“to be told that I hate transgender people feels a little … irrelevant.”
Whatever Suzanne Moore might have been wrong about this week, she’s right about one thing – the issues she has brought to the boil are not new. To anyone who was politically active on the left in the 1980s, they will have been strikingly familiar.
I’ll leave it to (doubtless many, many) others to explain why Moore has caused so much offence and hurt to trans people this week, but to set out my stall and for the benefit of anyone out the loop, my perception of the chain of events were as follows: She published an essay at the New Statesman which made a passing remark to women having bodies “like Brazilian transsexuals.” A few people complained to her about derogatory language on Twitter, some not entirely politely. Moore became angry and defensive, launching into a tirade of sneering and vicious comments against and about trans people, then attempted to explain and justify herself in her showpiece Guardian column the next day.
I have a rather tortured ideological relationship with the concept of privilege, but I would never dispute I am exceptionally privileged in one specific way: I have somehow wangled myself some very minor platforms in the news media. I have a megaphone that is unavailable to all but a handful of people on the planet. That still rather puzzles and frightens me. My megaphone is really very, very small (insert own punchline here) but I can understand why people get upset when I say something they don’t like. Unless you are a proud bigot, there are few things more painful than being accused of some kind of bigotry – racism, sexism, homophobia or whatever it might be. Not only is it deeply hurtful to be accused of being what you despise, is it also often a finger-trap of a debate, where the harder you try to wrest yourself free the tighter you become entwined.
If you are accused of contributing to the oppression of others, it is entirely understandable that you want to deny the charge, defend yourself and argue back. Whether you are in the right or wrong is not the point, few decent people want to be thought a racist, a sexist or a homophobe. But while disputing that you may be contributing to the oppression of others is one thing, denying that the oppression exists at all is far more harmful. Acknowledging that you might even be contributing to the oppression but maintaining that it doesn’t matter, that it feels a little… irrelevant, is I think worst of all.
It had all begun much earlier, but when I was being blooded in politics; in the aftermath of the miner’s strike, the heyday of the GLC, with various factions fighting tooth and nail within and outwith the Labour party, we were still hearing those precise same statements from prominent voices in the left leadership and media. As gay people attempted to fight discrimination and assert their rights, they were used as punchlines and told that their concerns felt a little… irrelevant. When black and Asian people would point out examples of racism within the movements their concerns were considered a little… irrelevant. When feminists brought gender issues to the table, they were told that people’s genitals are less interesting than the breakdown of the social contract. They were lectured about divide and rule. They were told their anger should be saved for the Tory government. We have come full circle.
Those crotchety old voices of the British left were wrong. If it is ever possible to build a united opposition, it will only be though acknowledging, challenging and fighting injustice and oppression of all sorts, without creating a hierarchy in which the valorous struggle of the few is sacrificed to short term pragmatism of the agenda-setting, privileged elite.
“Not only is it deeply hurtful to be accused of being what you despise, is it also often a finger-trap of a debate, where the harder you try to wrest yourself free the tighter you become entwined.”
so that’s why Amanda Marcotte calls anyone who doesn’t bow down to her a “misogynist.”
“But while disputing that you may be contributing to the oppression of others is one thing, denying that the oppression exists at all is far more harmful.”
many feminist’s claim misandry doesn’t exist and sexism against men can’t exist because they hold all the power…
apex fallacy anyone?
I think the Apex Fallacy is in itself a fallacy (or at least a gross simplification) but I’ll come back to that another time.
But actually yes, I was conscious as I was writing this that Moore’s willingness to sacrifice the concerns of Trans people to the greater cause is very, very similar to her previous willingness to dismiss any gender-specific issues affecting men.
[edit – originally said “affecting me” above. Freudian slip!]
What the Apex Fallacy points out that it is essentialist error to construct Class Men out of thin air and against clear counter-evidence. I would like to hear your criticisms of it.
I think “patriarchy” is a fallacy or at least a gross simplification of how power structures work….
There are provable statistics such as more men dying at work and lower lifespans for men…
So I’ll be interested to see what you write…
I did like your articles about the Nice Guys of Tumblr and I felt that you presented some of the things that a few of us on “the wrong side of the gender debate” have been saying for awhile. You were more polite and perhaps more articulate, but if that’s what it takes to get some of the ideas into the mainstream discussion, then it’s all good with me…
It’s very similar because many of the same feminists who dismiss male issues also deny trans women are women.
In as much as they do, they consider trans women issues to be male issues. Ergo, not feminism’s problem, even if they cause it personally. And a subset of radical lesbian feminists consider the “flight” of trans men, away from lesbian communities, to be a conspiracy theory to destroy womanhood, or to make butchness and female masculinity illegal (ie, they consider trans men to be misguided lesbian women, who got sold a bill of goods by patriarchy).
If it is ever possible to build a united opposition, it will only be though acknowledging, challenging and fighting injustice and oppression of all sorts, without creating a hierarchy in which the valorous struggle of the few is sacrificed to short term pragmatism of the agenda-setting, privileged elite.
Well said Ally. In theory i believe class considerations should supersede everything else but in practice things aren’t that straight forward.And the idea that the rights of some groups in society are expendable in order for an elite of any political persuasion to achieve their objectives is reprehensible and thta’s putting it mildly.
ps I just wanted to say that this is panning out to be a really interesting blog so well done and keep up the good work.
Hi Ally -could you delete my 4.57am post from 10 January. I thought you’d done it but it seems to have reapppeared.Cheers.
I did Paul, must have popped up from your cache or something
your megaphone isn’t small ally, it’s just not <hard enough in its criticisms of feminism.
hehe…
it’s not the size of the pencil, it’s how you write with it…
and my html skills are rubbish.but I am just a girl
We got the innuendo anyway, QRG.
So if you are transgender, are you speaking as man or woman?
Or woman as man?
Or neither?
A new gender, worthy of its own existence and recognition?
And depending on the answer, do you accept any responsibility for the wonderful confusion you have presented to the society in which you live?
And whatever the answer do you not feel that there’s just a little complexity in this matter?
Or is it all straightforward and everyone else is out of step?
If you are trans, you are speaking as yourself.
I’m not really the best person to ask, but as I understand it, some people choose to identify and present explicitly as trans women or trans men, some simply as male or female. Some may choose to present as agender or intergendered or whatever is appropriate to them.
But as I say, it’s not really for me to answer those questions. I’d suggest you’d ask some trans people directly (maybe one or two will drop by and can help) but in the meantime there are loads of good trans blogs and bloggers around, like Zoe O’Connell, Roz Kaveney, Jane Fae, you can google them and they’re all pretty accessible. Why not ask if you’re interested?
“And depending on the answer, do you accept any responsibility for the wonderful confusion you have presented to the society in which you live?”
Society’s confusion is its own problem, not the problem of trans people, just as the racial bigotry of Jim Crow was the problem of white people to correct. Black people were not somehow at fault for troubling white people just by reason of existing.
Ally Fogg:
Has she caused offence – where is the evidence?
Or has she allowed men who have decided to be women and women who have decided to be men, to have a voice for themselves, to defend their life option, and like the rest of us to fight and argue for their point of view? And to do that without resorting to abuse and censorship.
And is it men who have decided to be women who are protesting?
Or women who have decided to be men?
Or is it, as I suspect, and I think that this was Suzanne Moore’s point, (and apols if it wasn’t) that trans sexual men wish to continue to dominate the discussion as happened when they were pre trans men.
And if this isn’t the case, then let the trans sexual men make a case to convince us that they have changed, as everyone else has throughout history, rather than resorting to abuse and censorship.
“And is it men who have decided to be women who are protesting?
Or women who have decided to be men?”
Just this type of language is already pretty offensive.
Nobody “decided” to be anything. Similarly that you can’t decide to be tall, short, left-handed or a natural red-head. The propensity to be trans develops pre-birth, and is manifest pretty early, in a variety of ways (it’s not all the stereotypical “little boy likes girl things more” the media presents you).
Wether you do something about it depends on how it affects you (strongly or not), wether you can stomach doing something about it (or doing nothing about it), wether you are healthy enough physically to do something about it (hormones are powerful stuff by themselves) and more.
I personally disidentify with maleness at a very high degree (this is what gender DYSphoria is). I don’t find it evil, bad. Just “not me”. I identify with femaleness to a slightly less than average degree (at least the media-professed identity seems high, even if it was posturing), but enough to justify not identifying as an androgyne, as agender, or something else.
This is regardless of freedoms, rights, and anything accorded to each sex. Stereotypes, allowances, etc, have nothing to do with it.
“Or is it, as I suspect, and I think that this was Suzanne Moore’s point, (and apols if it wasn’t) that trans sexual men wish to continue to dominate the discussion as happened when they were pre trans men.”
The radfem gets out of the bag. They are transsexual women. Not men. Trans women are CAMAB, while trans men are CAFAB, it should be as easy as 1-2-3.
One has to wonder what discussion do trans women (or cis men) dominate, that you find it so bad that they might? Gender issues? Oh yes, they dominate it so bad, they passed VAMA and killed VAWA in the egg, right? And trans women have passed the Violence against Trans people Act, I’m sure. They have contacts and all, enough to make the 1% do their bidding. Those powerful evil trans people.
In all seriousness, politicians would rather trans people don’t exist, and mostly ignore them as per their vote, given their size of the voting pool (estimated 0.2-3%). They have no power, unlike, say, NOW.
This is so true. There are so many variations in constitution and choice in the many millions of us there are in even one of our cities surely the only conclusion is that there is little that is an absolute. The aim should be to do no harm. All too often identity politics becomes a faith with religious zeal to attach a whole range of immutable certainties to people based on some biological traits. A simple view of anthropology,history or ones own neighbourhood shows the huge variety of behaviours possible in humans ,not withstanding their genetalia,color, eye shape or portliness. As Dr. King suggested it is the quality of a person’s character that counts. Such a paradox I’m rich societies today, where so much choice is possible and we can hope to be what we want or feel we should be .That we create secular religions to enforce particular views. It seems that some of the left still is wedded to “false ideological consciousness” otherwise known as I’m right and your wrong now conform. Identity politics was rife mid last century and ended in Dachau, the Gulag, Apartheid , Rwanda, the list is endless. Human Rights with their roots in moral equality may be hard work but a much better bet.
“That we create secular religions to enforce particular views. It seems that some of the left still is wedded to “false ideological consciousness” otherwise known as I’m right and your wrong now conform. ”
You won’t be surprised to learn that radfem arguments against trans women being recognized as women are exactly the same (the difference is only in the details) as what right-wing conservatives gives for reason.
Something about “the essence of womanhood”, about surgery not being able to achieve femaleness, and about girlhood being this one important universally shared and-the-same experience for 51% of the population.
These arguments mean nothing to someone who thinks genitals have no essence however. Whatever animates us, the brain, the soul, the spirit, has an essence, maybe. We can only tell from how its expressed through the brain. Maybe trans-ness is caused by a mismatch between soul type and genitalia type (the soul causes the brain mismatch, the way someone seating in a chair leaves their own imprint, and molds the chair to them). That’s theory anyway.
It sure makes more sense than the religious interpretation on complementarism which says men do this, women do that, and genitals determine who you are, and thus what you should do (and else, you’re punished, possibly to death if you resist). People aren’t round pegs to put into square holes. We aren’t blank slates at birth.
And trying to invoke the mighty importance of a girlhood where my neighbor perved on my budding breasts as THE decisive moment is just fishing for an excuse to exclude (I’ve heard this one before, not in this thread). Other arguments include menarche and child-bearing, much more essentialist garbage.
If I could answer “how true” an answer is when asked, here is what I would answer to an affirmation about:
“I am a boy/man/male-identified” -> 10% yes 90% no
“I am a girl/woman/female-identified” -> 50% yes 50% no
“I am neither gender, androgyne, agender, bigender and/or other categories” -> 30% yes 70% no
Having just finished a conversation with someone whose city in the UK was engulfed in a clash of identities last night. Identities that in the past supposedly had physical elements “you can tell a prod from their face” and certainly assertions of immutable and essential characteristics I wonder. As you say the intollerances of left and right tend to merge. I’m sure it’s is completely out of fashion now but it just brought to mind the finale of Animal Farm. Thank you Ally. Interesting blog learning loads.
“And is it men who have decided to be women who are protesting?
Or women who have decided to be men?”
This formulation is trans phobic. Trans women were born women with an endocrine disorder that made them appear male, and the same in reverse is true of trans men, and the way you fromulated your question degenderrs them and denies their actual gender.
Ginkgo
This formulation is trans phobic. Trans women were born women with an endocrine disorder that made them appear male, and the same in reverse is true of trans men, and the way you fromulated your question degenderrs them and denies their actual gender.
Are you saying all transsexual people are medically determined because these people don’t. They say it’s far more complex:
“Transgender” is an umbrella term used by people in a number of different groups, including but not limited to cross-dressers (those who wear clothing of the other sex some of the time) to genderqueer people (those who feel that they belong to either both genders or neither gender) and transsexuals (an older term for people who take hormones and have sex-reassignment surgery (SRS) in order to transition to a different sex.
Lots of evidence on Twitter of personal hurt (although hurt is hard to quantify as many may not even engage in a space if it feels too unsafe, e.g. might be called a man with bits chopped off).
Of course trans people aren’t the *only* ones that matter, but they *do* matter as well, especially as the oppression of cis and trans women are not at odds, we needn’t choose! Especially in the context of her article and twitter response, which wasn’t even about trans issues and the many debates around it’s compatibility with feminism, but simply about gratuitous and unrelated slurs.
Those crotchety old voices of the British left were wrong. If it is ever possible to build a united opposition, it will only be though acknowledging, challenging and fighting injustice and oppression of all sorts, without creating a hierarchy in which the valorous struggle of the few is sacrificed to short term pragmatism of the agenda-setting, privileged elite.
Well said Ally. I’ve been following the storm re Suzanne Moore on Twitter and it’s depressing to see so many supposedly intelligent voices on the Left seemingly unable to understand why some groups in society feel the need to embrace Identity Politics .And why a minority within those groups inevitably take things further than they should. For it’s not always possible to remain polite and law-abiding when intelligent people with power and influence are in effect viewing your fundamental rights as being expendable in the overall scheme of things. Something you’d especially hope those who’re members of groups who have also had to fight for their rights would understand.
For the record i see the problems that Identity Politics can cause but it pisses me off no end when those whose sense of privilege and entitlement extends to them setting an agenda which at best marginalises groups who at the end of the day only want to be treated like everyone else.
ps Keep up the good work.
Too true. The “left” never disappoints mpre than when the obviously powerful and privileged among them appeal to identity politics to conceal their perfectly evident power and sense of privilege, often leavened with a lofty elitism. As you say people need human rights and then what they do with them is the responsibity of each person.
You know what, 99.99999% of Britain doesn’t give a shit about about your navel-gazing, narcissistic in-fighting. Grow up and pull your heads out of your backsides
Thanks for that post Felix. Haven’t got a clue what you’re on about mind !
I guess Julie Burchill didn’t read your excellent piece, Ally.
Transsexuals should cut it out
Warning: this is pretty hateful stuff.
Ally
I see Jamie Potter has already posted the Burchill article from the Guardian.It’s pretty outrageous that Burchill,Bindel and Moore have been given a certain legitimacy by the Guardian to promote their anti-trans attitudes.Not sure they’d allow the same unpleasantness if it was directed at obese lesbians or women with birds nest hair who wear ”fuck-me- shoes”.
I have to admit i don’t know any trans people .However i fully support their right to be treated equally with everyone else. And i find it really depressing that some feminists clearly don’t take them seriously and see their rights as being somehow expendable whilst they pursue their agendas.
There’s a bit of a parallel going on in some ethnic and religious communities where some activists are somewhat selective in the way they confront bigotry.For they’ll demand that action be taken against racism -as a for instance- and quite rightly so but they won’t confront the homophobia-as a for instance- that can be endemic within their own communities.
I think it’s extremely sad that people of the calibre of Suzanne Moore,Julie Bindel and Julie Burchill can’t see how they playing their part in fuelling prejudice against the trans community. Especially as all of them have faced prejudice on account of their lifestyle choices. But worst of all rather than accepting the trans community have an understandable beef with them thyey’re now trying to twist things round and are portraying themselves as being victimised by the trans community.Which is bollox for as far as i can see the trans community have every right to be angry with them. .
By allowing Julie Burchill et al to spew their bile all over the trans community the Guardian now has a certain guilt by association.And the only way they redeem themselves is by allowing members of the trans community to respond both ATL and BTL. For if they don’t then the trans community will be perfectly justified in thinking that the powers that be at the Guardian either also view their rights as being expendable or haven’t got the guts to confront Burchill et al about their bigotry..
Especially as all of them have faced prejudice on account of their lifestyle choices.
I didn’t word that very well. Being trans isn’t a lifestyle choice just as being a lesbian or bi isn’t a lifestyle choice. The point i was making none to well was that Burchill et al have also faced prejudice on account of who they are as well as on account of some of the choices they’ve made.
that burchill article is pure, unadulterated, and deliberated, HATE.
im glad the guardian printed it, it shows the burchill brigade for what they truly are
Fuck.
I don’t have a very high opinion of the Guardian/Observer these days, but I still thought they were better than picking on vulnerable minorities. I’ve written to the reader’s editor suggesting that heads should roll in editorial over allowing this to be published.
The trans women issue is where a certain section of the feminist community’s mask slips. They talk about how gender is a socialised phenomenon, but when it comes to trans women they’re 100% essentialist. Basically, they seem to believe having two X chromosomes puts you in the master race, which untermenschen with Y chromosomes can never presume to join.
I don’t have a very high opinion of the Guardian/Observer these days, but I still thought they were better than picking on vulnerable minorities.
Trans women (let alone trans men) and sex workers seem to be pretty expendable when it comes to articles and editorial coverage. Some feminists have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing from the last time this kind of crap kicked off.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/SRS.html
pretty graphic, but it contradicts her comments about “lopping it off.”
Well the hit rate on that Burchill thread has gone through the roof so it’s certainly had an impact which i suspect is what the Observer wanted all along. So if this is a sign of things to come i wonder who’ll be next in line for a kicking in order to boost their readership/viewing figures..
[…] not all in obscure radfem circles. It’s out in mainstream publications. Ally Fogg discusses this here and here and […]