More Transphobic Stupidity
January 6, 2006 – 5:06 pmVia Nick Kiddle
FTMs have periods, but they do it better, because they’re men!
FTMs have to worry about breast cancer, but they do it better, because they’re men!
FTMs get raped, but they do it better, because they’re men!
FTMs have to deal with sexism, but they do it better, because they’re men!
11 Responses to “More Transphobic Stupidity”
Oh, I completely agree. I never signed up for pictures of Nick topless. I signed up for pictures of Amp topless.
Is it just me, or is this post really not merely about male feminists who use ftms as political pawns (projection, much?) but also about the ftms who allow themselves to be so used? IOW, Nick and me, since they have yet to post anything about “male feminists” that doesn’t clearly react to something people at Alas have done, let alone mention specific male feminists who are not Amp?
“Since FTMs are male-identified themselves, they are far less likely to call into question your own status as a special, magical feminist man. But, since they were raised as girls, lived as women, and experienced many landmark female life events they can also back you up in any claim you make about women and add that extra special touch of credibility! Frequently they suffer from low self-esteem, which means any crumb you throw them will be appreciated and returned fivefold with favors such as beating back pesky women who think you’re a misogynist by screaming “transphobe!” at them and causing a large distraction.”
nitpick: there’s a difference between identifying _as_ male and identifying _with_ all men.
By piny on Jan 6, 2006
I was thinking I should offer some of those people a deal: I’ll examine my male privilege if they examine just a fraction of their cisgendered privilege. From the stuff they spew, you’d think FtMs were the most privileged group on the face of the planet.
By Nick Kiddle on Jan 7, 2006
(Sigh) Well, see, it’s not privilege, it’s just…critique. They’re mutually exclusive.
I just wish someone would tell Lilith–and, heck, Char, because I’d really like to hear where the fuck else she could have come away with the impressions she apparently has–that hanging out on livejournal for a couple of years isn’t the best way to meet a diverse cohort of transguys. It’s a great way to meet transguys like the one Lilith used to be: pre-transition, or early-transition, still tied to women’s spaces, and still primary trans-identified. Everyone else tends you, you know, leave so they can go live their lives. Because, who needs advice on where to buy a binder fifteen years in? Really, who the hell are they reading? How do they miss…everyone? Jay here, Jay Prosser, Max Wolf Valerio, Jamison Green, me, the overwhelming majority of the transguys I know, and most of the ftms who’ve been in transition for more than five years on the one side; and Kate Bornstein and Riki Wilchins on the other.
By piny on Jan 7, 2006
What happened over at Alas???
I’ve been out of it for a bit as of late.
By jay sennett on Jan 9, 2006
I couldn’t do it justice–and wasn’t exactly an impartial observer, either. Go read, “Why feminists should accept transwomen as women,” and you’ll have some idea of what happened.
By piny on Jan 9, 2006
The short version is that Amp’s moderation or lack thereof annoyed some people so much they set up a community dedicated to trashing all male feminists, with a special focus on him. They scrape so desperately at the bottom of the barrel that they discussed how when male feminists want someone to write about pregnancy on their blogs they find pregnant FTMs so they don’t have to deal with actual women.
By Nick Kiddle on Jan 10, 2006
Hey, I hope ya’ll don’t mind if I post here. I’ve learned quite a bit from Piny over the last week or two and wanted to say “thanks!”
Also, I thought I was insane or something for maybe reading too much into Lilith’s and Char’s posts over yonder… it’s good to know it squicked others too. To me it just seems too convenient to set up “male feminists” as a prop through which they can castigate trans folk. I thought it was fairly transparent… but strangely enough I was “off topic” for bringing it up. Blah. Anyhoo.
I know it’s not ya’lls responsibility to educate me, but I really have had a lot of “a ha!” moments recently that I wouldn’t have had without your patience.
Thank you.
By Q Grrl on Jan 10, 2006
Don’t mention it, and speaking merely for myself as someone who is definitely not a moderator on this blog, I’d love to see you join discussions.
I think it goes both ways, actually. When they want to complain about transpeople, they say they’re just complaining about male feminists. And when they want to complain about male feminists, they occasonally couch their criticism in criticisms of the “trans politics” chimera.
If the post implies, as I think it does, that ftms _do things_ to support anti-feminist behavior on the part of male feminists, then it’s only fair to challenge the cost-benefit analysis being made and the ignorance that picture attributes to ftms. If ftms are merely the defenseless, agency-free props that male feminists “use,” if male feminists are treating us as nothing more than a political scrim upon which to project, then…back atcha, Lilith.
I’ve gotta clarify my thinking about “transphobia” vs. “philosophical differences,” but it doesn’t wash. Anti-gay-marriage activists have “philosophical differences” with gay people who want to get married. That doesn’t mean that their philosophies don’t cover for discomfort, encourage selective research, or carry real-life consequences for queers.
By piny on Jan 10, 2006
wow. Starting a new community dedicated to bashing Amp and male feminists?
Disappointing, though not surprising.
Glad folks feel safe here to talk about these issues with all their complexities.
And Q Grrl, welcome! A real treat to find you here. I’m looking forward to reading your words, whatever they might be.
By jay sennett on Jan 10, 2006
Yeah, I didn’t grasp how female feminists were/are allowed to use FTM’s or MTF’s to “bolster” their feminism, but when male feminists do it… well that’s just what the man does, eh? It’s incredibly frustrating to me, on many levels. I think that for many years I did get suckered into the whole mini-sect of rad fems who dis transfolk for their “gender issues.” I bought it hook, line, and sinker. Now, mind you, I have lots of issues with gender in a theoretical sense, so I was curious as to what was being said. But as the years go by, none of these feminists seem to be able to flesh out anything substantial; other than that trannsexuals will be the ruin of women/feminism. Also, as the years go by, it becomes more and more apparent [to me the slow learner] that what these women pass off as theory is a knee-jerk revisiting of the Chicken Little story.
What they seem to miss, and this might be a slight thread drift, is that they cling so tightly to wanting to define women without realizing that defining women is, in the first place, where a lot of the harm begins. The stooges of patriarchy aren’t so stupid that they won’t use our own definitions, of whatever, against us. That’s what they do. So, to me, it is especially silly, if that’s the right word, to parse out male feminists from female feminists, which party has primacy with the transsexual du jour, etc., ad nauseum.
I feel I’m not really making that much sense.
I guess I’m seeing reactionary politics — all based on the fear that some boundary is about to be breached and once breached the damage will be irreparable. Which, to my way of thinking, completely subjugates women to an agency-less existance, where if the women is not an object, she is most certainly a re-actor, not the original actor herself.
Bah, if ya’ll can make sense of what I’m saying, more power to you!
By Q Grrl on Jan 10, 2006
I think I understand what you’re saying.
So, to me, it is especially silly, if that’s the right word, to parse out male feminists from female feminists, which party has primacy with the transsexual du jour, etc., ad nauseum.
It’s privileged. In that calculus, ftms (and mtfs) become an owned demographic. It’s okay to make us battlegrounds for certain kinds of theory and activism, but not others. It’s okay to critique us out of our own stories for some political ends, but not others. I really don’t think it’s their right to determine what is and is not “use,” particularly if they’re interested in bringing us into the debate on their terms.
By piny on Jan 10, 2006