Oh, please.

  • Jun. 29th, 2011 at 12:31 AM
la_vie_noire: (Stop with the idiocy)
Everything I hate about middle-classed privileged feminists. (Trigger warning for talk about abusive relationships.) Seriously.

Dude. "People who don’t brush their teeth or change their clothes for days on end and reside in a place that reeks of cat piss..." (Homeless people? Poor people?)

"People who write to advice columnists whining about how their stay-at-home wives — who iron their shirts, make their lunch every day and care for the kids — sometimes leave shoes in the hallway." (I don't even know what she means with this.)

Also, people in abusive relationships? It's WAY more complicated than that. "Dump them" sometimes isn't even an option. Stupid, stupid naive rich feminists.

That's it. I stop following this shit.


  • Jun. 5th, 2011 at 6:14 PM
la_vie_noire: (Stop with the idiocy)
Via [personal profile] delux_vivens. As always, when you said "women" in mainstream feminist circles, you mean, "white, cis women."

Otherwise, I don't get what Yonmei even tried to compare here.

Paraguay's independence

  • May. 15th, 2011 at 3:00 PM
la_vie_noire: (Anthy flower)
Well, today make exactly 200 years that my country is independent from Spain. So happy birthday, country! (And yes, my country is small and poor so International media aren't exactly noticing this.) The celebrations here have been AMAZING.

Also, am I the only one who wants to hit her face on her desk when a new Feministe's post comes out? Really, that site has being uber frustrating and faily lately. About everything.

Dec. 20th, 2010

  • 8:19 PM
la_vie_noire: (Stop with the idiocy)
Seriously? The response to this... seriously?

Because the fact that this woman claimed it was a latino man means... what?

Oh this again

  • Jul. 10th, 2010 at 5:43 PM
la_vie_noire: (Clare-killing)
When white feminists talk stupid shit about things they know nothing about and make stupid conclusions.

Via [profile] aqrima, white lady talks shit because she read an article about India in NY Times.:


I, personally, do not feel that culture is an excuse for violence. In fact, I feel that there is no excuse for violence. Using religion and culture to excuse murder is an act of cowardice. Yet, still they continue…in the name of religion and tradition, etc.

What I find disgusting about this story—beyond the whole pointless death and human intolerance—is that the family changed their story multiple times. Changing your story in such a fashion over and over again is rather indicative of guilt. And an autopsy showing that the young woman suffocated…that, too, seems more like murder than suicide. Were there marks on the neck indicating that she had been hung? Was there rope? Did the rope have any of her DNA embedded in the threads from, you know, hair and skin that would have certainly been torn and irritated? Is there even any evidence that she hung herself, aside from the family’s changing stories?

And isn’t it suspicious that her “suicide” note suddenly appeared after they changed the story?

No, you cannot change society in one day. Ms. Pathak’s brother was right in that. But that doesn’t mean that culture cannot change at all. It can, and it will. Hopefully, one day, the outdated, ignorant, and conservative notion of honor killings will be gone and women will be one step closer to being safe and equal in the cultures that once advocated such archaic systems.

Ah, the condescending attitude and superiority of white people. Imagine if they actually bothered to educate themselves!

Aqrima has a wonderful response here:

you’re saying that this is done in the name of (outdated, archaic, conservative, ignorant) culture, and that is wrong. and some people say that this is what the culture says, and it is outdated, archaic, conservative and ignorant.

you’re working on the assumption that 1) there is some primal indian culture that we (indians, south asians) come from, and 2) that you know what it is.

and you don’t. you really, really don’t. i get the sense you (and the person you reblogged) are just another white feminist who thinks it’s okay to make blatantly racist and imperialist statements about our cultures, while you’re completely ignorant about the ways in which, for one, imperialism has shaped our cultures. made it so that we are in this bind where it’s either fundamentalism or modernity, and nothing. fucking. makes. sense.

ETA: White lady responds to Aqrima, after a bunch of nonsense about how she (White Lady) has right to talk: "excusing horrible violence on an innocent victim (a whole line of “but, but, but,” really?) makes you an evil person.."

Because she is so concerned about the killing happening in India. *throws up*

I would say that making fun of an Indian woman's culture while you stamp over a woman's death like that makes you an evil person. No one is fooled.

White lady, an Indian woman calling you on your racism while you pretend concern about a woman's death isn't "excusing a murder," far from it. And you making this straw man and slippery slope towards her and her culture is really awful and privileged.

You, white lady, aren't the one being killed there and won't ever be. You have no idea about these women lives beyond what you read in a NY Times article. So shut up.

Jun. 7th, 2010

  • 1:45 AM
la_vie_noire: (Anthy flower)
Tracing this Body. Transsexuality, pharmaceuticals & capitalism is one of the most (if not the most) amazing, complex, and intersecting articles I have read. A must-read written in 2003 by Michelle O’Brien and still holds true and how. Seriously, I'm making a crime just quoting a bit, you have to read it (if you haven't already):

These battles over HIV, transgender health and drug use are real, with millions of people's lives on the line. Politics is changing fast around the world, as old resistance movements have disintegrated, and new forms of domination are deepening their entrenched authority. Capital flows more and more rapidly around the globe, while access to health care is strictly limited and regulated. Wars of healthcare, over the terrain of our bodies, are among the most significant political battles in the world today. Healthcare is a major site in defining, and transforming, what race and class domination mean in our day to day lives. This fight is so profound, so real, so important, precisely because it is the place where the three levels of flows come together: 1. those flows of T-Cells and hormones, of viruses and antivirals, of methadone and heroin, within our own bodies; 2. those flows of our communities, families and lives through our communities; and 3. those flows of capital and institutional power across the globe.


The politics of our bodies - as trans people, as drug users, as people living with HIV - require a sophisticated grasp of multiple contradictions. We are dependent on the very systems that oppress us. We make demands for change, and appropriate the refuse of capital for our own survival. We live in the flows, suffer in the flows, envision a new world in these flows.

Many theories of power and politics offer little to grapple with such a struggle of bodily survival. I grew up working in radical environmental movements in Oregon, using direct action to defend ancient forests. The anticapitalist analysis of many such activists relied on a fanatical commitment to purity and an attempt at a total refusal to participate or be complicit in any form of corporate rule. Veganism, do-it-yourself punk ethics, buying natural and local, Lesbian-Feminist separatism, back-to-land self-sustaining agriculture and especially eco-primitivism and other movements common around Eugene, Oregon, all frequently rely, to various extents, on a commitment to non-participation in global capitalism and certain idealized notions of purity. Since then, I've encountered similar phenomena in many political spaces, from AIDS denialists working in animal rights organizing to the MOVE family of Philadelphia, from genderqueer denunciations of medicalized body modification to the glorification of drop-out travelers by the anarchist writing network known as CrimethInc.


These languages of purity and non-participation are frequently counterposed by the glorifying ideological cheerleaders of capitalist domination. Every major U.S. newspaper, every president and senator, every corporate trade journal is aggressively advancing the absurd notion that capitalism is the best avenue to manage and stop human suffering. Believing that state power and corporate tyranny will somehow make a decent world have a major impact on the popular discourses of science, technology and industrial production. Such pro-capitalist perspectives are of no use to me.

Instead, I've tried through this paper to trace other ways of thinking through the relationship between my body and capitalism. Each step, I've tried to simultaneously recognize my participation and complicity, and trace the possibilities of resistance and liberation. In trying to describe the complexity of these relationships, I've found inspiration in Donna Haraway's essay "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century." A truly remarkable text, Haraway's essay brilliantly cut through polarized debates characterizing science as either a wonderful tool of capitalist improvement or the evil bane of patriarchy. Instead, Haraway describes the figure of the cyborg. The cyborg is the bastard child of the patriarchal realms of capitalism, nature and technoscience. Rather than reproduce their systems of command, control and communication, the cyborg ran radically challenge, undermine and resist domination. The cyborg is a new vision of feminist consciousness, a radical means of relating to technology and science. The cyborg is never pure, never free of the systems it subverts, never belonging to a realm before or outside of capitalist technoscience and patriarchy. But the cyborg is also a revolutionary, an effective, empowered, conscious being that reworks, redirects and restructures the oppressive systems that birthed it.

This vision of the feminist cyborg has been very useful and inspiring to me in understanding my own body and in struggling to the liberation of trans people. Like the cyborg, we are both complicit in and a challenge to the biomedical industries. We are drastically rebuilding our bodies with the aid of technology, surgery and drugs. And we are doing this all on our own terms, committed to our own well being, striving to our own liberation. Far from dupes of doctors or the crude escapists of ecoprimitivism, we are living amidst the systems we are always subverting. Trans people live in that hybrid edge of technology, science, nature and capital that Haraway correctly and brilliantly identifies as a tremendously power space of resistance and movement.

We are all in the midst of structures of tremendous violence, oppression and exploitation. There is no easy escape or pure distance from them. Our ability to resist, in this world, at this time, is deeply inseparable from our ongoing connection to these very systems. But resist we do. Every day, in so many ways, we are all struggling towards a new world of liberation, healing and respect.

Here is Donna Haraway's 1991 essay: A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century, if you want to read it.
la_vie_noire: (Juri-flirt)
[livejournal.com profile] rawles writes, a quick note

Along this same vein, deciding that you can defeat the misogyny of the source material/relationships in the source material by removing the women and replacing them with/focusing entirely dudes similarly reeks of bullshit. Because obviously the feminist way to deal with a misogynistic narrative is not to balance out relationships or illuminate and explore the female characters, but to ignore them! Riiiight.

The erasure of female characters from a narrative is never feminist. Period. The end.

Dude, seriously. Seriously. Not only that, there is also this shit with bashing female characters claiming they are so "unfeminist and problematic" and then going all starry-eyed and writing about whatever the awesome shit the guys are doing.

(But the "peen" part in that post made me cringe. Cis people, stop with the genitalia thing.)

*roll eyes*

  • Mar. 24th, 2010 at 1:16 AM
la_vie_noire: (Stop with the idiocy)
Ugh. Today was the day of white, cis, able feminist (or progressive, whatever) women making me very uncomfortable.

Those naive ladies who think gender problems revolve around cis, white, rich, able-bodied women issues. And chose to ignore any unfortunate connotation that their critiques of "gender issues" of other people who are not rich, white, able or cis could have. Some people have a pervasive history of being oppressed by people like you. Things have a context, and some things are more complicated than the simple "you should be like me, the privileged woman who does everything by herself and acts by western/cis/white/able-bodied standards of empowerment."

My head hurts. Badly. Tomorrow will be a long day again.

ETA: What I also wanted to say is that power imbalances exist, and that a more powerful group of people "criticizing" and stereotyping a group that is historically oppressed by them is something that, in our power structures, has certain connotations and consequences that shouldn't be overlooked.

Class and what's important

  • Feb. 28th, 2010 at 3:40 PM
la_vie_noire: (Meets Minimal Standards of Decent Human)
Because I was just having this conversation with my friend the other day about feminism and class.

The problem of saying you have to think of a movement as a class instead of considering the individualities and intersections with other oppressions that people experience is that movements are constructed around the experiences of the most privileged members of a group. There is no such a thing as "a class," there are movements full of people where some are more privileged than others. There is no "greater good" about ignoring oppressions that "are not the center" of said movement (really, "the center" are just the experiences of the most privileged who don't have to live with other oppressions).

FWD (feminists with disabilities) for a way forward: Feminism Objectifies Women.

You’ve heard the term “choice feminism” right? Usually used derisively by a person who is arguing: Just because a woman makes a choice does not make it a feminist choice, we have to be able to examine issues on a systemic rather than individual level, some choices that individual feels are good for them are actually going to be bad for the group as a whole and even bad for that individual when systemic issues are taken into consideration.

Here’s what annoys me about this argument. It always comes from the perspective of a white, cisgendered, currently nondisabled, middle-to-upper-class, heteronormative, and otherwise socially privileged person.


Here’s the thing. Everything I just said above about “women”? Isn’t true for women. Rather, it is true for white women. Or cisgendered women. Or nondisabled women. It is not true for women as a class.

Yet we continually operate on the assumption that it is!

But ask some other women, sometime, what their experience has been. Many poor and lower-class women, for example, would gladly tell you that they have never had a whiff of an option to stay home with their children — they’ve been out there washing the rich women’s drawers, or sewing them in the first place, so that they can afford dinner for their family a few days out of the week. Ask a black woman about being a nanny and wet nurse. Ask both of those women, and a few mentally or physically disabled women, about when they had their children taken away from them or weren’t allowed to spend any time with them at all (apart from the time they spent cleaning up the messes of the children of those rich/white/nondisabled women they worked for). [...]

Ask the little girl with developmental disabilities about sex sometime, too. No one ever sees fit to give her any information on the subject. They fight to have her sterilized, or even be forced with serious drugs and surgical interventions to stay in a prepubescent state for the rest of her life, so that no one will ever have to deal with the messy proposition of a menstruating or pregnant r*t*rd girl.[...]

Ask the visibly disabled woman about being expected to dress up in skirts and high-heeled shoes. Everybody around her will wince at the thought of her in form-fitting, skin-showing clothing. Because, you know, “women” are oversexualized in that way. Ask her about those super-special parenting powers she supposedly has. Everybody around her will bristle at the thought of her having primary responsibility over a child. Because, you know, “women” are stereotyped as having those super-special powers.

Ask trans women about femininity, and how they are treated if they chose to act according to it. Yeah, a lot of the time it means death.

So there is no a "universal" women's experience.

I swear this is my last post for the day

  • Jun. 18th, 2009 at 1:33 PM
la_vie_noire: (Anthy)
Because [livejournal.com profile] shewhohashope talked. And she said everything that has been bothering about the latesr discussion about rape.

I know that you're all dying to hear my take on this, so here it is: I don't think the discussion is moving from the particular to the systematic aspects of rape. It specifically looks at the implications of rape culture on particular women rather than engaging meaningfully with the ways in which rape is used systematically as a tool of oppression.


It was a mistake to refer to rape in the Congo, and rape in the poorest parts of the rural south (I read this as 'Global South' initially, but she may mean the U.S. South?), next to 'a frat house party' with no further analysis at all. Right away there is a complete erasure of the wider context. You can talk about the patriarchy and it's effect on women, purporting to discuss the wider systematic aspects of of rape, rather than the particular and the personal. Then to go on to ignore how the patriarchy is used as a tool of colonialism and how the patriarchy is used as a tool of class conflict is (say it with me social science students) problematic.


Using the word 'civilisation' as though it were antithetical to rape is ridiculous. When rape culture is being discussed, rape is a product of civilisation itself, not an example of its disruption but a natural result of the principles it is built on. Rape is about power, and power struggles and domination are inherent to society building

The difficulty with words like 'civilisation' is that one can mean many things in choosing to use it, it could refer to culture in general - another term which seems to defy any simple definition - or it could refer solely to urbanised societies, typified by their dependence of agriculture. But - and this is the fraught part - people are unable to to prevent themselves from assigning morality to what should be simple, descriptive terms, and 'civilisation' carries a particularly difficult, politicised history.

MUST read.

Ah, food for the brain

  • May. 2nd, 2009 at 8:01 PM
la_vie_noire: (Utena & Anthy / Kiss)
Womanist Musings is an amazing site. And Renee just shared a lot of amazing links, among them:

The 40 Year Old Virgin: Sex Ed. (Boy, I almost can't remember that movie, but I knew I hated it for some reason.)

Cis is not an academic term

From Shakespeare to StumbleUpon The Male Gaze Is Everywhere

2 Red Deaths = 1 White Death = Different Media Coverage and different degrees of sympathy

Time To Call Out Another Privilege

Just To Clarify: that is not what a “real man” is supposed to look like. (I had some problems with this, specially their definition of sexism -Wikipedia's- that ignores power relationships, but I included it because it said important thing about stereotypes and discrimination.)

You are not your breasts

Because crying is for attention whores

  • Apr. 29th, 2009 at 3:57 AM
la_vie_noire: (Utena)
Women of color = Intersection of two oppressions. They experience racism from white women and white men. They experience sexism from white men and men of color. (They experience racism from men and other women of color, and sexism from white women and other WOC too, but let's just stick to the basics.)

If you are going to say that sexism is WOC being "demeaning" towards white women, then, white women being demeaning towards WOC is sexism and racism.

Sexism is not something that only white women experience. Nor it is savages WOC persecuting fragile white women with "sexist" words when calling them on their racism. I wonder why white women never say that it is "sexist" for a white woman to tell a WOC to shut up (it is racist, they all say). Women weren't after all always told to shut up by men?

Sexism is not white women feeling insulted. Feminism is not about white women feeling good with themselves. (Yes, I know feminism was constructed over the backs of women of color, and that white feminists have been using the movement that way for decades by now, but since I have met a lot of wonderful people here, I'm sticking to the "not a monolith" thing.)

[personal profile] kialio said that "hysteria" is rarely used on non-white women. That it depends on the western 1800 concept of WHITE women being fragile and precious beings. Women of color weren't fragile and precious beings. They were slaved and put to work.

[personal profile] kialio: PoC women were/are... well... pack mules. No time for "hysteria" when you're being relocated to a reservation or having your children sold in slavery.

Also remember this:
"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place, and ain't I a woman? ... I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me -- and ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man (when I could get it), and bear the lash as well -- and ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen most all sold off to slavery and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me -- and ain't I woman?"

Sojourner Truth - 1854 Ohio Woman's Rights Convention

It's funny because here in Latin America (or in my country) hysteria is also used for women, but yes, for women enjoying white/class privilege. (But have in mind that "histeria" as is used around here - at least in my country - is kinda different from the English term.)

[personal profile] kialio gave this link too

"Because diagnoses of hysteria represented, in part, a professional articulation of womanhood, it was a gendered - and gendering - discourse. Medical studies by Mitchell and George M. Beard suggested, further, that nervous diseases (on the continuum from dyspepsia to insanity) were also race- and class-specific: Women of color, they concluded, lacked the extreme feminine sensibility and degree of cultural refinement marking the developed neurasthenic.(7) The racial coding of hysteria (and related disturbances of the nerves) as a middle-class white woman's disease meant that it was not simply a condition of "modern" women, but also functioned as a condition for womanhood and modernity in Victorian America."

Interesting. Now I get it.

Feb. 15th, 2009

  • 8:29 PM
la_vie_noire: (Anthy)
I feel so, so drained right now for multiple reasons, but here you have Hear Us Roar, Women of Color Carnival, and one of the best things that have been done on the Internet. Those links are amazing and eye-opener. Everyone have to read it. I mean it.

Via BFP.

Sep. 19th, 2008

  • 5:10 PM
la_vie_noire: (Anthy)
You know, since I'm not much into USA tv's show (and specially this kind), I just discovered, thanks to TransGriot, that America's Next Top Model has nothing more and nothing less than a black trans-woman contestant, Isis Tsunami. Before a white cis-woman says that those kind of shows are sexists, etc., I will say that yeah, but there will always be sexist beauty-standards that only white, able, cis-women can met. So things would be different if I was talking about some white cis-chick. (Heck, if you are a white cis-chick who can easily get representation? You know you shouldn't talk, no matter how awful you think those things are for you, women of color and trans-women aren't even considered desirable. Disabled women? What?). And it's pretty refreshing to see a trans-woman not being portrayed on the media as someone who needs to be ridiculed.

ANTM'S 11 SEASON SPOILERS: And of course, this girl already faced prejudice and bias from other contestants, mostly white cis-women. Googling about her, I just read things like yeah, Isis is male, and a priceless comment: as a biological female, I am somewhat taken aback that a transgendered person is being used to both illustrate an ideal female beauty and/or sell clothing to me. Check your privilege, don't you, miss?

And via the always wonderful Questioning Transphobia, here is something that everyone who knows english, can access to this, and is too brown, poor, disabled, trans-gendered, not-straight to be considered acceptable by our society, needs to read.

So let's admit it. Our lives? Our lives are an act of war. They are open defiance. They are invasion. They are insistent violation of the borders of a world that desperately pretends we do not exist. They are rude gestures and thrown rocks at the rumbling war machines of systems who choose to write us out of history, beginning only a moment ago and stretching back to the beginning of all things. By standing here and living, we defy the notion that we have no right to, and we scream out that no world where we are torn apart into nothingness can continue. Every seed we plant, lover we kiss, drum we beat is indeed a grave and mortal threat to the entire world as they know it, because our reality forces it to crash against us over and over only to find us still here. Even when we die of it, we are dead, but we are still here, we still are, we still were.

Some Foucault's book I have says that war is always fought inside every society, between powerful and less powerful groups, and every kind of classes. It's not exactly the same, but.

Y chau, gente corriendo! Hola... cosa marrón.

ETA: En español:

America's Next Top Model es un 'reality show' estadounidense en que un grupo de chicas que aspiran a ser 'top models' compiten unas con las otras, y son eliminadas, creo, semanalmente. En fin, en esta temporada hay nada más y nada menos que una concursante transexual de raza negra. Se llama Isis Tsunami y tiene 22 años. Me dirán que el programa es sexista y lalala, pero si sos una mujer cis-sexual blanca, pues, muy fácil hablar del 'sexismo que afecta a las mujeres blancas' e ignorar todas las intersecciones de opresiones que viven las mujeres de color transexuales. Y recordemos que los estándares de belleza, sexistas que sean, ni siquiera están hechos para ser alcanzados por las mujeres de color, transexuales, discapacitadas, etc. (Qué no me vengan con que 'a mi no me representan porque yo no me identifico, y cada experiencia es única, yo he sufrido siendo blanca/o, lala' porque... me conocen. Y si no, bueno: aunque NO te identifiques, eso no significa que toda una sociedad te asocia con tu raza, condición sexual, cis-género, capacidad, etc. Y tenés privilegios por eso. Punto, no hay nada que podamos hacer. Eso no quiere decir que no sufrís y que tu vida tiene que ser color de rosa, sólo que no pasas cosas por tu raza/género/capacidad/clase social que otras personas pasan. Esto parece bastante al azar, pero es que me recordó a una discusión con un hombre blanco que 'sufría' porque le decíamos que tenía privilegios masculinos porque cada experiencia es única, y a él le decían 'femenino o gay' porque era sensible! ¿Te acordás, Mako? En fin, nadie acá dijo nada como eso, pero tenía ganas de comentarlo. XP)

Además, es bueno tener una representación de una mujer transexual que no es ridiculizada por ser mujer transexual.

La chica ya ha sido víctimas de prejuicios por parte de algunas de sus compañeras, como muestra algún video de acá. Aparentemente hay una chica blanca (Hannah o algo) que empujó a Isis porque la tocó, o chocó con ella. Esto trajo la indignación de las otras participantes (especialmente las mujeres de color, aparentemente) que se molestaron con la tal Hannah. Todo esto lo he leído de bloggers o comentarios, así que no tengo idea. XDDDDD

Y por supuesto que, googleando sobre Isis, me encontré con cosas como (ya sé, nunca hay que leer los comentarios, pero...) ¿Es un hombre?, y una joya: ya que soy mujer biológicamente, me toma por sorpresa que una persona transexual se use para ilustrar un ideal de belleza y/o venderme ropa.

Ah, y descubrí que la bella Barbara Diop, que modeló representando a Zinbawe en la Copa Mundial de Cricket es una mujer transexual.

Aug. 13th, 2008

  • 4:21 PM
la_vie_noire: (Utena & Anthy / Kiss)
Via Questioning Transphobia.

Here a long, long article, but one I think everybody should read.

Transsexual women suffer a lot of discrimination. And not only outside the feminist movement.

ETA: Some clarification. A cis-person is someone whose gender and the genitals with which they born match. A trans-person is someone whose gender and biological sex do no match. Thus, cissexism is discrimination for NOT being a cis-person.

It is also common for trans feminine spectrum individuals to be called out for "reinforcing the gender binary" more so than their counterparts on the trans masculine spectrum. This is due, in part, to the fact that female and feminine appearances are more readily and routinely judged in our society than male and masculine ones. And because concepts like "transgression" and "rebellion" tend to be coded as "masculine" in our culture, whereas "conformity" and "conventionality" are typically coded as "feminine," there is an unspoken bias that leads masculine transgender expression to be seen as more inherently transgressive than feminine transgender expression. Indeed, such unconscious presumptions about masculinity and femininity have surely contributed to the tendency exhibited by many feminists to praise women who engage in traditionally "masculine" endeavors, while expressing anywhere from apathy to antagonism toward men who engage in traditionally "feminine" endeavors. In fact, one could make the case that historically feminism has been predisposed toward "trans-masculinism" -- that is, favoring gender transgression in the masculine direction. [...]

While all transsexuals face cissexism, trans women experience this form of sexism as being especially exacerbated by traditional sexism. For example, trans women are routinely hyper-sexualized in our society, especially in the media, where we are regularly depicted as fetishists, sexual deceivers, sex workers and/or in a sexually provocative fashion (trans men, in contrast, are not typically depicted in this way). The common presumption that trans women transition to female for sexual reasons seems to be based on the premise that women as a whole have no worth beyond their ability to be sexualized. Furthermore, most of the societal consternation, ridicule and violence directed at trans people focuses on individuals on the trans feminine spectrum -- often specifically targeting our desire to be female or our feminine presentation. While trans men experience cissexism, their desire to be male/masculine is typically not mocked or derided in the same way -- to do so would bring maleness/masculinity itself into question. Thus, those of us on the trans feminine spectrum don't merely experience cissexism or "transphobia" so much as we experience trans-misogyny.

And another fantastic article (but not so long), but this time by the aforementioned blog:

A social constructionist/performative idea of gender can just as easily assume that as gender is constructed through the re-iteration of behaviours and the already-gendered body matter, trans people’s gender is as socially constructed as anyone else’s. And hence EXACTLY as real. And EXACTLY as fake.

[...] But this “gender is not real” thing is almost always used to ONLY illuminate the falseness of trans genders. And considering the notion that we are “really” a man or woman despite appearances tends to feed into transphobic discourse, legislation and eventually violence, I think it is worthy of refuting those non-trans normative biases and presumptions.

See some feminist and queer theorists approach trans women by applying different rules—a cis woman’s identification as woman is unquestionable, but a trans woman’s identification as woman is incomprehensible because gender doesn’t exist.

It is apparently not possible to identify as a woman, to live as a woman, if you’re transgendered and meet the feminist standard of anti-humanist anti-essentialist social constructionism.

Because the double-bind here is, either you meet societal expectations of a feminine gender presentation, in order to pass on a day-to-day basis without the massive amounts of harassment from the general public a non-passing trans person. In which case you’re a misogynistic man just acting out the dictates of the Patriarchy onto the entire female gender. There we go, polluting the ontology again.

Or, you do not have a traditionally feminine gender presentation, or you’re too loud, too “aggressive,” in which case, well, evidence that you’re really a man. The defense rests, your Honour.

I wish I could quote ALL of the second article, because it IS awesome. But I can't, so you'll have to read it. It's very enlightening.


la_vie_noire: (Default)
[personal profile] la_vie_noire

Latest Month

March 2013



RSS Atom
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
Designed by [personal profile] chasethestars