kath wrote: Samoan wrote:
p.s. nick, i'm still having major connex problems here. i got through the carol example of the article before the times kept timing out. i agree the author sounds reasonable. as far as i got, i do think using an example of a trans who could be encapsulated essentially with "whatever will i wear??" might be a tad unfair, but i couldn't read it all. i will revisit. regardless, i am so glad to see you here! longgg time.
I don't know if this article about the article helps or hinders but here's a link to it from The Guardian website yesterday -https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/05/jenni-murray-transgender-not-real-women-sunday-times-magazine
thanks for this. i had no probs accessing this one. i will come back to it.
(then i tried to pull up info on the ground rules for sex ed classes in america as part of a response to fonz's last post, and i crashed again. maybe it's a conspiracy. i'll alert the media!)
and i am back.
what i really like about the article: Murray, writing in the Sunday Times magazine, said that she was “not transphobic or anti-trans” and called for respect and protection from bullying and violence equally for “transsexuals, transvestites, gays, lesbians and those of us who hold to the sex and sexual preference assumed at birth”.
in america, the trans folk are the ones who face the brunt of violence.
like nick and hatz, i do understand what she is trying to say. i understand people who do not think trans women should be called "real women".
i just don't agree with it myself. i have problems with it, on many levels. the two extended examples, carol and india, follow what i said earlier on the "whatever will i wear?" principle. no, i don't think choosing two trans people who are all about makeup, shaving legs and all things superficial are anything close to doing fairness to trans people as a group and what are surely their different notions of identity and self. i agree with rachel cohen. i think it is reductive.
not that i've ever really been a fan of the you are not one of us
approach. i am quite sure that every person on this board has felt it in one context or another. i distrust the motivations of exclusion. i spent a significant portion of my life in the dark ages having both men and women telling me i wasn't a real woman. i was called a tomboy growing up. i played sports. i read vonnegut. i listened to king crimson. i loved armor and epic. i threw axes whenever possible. i've never worn makeup. others tried to convince me that i was fucqued up or something was wrong with me, that i was somehow missing womanness
, but i never bought it. i cared about being-me-ness
putting people in convenient group packages for the purpose of targeting them as somehow "lesser" is one of those truly sucky things about humans. if being a "real woman" means buying into that strategy, then i'll pass.