam is telling gay people they must be trans … and radical feminists are tell trans men they must be lesbians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, let’s see. In Iran, cis people force cis people into GRS.
In Britain, trans people want GRS to be available to, though not enforced on, trans people.
And- the far right mocks and disparages trans women, calling them men, and refusing to allow them in women’s loos because they are a threat to cis women. TERFs mock and disparage trans women, calling them men, and refusing to allow them in women’s loos because they are a “threat” to cis women.
On subverting: we who were AMAB reject that role completely. I tried to make a man of myself. I tried to fit in. What I am doing now is so much nicer, and angers the far right precisely because I am subverting.
And- if it were a few thousand trans women university students, the TERF reaction might be remotely relevant, but given that it is a few thousand people in all walks of life, all ages, trans men and trans women, the TERF obsession is a sign of phobia. A plague of spiders might worry me, one spider is seen as harmless except to an arachnophobe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Clare
Are women allowed to set boundaries when it comes to their safety and spaces?
I’m confused Clare. So, you’re subverting gender roles by taking on the approved actions and mannerisms that define the gender role of women?
That is presenting as a woman in hopes to be recognized as woman. So if you pass, then what exactly is subversive to the gender system? Society thus sees another member of the oppressed class, and will treat you accordingly.
It would seem that rather than subverting the societal notion of what gender is, you are reinforcing the stereotypes of what women are ‘supposed’ to be/act like.
This isn’t an evaluation or judgement of your choices or whether it is ‘bad’ or ‘good’ it just what happens in society.
Now what would be subversive is a hetero-normative male deciding to wear a dress. The subversion comes in when one does not conform to societal expectations of one’s gender.
The notion here is that it is generally accepted in society that men don’t wear dresses, it is has been designated arbitrarily as clothing for women.
So the important factor here is that you wish to be identified as a woman. Not just looking like, and acting like a woman, but an actual female. So, going by your preferences, how does conformingto the female gender role (and thus by taking that role designating you as a member of the oppressed/sex class) subvert the gender system? You are woman behaving in the way society expects them to – this is not subversion in any sense.
LikeLike
You are so boring, you know that? It would matter less if you were less disingenuous. When you say you are confused, you write more truly than you know. Don’t patronise me, and don’t patronise others who might not have got wise to you yet, and might still try to read your screeds.
LikeLike
@Clare
I suppose.
There is nothing to be disingenuous about. It is a very simple request for clarification.
You said you were subverting gender roles.
By acting/performing/being what is considered by society to be the acceptable for the role of women? How is this subversive? If anything, it conserves the notion of gender roles, because is reinforces the idea to be a socially acceptable woman you must do/look like/act like x,y,z..
Agreement on what is subversive, and what is not, seems to be out of our grasp. Happy to leave it at that.
LikeLike
If you don’t get it already, you will never get it. You refuse to get it. That’s OK. You have made a decision to exclude trans people, and you rationalise that. The suffering you cause does not matter to you.
Thank God most people I meet are accepting enough. They understand about subverting- that you do not, really does not matter in the greater scheme of things.
I don’t care about your agreement, because I have no respect for you.
LikeLike
I’m confused by this line of questioning Arb. In your thinking, what should a person born biologically male, who has a burning sense they are female do? Am I to understand that they need to be reconditioned into realising we are all naturally gender neutral in terms of expression? Or is there a ‘correct’ expression of those born with female sex organs that they could aim for?
If any of this is the case, you believe we all need to be reconditioned, in which case, why would you and your friends start the campaign targeting the most vulnerable and marginalised group of people in terms of gender expression? Even if I accepted your theory (I don’t, it’s ludicrous), your methods are twisted and cruel. Do you ever have passing concern that your words might genuinely harm someone in the real world? Or is it like a Nazi fighting for Ultimate Good and unable to properly assess collateral damage?
LikeLike
@VW
Fascinating. Because radfem theory would advocate for the free expression of individuals, however they wanted to present, what is stopping that, currently, is the gender hierarchy.
From Trouble & Strife:
Would you agree that class analysis and the discovering of the sources of oppression are beneficial to the project of feminism?
Trans ideology postulates that gender is an innate feeling, and should (can) be expressed through matching the physical appearance with gender one identifies with. One’s gender identify can change periodically (gender fluidity) or a particular gender can be decided upon and permanently (or semi-permanently) adopted, in some cases.
One of the tenets of trans-ideology is that, through gender reassignment surgery, one can gain relief from gender dysphoria (the feeling of being born in the wrong body) by altering one’s body to match what is in the mind.
Now in Iran, they are grievously misapplying this idea mentioned above. How so? Because not all lesbians and gay men desire to have their anatomy “corrected” so it matches a very conservative definition of what gender roles are. This notion is the logical end of what christian reparative ‘therapy’ wants to achieve.
So, should we associate the all actions of radical islam with trans-ideology? My answer, is no. Just as we should not associate all the actions of radical christians with radical feminist ideology. It seems unhelpful (the guilt by association ploy), if understanding the various positions on the issues is a priority.
LikeLike
“Angry dudes, be angry. He came in with scores to settle from a different thread, if being insulting makes him feel better, more power to him. 🙂 Going after RS, when she has no part here, demonstrates the casual misogyny women face all the time – men getting angry and spewing vitriol at women for boundary setting, and that,sadly, is nothing new. Sorry for the derail, the hate train will be ignored in the future.”
Don’t confuse honesty with anger. Or is is that one of those sexist tricks you’re trying to adapt for your own purposes? The angry feminist? The angry black woman? Funny, isn’t it, how you get to pull out and use every little dog whistle in the book- then blame other people for what you’re doing.
And btw, I have no score to settle with Roughseas. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of her position. A self-appointed radical feminist who spends much time decrying male privilege whilst choosing not to work while her husband brings home a paycheck every month. And then spouting off on other people’s class privilege when she lives in the house that belonged to her mother (even though she’s well into her 50’s.)
I suppose that’s a characteristic of your cult.
Telling women what to think is wrong! (But we can tell trans people what to think.)
Telling women what to wear is wrong! (But we can tell trans people what to wear.)
Telling women what jobs they can have is wrong (But we can tell trans people what jobs they can have)
That none of you were capable of identifying those rather obvious issues with your arguments just goes to show exactly what level of people we’re dealing with.
LikeLike
Reminds me a whole lot of this:
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see you’re finding the comparison with religious ideology unhelpful, but it’s part of a wider pattern of human behaviour. Let’s look at your opening sentence:
“Fascinating. Because radfem theory would advocate for the free expression of individuals, however they wanted to present, what is stopping that, currently, is the gender hierarchy.”
Fascinating. Because Christian textbooks would advocate for the free expression of individuals, what is stopping that, currently, is sin.
I too would argue for the free expression of individuals. The only thing I can see stopping that is people with ideologies telling them they shouldn’t.
And what is ‘trans ideology’? Is that a religion that all trans people swear to before they discover what they are? As far as I’ve noticed, trans people are simply looking for a way to be comfortable. If that clashes with your belief system, then it’s you who has the the problem.
The fact is that we don’t know if it’s possible for humans to be gender free. Can you think of any other animal species where the biological sex differences haven’t led to distinct gender behaviour patterns? From an anthropological perspective, are there any societies that have developed without gender roles?
I would say that in terms of gender roles, our current problem is that we tell people how to behave, we load expectation of gender onto them, and we assign greater importance to typically male characteristics. It would seem more prudent to deal with these issues before the guesswork of how sex might naturally impact on gender in an equal society.
LikeLiked by 1 person