Dolezal and Jenner

[River]

"All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves."

I guess most people would assume that this quote comes from a right-wing (whatever that may mean) perspective.

Nope. That's pretty standard radical feminist language. They can be a little extreme.

[Beutlin]

"I guess most people would assume that this quote comes from a right-wing (whatever that may mean) perspective.

Nope. That's pretty standard radical feminist language. They can be a little extreme.

Oh, I am not denying that said sentence can be defined as "standard radical feminist language". But I am also pretty sure that most people out there have never heard of lesbian radical feminism. My point therefore was that if someone were to post that sentence without quotation marks somewhere in the comments section of a major news site most people would probably misjudge said poster as a right-winger, conservative, etc.

[Cerin]

One would expect a negative pronouncement about transsexuals from a conservative, and perhaps that is the aspect of the quote you are associating with conservatives, Beutlin.

In substance and style, it doesn't seem at all right wing to me, either. It expresses awareness of and concern for the idea of a woman's bodily sovereignty, but the right wing is presently hell bent on restricting women's access to healthcare, contraception and abortion, passing laws to jail women who miscarry, to force women to undergo invasive vaginal ultrasounds in order to schedule abortions, to elevate fetal personhood above the civil rights of pregnant women, to force women to bear children that are the product of rape and incest, and many others of similar ilk. The current conservative legislative assault on women is quite at odds with the concern and awareness expressed there, imo. You won't get that kind of zeal from a conservative on an issue relating to women, unless the female in question is a fetus.

[Primula Baggins]

Cerin, I'm sure the views you're describing are not shared by all or even most conservatives. Certainly not to the extreme degree you describe. There must be many conservatives who do value a woman's bodily sovereignty and privacy in her own life; it fits with the principle of government noninterference in private matters, which is central to actual conservatism.

You're describing the extreme of the extreme right-wing anti-choicers. Unfortunately, in some states they seem to be writing a lot of laws that less extreme conservatives are afraid to oppose.

[Beutlin]

Cerin, I think we are writing past each other. I myself do NOT associate Raymond’s sentence with conservatives. My point was that ON THE INTERNET most people think that ideological opposition to transsexualism (anti-transsexualism, if you prefer) is entirely a thing of the right. Raymond’s (et al.) position on this subject shows that, as always, things are not that neat and tidy.

Another reason why I posted said New Yorker article about radical feminism/transsexualism is because I think indeed that there are some similarities between the criticism of transsexualism and the criticism of Dolezal (mind you, between the criticisms!). Radical feminists, among other things, argue that transsexual women can never be actual women, because they did not grow up as women, and therefore they did not experience what it is like to be a woman in a patriarchal society. They profited from their male privilege and to a certain degree have the possibility to return to that privilege. Some (NOT ALL) critics of Dolezal argued quite similar: that Dolezal did not grow up as black, that she was a benefactor of white privilege and that she could always use said privilege again, whereas a real black person could never do so.

Now before anyone misunderstands me: I believe that Dolezal is pretty stupid to say the least, and I do think that there are certain fundamental differences between transsexualism and Dolezal’s “trans-racism”.

Okay, I gotta write my final uni exams now. Wish me luck, Halofirians!

[Alatar]

Good luck Beutlin!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Good luck, Beutlin!!

My point was that ON THE INTERNET most people think ...

But this isn't THE INTERNET. This is the Hall of Fire.

[Beutlin]

Thanks, guys! One exam went really well, the other---not so much (I will know in a week from now if I passed it and if I can thereby start my Master this fall).

My point was that ON THE INTERNET most people think ...

But this isn't THE INTERNET. This is the Hall of Fire.

Oh V, I know that the fair Edain and Eldar of this Hall of Fire rise above the hordes of internet orcs.

[axordil]

a benefactor of white privilege and that she could always use said privilege again, whereas a real black person could never do so.

As I recall, similar (though obviously not identical) things were said about President Obama by certain mainstream black leaders (Jesse Jackson? I haven't gone back to check) before his candidacy took off, as his father was actually from Africa and he was raised by his white mother's family--thus he hadn't lived the "real" African-American experience.

edited a redundancy

[Primula Baggins]

I remember people saying, "You could just as well call him a white man!" But that isn't, and never has been, how it works in this country.

[Cerin]

Prim, there may be many conservatives such as you describe, but the conservatives that matter in a practical sense are the ones making law, driving the legislative agenda, buying elections and issuing court decisions. These are the conservatives impacting people's lives, so they seem the pertinent ones to comment on. You say I'm describing the extreme of the extreme. But no. I'm describing the people currently holding public office and passing such laws all over the country! This is now mainstream conservatism. I'd say the extreme of the extreme right wing is now represented by the South Carolinian shooter and his ilk.

And I realize we run into this problem every time we deal with these labels, which are practically useless unless qualified. I'm happy to use another label than 'conservative' to refer to the prevailing mainstream right wing ideology as represented in government, if that is preferred.

Beutlin, thanks for clarifying. I got a little caught up in the moment.

I think the point yovargas raised and that you've amplified on (about the similarities in criticisms) is very interesting.

[Primula Baggins]

Cerin, I do think it is good to make clear which "conservatives" you're talking about. In terms of legislation at the state level especially, in red states at least, you are right that the extremists are driving the agenda. But that doesn't mean it's fair to use what has always been a very generic term applying to many people to describe a minority of extremists—even if they are in positions of power that enable them to advance their agenda, and even if many of the less extreme are refusing to stand up to them.

I do sense your frustration. I share it.

[Cerin]

n terms of legislation at the state level especially, in red states at least, you are right that the extremists are driving the agenda. But that doesn't mean it's fair to use what has always been a very generic term applying to many people to describe a minority of extremists—even if they are in positions of power that enable them to advance their agenda, and even if many of the less extreme are refusing to stand up to them.

I have to quibble on the notion that the Republicans in power are a minority of extremists, i.e., that they do not represent the majority of Republican voters or a mainstream 'conservative' perspective. The fact is, these are the people a majority of Americans chose to represent them. I have no problem using some other term than 'conservative' to refer to the prevailing mainstream Republican viewpoint, but I contend that it is now demonstrably the mainstream ideology of the American political right wing.

I agree that it isn't what we used to mean when we said 'conservative'. I'm using the term not in the sense that it describes a particular set of principles, but in the sense that it describes the place just right of center on the political spectrum, with the spectrum representing our Presidency in the middle, and the two mainstream political parties currently embodied in Congress, the state houses and the governorships to the left and right.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think the point yovargas raised and that you've amplified on (about the similarities in criticisms) is very interesting.

The similarities are interesting, but as is often the case, they are most so in illuminating the differences.

1) Firstly, as has already been discussed, while both race and gender involve personal identity, and both are incredibly complex, they are different in fundamental ways. While gender identity is obviously not solely a biological thing, there is a very large component of it that is biological. To use the examples of the two people in the thread title, in order to become the woman that she is, Jenner had to go through major surgery and major hormonal treatments, while in order to "become" a black person, Dolezal spent time under a heat lamp and frizzed up her hair (and lied about who her father was). More to the point, there is simply no truth to the assertion that there are biological differences between races; race a social construct.

2) Secondly, as also has been discussed, trans-gender individuals are (relatively) common, whereas Dolezal appears to be an isolated, or at least very rare, example. Certainly there are plenty of other people who identify strongly with a different race than the one that they themselves came from, but I've never heard of anyone actually deny their origins the way that she does.

3) Thirdly, and most importantly, since we are talking specifically about the criticisms, in the example that Beutlin gives, the criticisms are coming from a small, radical segment of the affected population. That is not to say that the point of view of radical feminists are not valid in and of itself, but so far as I am able to see, most women don't feel that way about transgender women (and of course, transgender works the other way as well, with individuals born with female body parts self-identifying as male). On the other hand, so far as I am able to see, a very large percentage of the African-American community is offended by Dolezal's deception. That to me is the most telling thing.

[yovargas]

While gender identity is obviously not solely a biological thing, there is a very large component of it that is biological. ... More to the point, there is simply no truth to the assertion that there are biological differences between races; race a social construct.

While this is true, skin color and hair type - the two main things are socially seen to differentiate "blacks" from "whites" - are biological. "Race" may be a social construct but there are obviously real biological differences between groups descended from different regions that manifest in groups looking different from one another.

That is not to say that the point of view of radical feminists are not valid in and of itself, but so far as I am able to see, most women don't feel that way about transgender women (and of course, transgender works the other way as well, with individuals born with female body parts self-identifying as male). On the other hand, so far as I am able to see, a very large percentage of the African-American community is offended by Dolezal's deception. That to me is the most telling thing.

I'm sure you just have to go back a few decades if you want to find larger groups of people highly offended by Jenner in a similar way.

[Cerin]

I was thinking more about the differences between gender and race, too, and thought of a slightly different way to approach it.

With gender, there are only two, and we all have elements of male and female in our being. Men have the X chromosome, women have testosterone, which is the agent (in massive quantities) that turns an apparently (to that point) female fetus into a male. So we are all both male and female to a degree. Therefore, when a man says he feels like a woman, he does at least have a biological basis for feeling that way. The 'woman' is in there.

With race, it's a matter of genetic characteristics manifested in groups of people or nationalities, which we've separated by label into 'race'. The genetic characteristics are real, regardless that the labels are artificial.

It's a huge and diverse pool of human genetic characteristics. But each birth doesn't draw at random from the entire genetic pool of humanity; rather we are defined by the very particular genes in the egg and sperm that come directly from our parents, who were defined by the very particular genes in the egg and sperm that came directly from their parents, etc.

A Swedish woman of Swedish ancestry who's had sex only with her Swedish husband of Swedish ancestry, etc., will not give birth to a child with the genetic characteristics we have labeled 'Asian'. There is no identifiable genetic link to the people we label 'Asian', the way there is a genetic link for Jenner to the woman within. There is no real basis on which this hypothetical child could claim to be Asian, inwardly or outwardly, or to identify as Asian. Certainly she could feel an affinity for one of the Asian cultures and say she identifies with the people of this culture and their history.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

While gender identity is obviously not solely a biological thing, there is a very large component of it that is biological. ... More to the point, there is simply no truth to the assertion that there are biological differences between races; race a social construct.

While this is true, skin color and hair type - the two main things are socially seen to differentiate "blacks" from "whites" - are biological. "Race" may be a social construct but there are obviously real biological differences between groups descended from different regions that manifest in groups looking different from one another.

But those are basically just surface, cosmetic differences, developed because geographic differences (e.g., darker skin because of more exposure to the sun).

That is not to say that the point of view of radical feminists are not valid in and of itself, but so far as I am able to see, most women don't feel that way about transgender women (and of course, transgender works the other way as well, with individuals born with female body parts self-identifying as male). On the other hand, so far as I am able to see, a very large percentage of the African-American community is offended by Dolezal's deception. That to me is the most telling thing.

I'm sure you just have to go back a few decades if you want to find larger groups of people highly offended by Jenner in a similar way.

But I would suggest that that offense has traditionally been of a completely different nature than what Beutlin described. It has not been a case of objecting that transgender women did not experience what it is like to be a woman in a patriarchal society, but just that it is somehow fundamentally wrong for someone born with male body parts to want to be a woman, or equally, someone born with female body parts to want to be a man. Again, the similarities illuminate the fundamental difference between the two situations.

Cross-posted with Cerin. Also, I wanted to thank Faramond for restoring the thread title.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

most women don't feel that way about transgender women (and of course, transgender works the other way as well, with individuals born with female body parts self-identifying as male).

On the other hand, this New York Times article is well worth reading, as well as many of the comments agreeing with her point of view.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opini ... .html?_r=1

[Inanna]

I recall being quite surprised when I read that article, especially ALL that emphasis on being born with a vagina. I mean, really? Isn't one of the main points about feminism been that we should not be defined by our body - by our breasts & vaginas.

Although I did get the perspective that one woman wished that Jenner had not come out as a sex-bomb. But that's her call, isn't it? Why all the hue & cry about her shots in Vanity Fair. Would we be jumping up & down if someone had the reverse sex change & then posed in briefs?


---------------
Please bear with my typos & grammar mistakes. Sent from my iPhone - Palantirs make mistakes too.

[yovargas]

Funny you say that. Aydian Dowling is a male who is very likely to become the first transgender cover model on Men's Health magazine. He became mini-internet-famous when he posted this remarkably sexy photo of himself mimicking a famously sexy photo of pop star Adam Levine:

original-8349-1430320818-15.jpg (123.7 KiB) Viewed 13589 times

(transgender Dowling on the left donig Adam Levine's famous pose on the right; and IMO Dowling is way sexier!)

Not that I searched for the like but I certainly didn't see anything but positive press for Dowling when this got him a good deal of attention. Of course, sexualization of men is in general seen as less of an issue than the sexualization of women, something that vocally angry anti-feminists very often use as a charge of double-standards and hypocrisy. While I think there is a (very) slight point to that accusation, truth is that in general the idea of only being valued for one's "sex appeal" is a far bigger problem for women than it is for men, especially when you factor in the awful attitude so many men have towards women's bodies as reflected in the disgustingly high rate of sexual assault women must endure.