If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Feminism, transgender and censorship
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So, I'm sure a lot of you are aware of the shitstorm that has surrounded Suzanne Moore, Julie Burchill, and the attitude of old-school feminists to trans women.
First, Suzanne Moore complained that women are expected to look like "Brazilian transexuals", then this article was removed by the Observer after they took a lot of stick for publishing it.
I think Suzanne Moore was probably misguidedly making a point about women's bodies being expected to conform to a somewhat masculine (i.e. non-curvy) shape, but I can't be sure. And she certainly didn't make any effort to apologise when she was called on it. Burchill's response was disproportionate and bullying.
I would have nothing to add to this very clear and thoughtful response. There has been a lot of anger about this, and I agree that Burchill wrote a vile piece of rubbish. But I don't agree with the Observer's decision to remove it.
What do you think?
First, Suzanne Moore complained that women are expected to look like "Brazilian transexuals", then this article was removed by the Observer after they took a lot of stick for publishing it.
I think Suzanne Moore was probably misguidedly making a point about women's bodies being expected to conform to a somewhat masculine (i.e. non-curvy) shape, but I can't be sure. And she certainly didn't make any effort to apologise when she was called on it. Burchill's response was disproportionate and bullying.
I would have nothing to add to this very clear and thoughtful response. There has been a lot of anger about this, and I agree that Burchill wrote a vile piece of rubbish. But I don't agree with the Observer's decision to remove it.
What do you think?
0
Comments
That doesn't warrant flaming, only polite notices to change the phrasing.
I actually read the Burchill article first and I'll say this for her: she did a good job of making it sound like the reaction to Moore's comment was vitriolic enough that I actually felt sorry for her. The rest of the article was just vomited hatred.
Then I saw the actual Twitter conversation and eugh. She had the perfect opportunity to go, "my mistake", and never hear anything else of it. But turns out she's a massive tool as well.
Still not quite as vile as Burchill though.
tut tut!
I think its different issues. Certainly at the moment anyway
If I hear the words "cisgendered" or "intersectionality" one more time I might get all stabby with anger.
Its no wonder most women don't identify as feminist when you have tools like JudeinLondon on twitter moaning and groaning about stuff any normal person wouldn't give a shit about.
Beware the warm rags of victimhood.
applied flexibly that is, at their each & own personal discretion.
:yes:
And it's that misandry that fuels their attitude to trans women, I think. They never seem to talk about trans men...
I think that this was the article that pissed SM off to begin with and i can see why.
Do you know what "intersectionality"is? Why does it bother you?
I don't have a problem with the word "cisgendered"; it's better than saying somebody is "normal"or "real". There needs to be some word to describe people who aren't trans?
I don't like a lot of radical feminists... Some of then are overty anti transgender. Bullying an already oppressed group does not progress women's liberation.
I also get tired if mainstream feminism, representing mostly the interests if white middle class women, which is why I think that discussing intersectionality in feminist groups is important.
As for cisgendered it's a word to try and make the usual unusual, pathetically created as a result of the intersctionality double bind, a patronising attempt to "feel the pain" of trans people.
It's no wonder that most sane people want nothing to do with these verbiose cretins.
So there are two arguments: words only have the power we let them, ergo even' nigger ' shouldn't be frowned upon, or that words adopt a meaning based on their usage which can be derogatory.
Unfortunately, this word has been used in a derogatory fashion fairly frequently giving it a value judgement now. You can't pretend that doesn't exist. Arctic is right that the reason people say' its just a descriptive word! ' is to teach the cis to check their privilege.
See, I disagree with this... Unless your opinion is that as a white guy, everybody has the same experiences as you, then you are speaking from a priviledged position.... Not that I assume you believe that and I can't say for your experiences od intersectionality discussion, but here's an example of my experience...
I went to a conference last year called Go Feminist, which had a theme of intersectionality. In practice, it meant that it had talks by women who are disabled, black or trans (just examples) and their experiences. I found it really interesting and accessible.
I'm not denying that some people have pulled the race/sexism card (again, two of many examples) to silence debate, but that's not something which happens all the time. I know somebody who got pulled up on sexism and then went and formulated an argunent ad hominum against the guy questioning him because he was white... That ain't intersectionality tho...
The reason why debate in this area is fruitless.
Intersectionality is an interesting concept and probably true, in a fatuous "everyone comes from different places" sort of way. But the trouble is that the theory is used to shut down debate and it is used to attack people.
You only have to look at the way Caitlin Moran gets attacked to understand this. She's not BME so she's not allowed to have an opinion on race? Fuck off.
Is a good article arguing against brandishing notions of priveledge around willy nilly, with a link to counter arguments at the bottom.
See, that to me isn't intersectionality... I think if somebody is getting abusive and offensive, it should be called in to question.. but pulling a victim card to silence somebody isn't intersectionality, it's shitty debating skills..
To be honest, as a working class white woman, I have been silenced and my views have been dismissed in a middle class environment for having a "chip on my shoulder". Or men, who refuse to listen to women and dismiss our views as over reacting...
The "your opinion doesn't count because----" is wide spread.
I have privilege- I'm white, male, educated. I have disadvantage- I'm from a poor family, northern, divorced. That sculpts how I see the world and identifying that is important. But saying I am not entitled to my opinion because of privilege is wrong, but something that happens all too often.
I have similar experiences with radfems... But intersectionality, I don't consider being especially linked to radfems... I see it as largely emerging from the fact that radfem and liberal feminists were composed largely of middle class white women and didn't include black women (Audre Lorde for example has written this and done so in a way which is not too academic in the language than some feminists)...
Taking in to account things like class is also... or should be included in intersectionality?
I think tbh... arguing with some feminists, especially the ones from a purely academic background can be annoying... Some I've met are uber patronising and can fuck off.
that's the obvious way to read between the lines, no?
And when i mean feminism, i mean it:o