Has anyone here read pic related?
Is it worth reading?
"The book is a transfeminist manifesto which makes the case that transphobia is rooted in sexism and that transgender activism is a feminist movement."
I wouldn't say so. To reduce transphobia to misogyny is both blindingly ignorant of:
a) The tremendous social pressure placed on birth-assigned males to confirm, by society as a whole regardless of gender, and
b) The hatred from TERFs not only aimed at transwomen, but to transmen. As a reminder, TERFs view transwomen as "men", and refuse to believe any "man" would give "his" privilege up to be a woman, so they explain it away as transwomen being "men" who either have a humiliation fetish, are predatory sex offenders, or are both. TERFs view transmen as "women" with so much "internalized misogyny" that they become turncoats and betray their "sisters" in the struggle against the "patriarchy".
Inb4 not all feminists. Feminism as a movement is a fractured mess, and it is by no means the only movement with womens' rights in mind, but it IS the only one willing to take each and every minutia out of context and rationalize whatever viewpoint allows them to see it in the light of men being the problem and women the solution, and it's downright inappropriate for them to misappropriate racism, classism, homophobia and transphobia as being part of their struggle when it suits them and their "intersectionality", only to turn on those groups and try and shut them down when it becomes obvious how full of shit those entitled cis white middle class women are.
Serano is a half-baked patsy.
>>5830263
*of men being the problem and women the victims
(and solution)
but I meant to say victims.
>>5830263
Thankyou for a surprisingly well written response.
Would you have any recommendations?
>>5830277
Unfortunately not. I am sure a lot of sense has been spoken and written about under the banner of feminism, and you hear glimpses of it from time to time in vlogs and in discussion, but for now it's submerged under a tidal wave of unswerving reductionist dogma. It really is exhausting to wade through it all in the hope that you'll find a diamond in the rough.
As for trans activism and a less biased approach to understanding the underlying causes of transphobia, again - a complex topic is overshadowed by opposing sides butting heads over the silliest stuff.
The anti-trans side clings to whatever it currently can to differentiate between sex in whatever way allows them to discredit trans people, often leading to the intersex being dragged in to refute them. First the focus was on genitalia, then sex chromosomes, then the SRY gene, which places them on shaky ground but by the time you go further than that, the only exceptions to their rule are an extraordinary minority of some intersex people who they are willing to throw a bone to and tolerate.
They stick their head in the sand when it comes to the neurological research corroborating the gender identity of trans people. They get away with this in part because such neurological differentiation has no known basis in genetic defects that lead to intersex conditions, and the research on how prenatal hormone exposure alters neurological development is still fluffy enough for them to ignore.
>>5830277
>>5830322
(cont'd)
But by the same token that anti-trans people refuse to see a bigger picture and want to reduce sex to a single factor (eg the SRY gene), a lot of trans activists tout neurological wiring as the sole determinant factor. When you get trans people who insist this is so, as if they are indistinguishable from the sex they try and stealth as, it only fuels public belief that trans people are insane and out of touch with reality - and I have to take issue with the back and forth on whether being trans is a "mental illness", as if being mentally ill is morally reprehensible or makes you a lesser person.
To use tumblr language again (lol), how ableist is that?
But to make something clear, "mental illness", a term lacking much credence in the first place, is more associated with conditions and disorders falling within psychiatric practice, where as being trans has established neurological underpinnings.
It's not a mental illness.
It's a neurological disorder.
That doesn't make us bad people. It's not a label we should feel we need to run from.
But likewise, anti-trans people are vague on what they think constitutes the alternative "help" and "support" for those with dysphoria, aside from physical transition. It's as if they think there's already some miracle drug out there that can cure trans, and... it's bizarre how they can be so okay with promoting the meddling with someone's sense of self at its core.
Mainstream neuropsychiatric practice is sketchy enough as it is. SSRIs for depression alone were enough to sweep the rug from under my feet and undermine my self perception in a far more subtle way than any dysphoria correction would.
In short, what I was trying to say is the issue of transphobia hasn't moved past a gridlock between two opposing camps, both out of touch with reality, neither willing to reconcile. Ergo finding good material on the causes of and solution to transphobia is still difficult.
>>5830342
>gridlock between two opposing camps, both out of touch with reality
Not really, the moderates and the medical community who support medical transition and argue it based on medical moral imperatives and neg rights are pretty grounded. You just need to make sure they're the ones to speak.
Of course there are always people who'll use weird folk wisdom/appeals to common sense to argue against all those elitist doctors.
There was a particular thing that riled me up in that book. She says there should be less emphasis on what trans people do with their partner, in particular whether PIV happens, and kindof the same thing for the unhealhy interest of the general public for the (medical) process of transisitionning. Fine.
But then in another chapter she describes her medical transition, and what she does with her wife (including, and that passage is seared in my memory, that she takes her wife strapon ”eagerly” IIRC). Wtf.
>>5830380
>Of course there are always people who'll use weird folk wisdom/appeals to common sense to argue against all those elitist doctors.
yup. and they're polarized from one another, on both sides on an argument, shouting at each other and drowning out any sensible discussion.
>>5830388
She can take her wife's strap-on as eagerly as she wants.
I also find it slightly amusing how so many transfeminists are lesbians... in the same way that a lot of cis feminists are lesbians, perhaps?
Is lesbianism a form of misandry in the same way that so many feminists claim male homosexuality is misogynist?
Aha... I don't actually believe that, don't worry. I just think it's curious, is all.
>>5830233
>Serano
Makes me uncomfortable on some visceral level BTW. Would walk out if Serano was brought on as a speaker in my uni.
>>5830403
The mainstream of the pro argument backs it's positions with medicine and natural rights arguments. There shouldn't be any dillema so long as they get to be the ones to speak.
>>5830417
How mainstream is that pro argument?
The general public is still exposed to the most outlandish aspects of the transgender community, from the sensationalist stories the press picks up on people like Caitlyn Jenner, Stefonknee Wolscht and Davina Ayrton, the Seattle Parks and Rec man (? I couldn't find a name and I don't actually know if it was a guy testing the ruling, or a legit pre-everything transoman), Christopher Hambrook etc.
That's the "reality" that the press paints about trans people at the same time that shows like Transparent and The New Normal foist what most people see as some dogmatic liberal agenda to make them accept that there is nothing wrong with us whatsoever and we should be unconditionally accepted without question, and that they need to get up to speed or risk being called bad people for honest slip-ups. People don't like that. People don't like instantly being accused of being bad people when they conduct themselves with the best of intentions, and then they're shouted down for honest mistakes and like... the next thing you see is politicians profiteering off their exasperation and rallying a call against those hypocritical intolerant liberals, even if they are a minority.
>>5830409
Do you know Zinnia Jones? She also claims to be a transfeminist, although I doubt she could go as far as Serano does in claiming that transphobia has its sole roots in misogyny. Jones has directly spoken out against transphobia in general and without ignoring TERFs, so if she truly believed transphobia is solely an issue of misogyny, she must be able to see how by extension of that, she'd be calling TERFs misogynists... and hey, maybe she is. At least that puts her in better standing than Serano.
>>5830463
>How mainstream is that pro argument?
https://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/fs_professional-org-statements-supporting-trans-health_1.pdf
Just about every group of doctors in the country making it type mainstream. Maybe if you could just self police and shut up the idiots, you could use them as spokesmen.
>Stefonknee
Didn't vigilantes force him to shut up? Or at least he claimed they threatened him into staying away from kids. Maybe if people are zealous enough you can purge all the monsters.
>>5830509
>Just about every group of doctors in the country making it type mainstream.
and i can tell you from both reading the British Medical Journal and from first hand with my mum being a doctor, that when it suits politicians, medical professionals are completely sidelined and ignored. when sensationalist journalism benefits the press more than the truth, medical professionals are completely sidelined and ignored.
Mainstream in science and mainstream in public perception are, far too often, very different and disparate things.
>Didn't vigilantes force him to shut up? Or at least he claimed they threatened him into staying away from kids. Maybe if people are zealous enough you can purge all the monsters.
trying to put the lid on weirdos like Wolscht after the press has already cashed in on the story isn't enough. You can shut the imbecile up as much as you like, but the damage has already been done.
>>5830511
It's a fair argument, but by that measure you cannot criticize Hitler until you've read Mein Kampf.
>>5830511
BTW OP, I thought it was pretty good. It unpacks a lot of the societal beliefs and expectations about trans women. But if you're trans a lot of what she says was probably already obvious to you on some level. It's not super dense or long though so no harm reading it. (also it's not about trans male experience but she doesn't have the perspective to talk about that, so)
>>5830511
If it satisfies you I am now reading it.
https://feminism.memoryoftheworld.org/Julia%20Serano/Whipping%20Girl_%20A%20Transsexual%20Woman%20on%20Sexism%20and%20the%20Scapegoating%20of%20Femininity%20(3)/Whipping%20Girl_%20A%20Transsexual%20Woman%20on%20Sexi%20-%20Julia%20Serano.pdf
It's not as instantly in-your-face as I had (wrongly) assumed.
>>5830560
right on, I was just busting chops
>>5830463
>Do you know Zinnia Jone
No I don't. I don't really care and I'm not trans, even if I might take hormones for some weird reasons.
I wouldn't want to be seen around any of the activists, especially people like Serano.
And I have no idea why, but people in the past have assumed I'm trans and it's been a very unplesant experience, so that's all more a reason to stay away.
>>5830263
>b) The hatred from TERFs not only aimed at transwomen, but to transmen. As a reminder, TERFs view transwomen as "men", and refuse to believe any "man" would give "his" privilege up to be a woman, so they explain it away as transwomen being "men" who either have a humiliation fetish, are predatory sex offenders, or are both. TERFs view transmen as "women" with so much "internalized misogyny" that they become turncoats and betray their "sisters" in the struggle against the "patriarchy".
yeah, that's sometimes true, but not always. sometimes we get pity for being "dysphoric females" or whatever. and although it's incredibly patronising and they never really respect our gender, trans men are virtually never treated worse than trans women in any way. basically if trans women become totally accepted, then trans men will be too almost by default. if that makes sense.
>>5830571
from what I've read so far, it seems to be falling for a popular feminist fallacy that when boys are insulted for their femininity, that equates to expressions of femininity being a universally bad thing.
You can hardly equate the experience of any person perceived as male, whether an effeminate male or a trans woman, in their being criticized for their femininity, with the experience of cis women in expressing theirs. Cis female feminists might look at how boys are so badly treated for acting feminine and take that as proof of misogyny, but were those cis women likewise treated so abysmally for expressing their own femininity?
In the days of the suffragettes yes, women were socialised to know their place and not stray their feeble bodies and minds into the world of men, but that view is antiquated, and now women are actively encouraged to enter traditionally male spaces, and are celebrated when they do succeed, and yet even this is taken by feminists as sign as misogyny, as it's seen as a celebration of masculinity!
If you're going to diverge from the definition of misogyny as being against women, to being against femininity, it's probably high time that people on BOTH sides of this shitstorm of an argument realise we need to stop labeling any given character trait "masculine" or "feminine".
I don't have to call myself a feminist to advocate that. Indeed I think doing so would benefit boys, and those assigned male at birth, to a far greater extent than it would benefit those assigned female at birth.
>>5830679
Yeah. That sums it up pretty well. You might not get treated worse, but still at its core is the fact that people refuse to see you as anything other than your birth assigned gender, and that in itself is clearly invalidating to trans men and trans women alike.
People don't treat you as harshly, sure, but it's because they see you as female still and so afford you more flexibility in the way you "express" yourself... which is just insulting.
>>5830729
>If you're going to diverge from the definition of misogyny as being against women, to being against femininity, it's probably high time that people on BOTH sides of this shitstorm of an argument realise we need to stop labeling any given character trait "masculine" or "feminine".
Keep reading.
>>5830756
I've gotten to
"I have called this book Whipping Girl to
highlight the ways in which people who are
feminine, whether they be female, male,
and/or transgender, are almost universally
demeaned compared with their masculine
counterparts."
(Yeah I'm a slow reader and easily distracted, my bad)
Like I said. How is the way cis females are treated for expressing their femininity at all akin to how assigned males are treated for expressing their own?
I realise the book might answer these questions, but I'm just writing out my thoughts as they come to me.
Hmm. Look, I really look up to strong women. I've name-dropped everyone from Mulan to Michelle Rodriguez to Sophie Arvebrink on this board, and have repeatedly argued that their strength does not negate their being female, and can't simply be reduced to them emulating "masculinity". Their strength is strength. So as a society we may have moved past equating being female with being weak, but not so the other way round. Weakness is still seen as inherently female... and... well... like I said, for that reason it is accepted in and afforded to cis women, but not assigned males...
I can see where this is going. If you engage in civil discussion over something for long enough, disagreements vaporise.
I need to practice what I preach more. No matter how unreasonable the opposing viewpoint seems, people need to realise that those who hold it, from their perspective, it seems completely reasonable.
I guess that's what I've found so repugnant about the current SJW movement is how militaristically they try to shut down any open discourse they would see as potentially undermining their position, and jumping so quickly in their moralistic posturing to shame their opponents.
(So I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions myself, as I did at the beginning of this thread... fuckin hypocrite).
An OK read, if anything because the author is a biologist. But, as all social-scientific books written by natural scientists, it misses the mark somewhat and reductionist reasoning ruins what could have been an excellent book. Dys3rd has written an excellent critique, and I feel I have little to add, except:
-All feminist theory suffers from the distinct lack of taking the male perspective into account, or talking about maleness in general in any other way than how it affects women. This is admitted by most reasonable feminists, and is in my view what allows MRAs/redpillers to flourish. IMO you can only understand gender-as-a-social-phenomenon by understanding the WHOLE, which includes the internal contradictions of male-female-other.
-There is in transgendered-related theories, either an absence of materialism: a completely idealist and to some degree what I'd call "feelings-based"-approach to understanding gender. Or, on the other hand, materialism takes the form of an obsession with biology and, as Dys3rd showed, what EXACT bit of our biology determines or defines gender. There is little to no developement of a materialist but social-scientific understanding of gender, from an anthropological/sociologial perspective, that understands the cultural, institutional, etc. construction of gender that happens on top of the received biology.
-All social theories that aim at any form of social justice have been pissed on by s.c. "SJWs" to the point where "social justice" is nearly an insult. Children, in mind or body, who have turned injustice into a badge of honour and reduced "justice" to using the right words on the Internet, have no part in any genuine discussion on these matters. It isn't supposed to be a pissing contest about who's more oppressed, nor a blame-game where white cisgendered straight men are either the Devil or the most oppressed class depending on whom you ask.
>>5830809
>Like I said. How is the way cis females are treated for expressing their femininity at all akin to how assigned males are treated for expressing their own?
Both are punished and seen as "lesser", one more than the other perhaps. It's about looking at "femininity" above the way it is actually expressed by individuals, but at a higher level of abstraction (society, culture, norms). The example you make is actually excellent; "strenght", being regarded traditionally as a masculine trait, when expressed by a woman is a good thing: being less "womanlike" and more "manlike" is good even for a woman, to put it very simply. Yet consider the opposite: "weakness", traditionally associated with women, when expressed by men is a bad thing - being more "womanlike" is bad for a man. Of course, these beliefs about what is "manlike" and "womanlike" are just social constructions and almost completely arbitrary; "strenght" isn't actually manly nor "weakness" feminine, as both qualities are possible in any human regardless of gender, but what is important is that we have BELIEFS about these associations. We JUDGE people based on them, we build or institutions based on them, our policies, etc. and those things have REAL effects even in the beliefs where bs to begin with - and those real effects in turn give rise to renewes beliefs and attitudes. What beings as merely a form of appearance, an illusion, thus takes concrete form as a social power.
But no, Serano doesn't explain that very well. Also you need dialetics in your life.
>>5830965
Cis women might be seen still, by some, as lesser by default, yes, and I get how that's insulting to them. But their being "lesser" by character is accommodated and has been accommodated by society because they are far greater in their capacity to bear children, thus born with innate value to humanity where those unable to carry a pregnancy are worth less and are expendable.
What earlier waves of feminism have achieved, largely, is that women are no longer chastised for stepping into traditionally "male" spheres of life but are celebrated for it.
What I can see feminists arguing for is the need to stop seeing, then, those spheres of life as inherently "masculine". If women can do those things too, then it isn't inherently masculine. Those actions needn't be gendered. Women have proven their worth lies in more than JUST their ability to carry children.
But in allowing men and women alike to indulge in behaviours seen as traditionally "feminine", what I would say is this. Stop calling those behaviours feminine, so that if people are criticized for behaving that way, it doesn't come as a put-down to women, but rather contention with people being weak-willed and self-entitled, and demanding rights before shouldering responsibilities. Because regardless of sex or gender, people need to pull their weight in society.
So yeah in short let's say that we now strip the arbitrary labels of "masculine" and "feminine" from different sets of behaviour. Let's stop calling, for example, hot-headed violent behaviour "toxic masculinity" when women can do that too. And let's not fall into calling spineless, self-entitled shirking of responsibility "toxic femininity" when men do it too.
>Also you need dialetics in your life.
I'd love some but I think finding and holding down more paying work is a priority right now, I'm afraid. My propensity for discussion ought to take a back-seat. As my mum says, it's evidence that I have far too much time on my plate.
>>5830965
>>5831024 (You)
I think we've got to a point where we're wording the same thing different ways over and over again, sorry for fuelling the circlejerk.
Also
>>5830913
I found that summary insightful.
You prompted this in one of my skype discussions so I thought I'd paste it in.
>My trip name is incorrect now.
>I chose the name Dys3rd when, knowing I would be so fearful to let go of those traits of outward strength that are often seen as "masculine", i thought it would be better to identify as 3rd gender.
>Dys3rd is literally dysphoric 3rd (gender). I did it because i feared the scrutiny i would be put under for claiming to be female whilst maintaining outward strength.
>but if i am to be true to who i am, i can't... [the name is inappropriate and obsolete]
>>5830263
I wish there were more people like you
>>5831024
>Cis women's value
Indeed, and I think this is the point that Serano makes; being a woman is worse than being a man, but worst is being (in the eyes of society) a man who becomes a woman.
>gendering qualities
Agreed here also, and I believe I said that in my post as well - neither virtues nor are gendered. I also think you hit the nail on the head with the part about critiquing weakness. That just sums up, to me, the main problem with the whole MRA/redpill/masculinity movement - it isn't that they demand that men stop being "wusses" and act instead with honour, dignity and reposibility, but that they insist these are inherently MALE qualities. They are virtues and the duty of every person; no one should be excused from them on account of "being just a girl" or something.
BTW, I noticed recently that this seems to be a MAJOR deciding factor in how successful, in terms of attracting followers, socialist movements of the past have been. Places where socialism was painted with 'masculine' qualities (honour, dignity, pride, each doing their duty and pulling their weight, etc.) such as those in Latin America and Spain in the 30's have been vastly more successful than their counterparts that stressed 'feminine' qualities (solidarity, care, pity, etc.). I spoke with some old-school syndicalists about this, and they kinda admitted it: asking for people to care about one another for the sake of those worse off just wasn't as successful in attracting people as beating up scabs and setting shit on fire.
>paying work
Have you considered something where you can use you mind? Academia, journalism, etc.? You seem smart imho. A shame to waste it.
>>5831239
Fascinating insight into the different outcomes of countries adopting different socialist strategies.
I'm a bit ignorant on Latin America. As a bongistani I tend to just... not really tune into goings in there even if i pick up a general gist. as far as forming opinions on Latin America, doesn't go much past those Argy Bargies claiming the falklands belong to them, cheating at football, and playing dirty at rugby. boo. foul play Argentina.
>Have you considered something where you can use you mind? Academia, journalism, etc.? You seem smart imho. A shame to waste it.
My family kept on trying to push me into university. I resisted. I might have an inquiring mind but even in college, the social minefield and the pressure of working to all-or-nothing annual deadlines instead of the shorter goals of the daily grind, and with not earning in college but haemorrhaging money, it broke me.
>>5831333
A shame. My partner had a knack for academia too, but got (as you put it) "broken" by it as well. Just isn't for everyone, but there are other ways (I hope) to use an inquiring mind to make a living (I'm feeling a bit sick of acedemia myself and don't know how much I'll last).
