Zinnia Jones

Secular Trans Feminism

Trans-ient amnesia


LofU2DdSI spent quite a while trying to find the offending Ophelia Benson post. I had assumed it was a post, anyway, as I’ve seen a number of bloggers go down that hole. My partner glares at the computer screen, purses her lips, and writes a few bitter tweets about cis people once again just not getting it. That’s the sort of thing she usually does when somebody we once implicitly respected decides they want to tackle the topic of transgender people as though nobody’s done it before.
Somebody asked a straightforward question about whether a trans person is their gender and suddenly the questioned no longer understands what “gender” is.
Make no mistake: It’s been done. It’s been done and done and done and done and done. It’s been getting done a lot more recently than it used to be since the rise to fame of Janet Mock and Laverne Cox and the coming out of Caitlyn Jenner, but it’s definitely been done before.
Bigotry is nothing new and it almost always takes the same forms, but I’ll stick to comparing apples to apples. There’s a certain kind of bigot who likes to pretend they’re supporting the group they’re oppressing and that they’re simply intellectually curious philosophers in search of the meaning of being human. In the queer community alone, as we’ve historically asserted our sexual and romantic attractions, heterosexual people responded over and over that attraction is a strange and mysterious thing and perhaps we don’t understand it. As we asserted our desires to marry and have families, we were met with completely frankly fucking irrelevant questions about gender modeling for children and whether government should ever have involved itself in marriage to begin with. Whatever it is, it’s always the same: culturally established simple, broad concepts suddenly become completely absurd once queer people want a piece.
One thing they are sure of, though, even as concepts like “woman” and “love” flitter away from them like ephemeral butterflies, never to return until all the queers are out of the room: they’re DEFINITELY not bigoted. As I groaned through post after post after post on Benson’s blog, I watched as she asserted firmly again and again that the words “yes” and “no” are too simple for great thinkers like herself, but:
It has, and that’s one thing that some feminists feel uneasy about. It’s not transphobic or trans-excluding to say that.”
This whole thing is just riddled with tensions, and it’s not transphobic to try to think about them.”
And when it’s uncertain and/or new which pronoun is preferred then there’s the option of using names. I don’t think that should be considered transphobic.”
She sure has transphobia nailed down! Is Caitlyn Jenner a woman? Who knows? What even is gender? But is Benson transphobic? Ask and suddenly she’s remembered how to answer yes or no questions.
I never found the offending post, because it turned out not to be a post. It turned out to be a question that was posed to her off of the blog, the oblivious non-answer to which she wrote several posts to defend. I’ve heard @oolon waded through the miasma of proud ignorance and maybe has a more comprehensive list than anything I could come up with, but as my Skype window boops and boops with more links from my purse-lipped research assistant, I’ve had enough.
But because I’m feeling nice, I’m going to help Ophelia out a little. Ophelia, somebody posed the question “is a trans woman a woman? Yes or no.” They weren’t asking you what gender is. They didn’t care what you think gender is. What they were asking was: shouldn’t trans people be allowed the same degree of self-determination as cis people? And in spite of your oblivious insistence otherwise, you answered with a loud and resounding “No.”

Heather McNamara writes about indie literature, politics, and civil rights at HeatherMcNamara.net.

Share this:

Comments

  1. =8)-DX says
    Ah, ok. I thought the correct answer was yes, and if any caveats were to be added, the only one would be “this isn’t a question for me, that’s for the trans women to answer. Um and as far as I can tell most of them say yes they are and what a silly question.”
    I mean if OB had wanted to emphasize that gender isn’t binary or even strongly defined, she could’ve just said that, because I’m pretty sure she thinks that the vague area of the spectrum we call “women” includes trans women (and white women, black women, queer women, cis women… etc.)
    Anyway thanks for the post. Relearn something old every day.
  2. Silentbob says
    What they were asking was: shouldn’t trans people be allowed the same degree of self-determination as cis people? And in spite of your oblivious insistence otherwise, you answered with a loud and resounding “No.”
    You cannot be serious. In the land of reality, she actually said the exact fucking opposite:
    Do you mean, will I take trans people’s word for it? Will I use their right names and pronouns? Of course I will. Do I want to make them jump through hoops to prove something to me? Of course not.
  3. The issue was much broader than just dodging the question. After ridiculing a group of trans people who decided not to book drag acts at a small alternative pride event, she made a joke about how Trans women being angry about Drag Queens was like Dolezal being angry about black-face. If I remember correctly, that the issue that precipitated asking the question in the first place.
    While she was dodging the question, she went onto the gender-crit FB group that was started by Hungerford (who used to be a close associate of C. Br3nnan and is sort of the go-to pseudo-scientists of the “gender crit” crew) – which in and of itself isn’t damning – I know activists who have gone on there to challenge their ideas. However, she went on there to ask their advice on how to essentially combat the question that was posed to her. She also implied that the adjective “trans” was evidence that trans women were not women unequivocally. She also participated in another thread where they were discussing a trans woman who had decided to keep her beard – ridiculing her for not identifying as a man. Asked why the women didn’t identify as a man – Ophelia responded, “Too late week?”
    Her blog has heavily quoted articles written about how supposedly trans activists were silencing “terfs” and “trans ideology” was in congruent with feminist thought. Some of the comments that she allowed on her blog without challenge were extremely transphobic – such as someone commenting about the over-sensitivity of trans activists or recommending “Gender Hurts”.
    She RT’s and associates with many feminists on twitter who have trans antagonistic views – which people have realized for a while and attempted to point this out to her. She generally just got angry that anyone would dare bring this up to her. I agree with her that policing of associations can be a boundary issue and I understand why she got defensive about that. However, well, this happened: https://twitter.com/MAMelby/status/625592620350328832
    She’s floating the story that her trans antagonism is all just fantasy and myth and part of a “witch hunt” and has responded to criticism and people being angry (sometimes saying not-do-nice things on their own FB walls) by posting those unkind comments on her blog – which as resulted, at least in one case, of a vulnerable person being targeted with slurs (possibly by false-flags but whatever). One of the screen shots she shared was a private FB post (friends only, no acquaintances) that included medical information – OB took down the screen shot when the privacy setting were mentioned and de-identified the transcript of it. However, many people are wondering why she had it in the first place or felt the need to share it at all.
    That’s what’s happening.
  4. Mookie says
    Thank you for this post, Heather (and M. A. Melby, you’re doing the Lard’s Own Work these past few… weeks? months? Thank you for keeping track, and for keeping people honest).
  5. Jadehawk says
    There’s a certain kind of bigot who likes to pretend they’re supporting the group they’re oppressing and that they’re simply intellectually curious philosophers in search of the meaning of being human.
    and the frustrating thing is that she KNOWS that this form of bigotry exists and is bullshit; she participated in the #UpForDebate thing that criticized exactly this kind of hyperskeptic philosophizing of marginalized people’s lives.
  6. Knight in Sour Armor says
    I’m really finding it hard to take away anything from this except that a person who says “this is *my* gender* and another saying “gender must burn!” can’t really be friends, even if they’ve got the same enemies.
  7. Actually, I posed it in a comment ON her blog. She threw an absolute wobbler, deleted all of my posts and put me in moderation so the terror of being asked something could no longer be visited on her, and posted three complaint posts before oolon had even emailed her.
  8. I feel like the “The Land of Ambiguity” post is a step in the right direction, but only taken after a LOT of steps in the wrong one, and even then is unnecessarily riddled with bafflegab and, well, ambiguity. Claiming, for example, that ‘is’ is ambiguous, but ‘it’ without a referent is perfectly clear is difficult to follow and remains unnecessarily twisty. And after all the REST of it, I don’t think she’s earned a maximally charitable reading.
    #3: Yes, the posting of the ‘joke’ comparing trans women to Rachel Dolezal is indeed what made me ask her point blank.
  9. sawells
    We’re currently in a situation where people are being told not to think and say things about _their own_ gender identity because LOOK A TERF. This isn’t helpful.
    Where exactly is that happening?
    And yes, I read the “Land of Ambiguity” post.
    It happened after a lot of handwringing, after declaring the question itself to be a form of McCarthyism and it was immediately followed by more accusations. Why should people only look at that post and not at everything that surrounds it?
    Please, question gender, question how it is constructed, performed, policed.
    Question sex, how it is constructed, how it has been naturalised.
    Question your own assumptions about what it means to be a man/woman/non-binary person.
    This is all completely possible without shitting on trans people. And even if you accidentially DO shit on trans people, try to learn and do better the next time instead of declaring yourself to be the victim of a McCarthyist scalp hunt (what a horrible, horrible thing to say).
    +++
    I will also say that it is completely possible to follow and retweet TERFs accidentially. Because quite often they say sensible things you agree with and you only notice once they say something about trans people. But that’s not the high profile people, just your run off the mill person. I know it happened to me more than once. Same with “White Feminists”. As a white woman I often found myself nodding along until I either noticed or until WoC gently yelled in my general direction (or in the general direction of that White Feminist). AFAIK neither trans people nor WoC “excommunicated” me for that sin, but should they decide theyw ant nothing to do with me cause they don’t think I’m safe because of that, that’s their perjorative.
  10. oolon says
    I was one of the raft of defenders who were saying no she is not trans antagonistic, at least not on purpose. It’s just missteps, that has been going on for the last year or more. Now when I saw her posting on a “gender critical” facebook page with Elizabeth Hungerford and liking transphobic comments. That came crashing down, not that she is “evil” or a “bad person”, more that she has accepted some damaging pseudoscience and the resulting facepalm. She clearly has no ill intentions towards trans people at all. Ironically so many parallels to Tim Hunt, who is also a good person, cares about women in science. He just happens to have some damaging views and reacts badly to criticism.
    I also realised I had been a bit transphobic myself, not listening to quite a few trans people who have been saying she is trans antagonistic at best for years. We are told that when women say X is sexist to listen to them, not believing them is a horrid mix of gaslighting and at worst a route down the “feminazi bullies make up sexism charges to destroy men!!”. Although in this case it is a narrative of “over sensitive” trans activists destroying cis feminists who won’t bend to their demands.
    I really hope Ophelia doesn’t leave FTB, or have any “censure” from this (Pretty sure the trans cabal is not a thing, so I’m not too worried). As she’ll leave in her wake a lot of cis allies who have been taught to think “TERF is a slur”, and to apply hyperskepticism to claims of transphobia from trans people. They’re left thinking there is something to this TERF-lite “gender critical” feminism. That hurts trans people, that’s where the most damage is by far. (I really hope the other bloggers on this network take those aspects apart, not to get at OB, in fact they’d be best to not mention her at all)
    Not linking this to single out the person mentioned, he did just block me on Twitter finally (!), I consider him a friend and this conversation really hurts to watch. A trans woman of colour asking if he believes trans women when they say OB has been transphobic. The “evidence” supplied is never enough, while the strongest evidence is ignored, the very fact that trans people are saying this at all. They are the ones who will lose out from these accusations, nothing to be gained from “false accusations”, does that sound like it has any parallels to you?
    https://twitter.com/abolitiondemocr/status/625690873142054912
    I’m not asking you if you’ll “listen”, I’m asking do you believe us trans people telling you that Ophelia was being transphobic?
    If you don’t believe X has a problem w/trans people, you necessarily don’t believe trans people saying X does.
    Go follow her on Twitter, and block me!
  11. Meggamat says
    When Ideas are deemed not to be up for debate, civilisation commits the gravest sin. A concept which it is considered morally wrong to question is simply dogma.
      • Meggamat says
        She is simply using the #upfordebate meme to mock ideas she disapproves of. Mockery is not the same as rebuttal, and many of the ideas she mentions are ideas about which there is and should be debate.
    • Garrett says
      When Ideas are deemed not to be up for debate, civilisation commits the gravest sin.
      Really? Closing debate on settled issues the greatest sin? Not genocide or slavery or other state-sanctioned oppression or violence?
      oolon and Giliell have already responded perfectly to this, but I feel I have to add my $0.02.
      Declaring settled issues up for debate is not the sign of an uber-skeptic, but of an ignorant person. If you go to a physics conference declaring we should open up debate about geocentrism, you will be told to fuck off and go read a book before spouting off. That’s not because physicists are dogmatic; it’s because nobody has time to rehash old settled arguments for every ignorant noob. This is especially true when the question itself is inherently hurtful. Asking are black people inferior to white people is fucked up not only because it is tiresome to rehash, but it’s fucking offensive as shit to question if a class of people is less valuable or capable than another.
      Finally, the question of whether everything should be up for debate, is itself a settled question that is no longer up for debate.
      • Meggamat says
        Alright maybe “gravest” was somewhat hyperbolic, but remember, there was a time when Heliocentrism was a settled issue. The decision of what is or is not settled always falls to those aided by cultural inertia, typically the powerful.
        Declaring certain topics settled is a way of ensuring that those who now wield influence will never have to yield it, entrenching their authority. Do not give too much weight to dominant paradigms, lest you blind yourself to the possibilities of a new reality, or the perspectives of a person generally thought to be beneath concern.
        The idea that mass murders are the primary domain of the mentally ill, for example, has often been treated as a “settled issue” -primarily by sane people- but this view has been challenged by lunatics who believe that it is inaccurate and unfair. Such madmen (yes and madwomen and other mad people) are often dismissed as not being worth listening to.
        • oolon says
          The decision of what is or is not settled always falls to those aided by cultural inertia, typically the powerful.
          … so really not a relevant concern in this context.
  12. When Ideas are deemed not to be up for debate, civilisation commits the gravest sin. A concept which it is considered morally wrong to question is simply dogma.
    Great heavens, I’m sick and tired of this pseudo-philosophical wankery.
    Some questions have been settles, and they have been settled with blood.
    Is the earth revolving around the sun?
    Do humans share a common ancestor with modern apes?
    Should black people have equal rights to white people?
    Was the Holocaust bad?
    Why don’t you teach he controversy?
    As a cis woman I’ve had ample experience of these “question everything” debates. They usually involve repro rights or sexual assault and the aim is usually to put me down a peg, to question my humanity, my bodily integrity, to remind me of my inferior position. I suppose that trans people have their very own set of “just questioning”.
    Also, 99.9% of people who are doing the “just questioning” are profoundly lacking the skills, tools and knowledge to do anything useful in that area. They have no idea about how language works on a deeper level, how meaning, representation and discourse are created and recreated. They think that Structuralism is some sort of architecture and that De Saussure probably invented saussages.
    No, people, philosophy and cultural studies are not “people too stupid for science making shit up so I am qualified”.
    • Meggamat says
      When did I attack Philosophy or Sociology, you condescending masked elitist?
      I simply sought to caution the pilgrims of cyberspace who happen to visit this specific digital locus of the dangers posed by dogmatic adherence to concepts and paradigms.
  13. peterferguson says
    Good article. You are right about bigotry taking the same form. We just had the marriage referendum in Ireland and passed a law that allows transgender people to legal identity with their actual gender and amend their birth cert from their assigned gender to their real gender. So the last two years have been fraught with bigotry and the same pattern emerged over and over again. I see Ophelia doing two of them.
    First, acting as if asking yes and no questions are loaded, “gotcha” questions and refusing to answer. When debating people who were against marriage equality they refused to answer many simple yes and no questions: “Do you think homosexual sex is a sin”, “Do you think homosexuality is a choice”, “Do you think same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt” and so on. Their response was to refuse to give yes-no answer. But refusing to answer No to the first question must mean that you think there is merit or some truth in the idea that homosexual sex is sin, if you didn’t then you would easily answer No. Same with question two, any answer but No must mean you think their is truth in the claim homosexuality is a choice. So this brings us to the question Ophelia refused to answer, are trans-women women? Any answer but yes must mean you think there is merit to No. That there is some caveat or * to a trans-woman’s womanhood.
    Secondly, she is playing the victim. During the marriage equality debate the No campaign got a HUGE amount of criticism, much of it was particularly nasty. Of course they focused on this and used as PR to portray themselves as besieged victims all the while ignoring what LGBT people were actually saying. You can see Ophelia doing this on her blog now, picking out choice comments about her while ignoring Trans people.
  14. gertrud says
    You said the exact opposite once with words, while saying a great deal otherwise with your actions and with weasel words elsewhere (and, I would argue in the same post that you finally answered the question in).

    You may very well believe that you meant it. Your actions, however, advertise otherwise to a lot of people, and instead of being knee-jerk defensive about how unfair it is that you are suffering under scrutiny for your supposed orthodoxy on the topic, you may want to consider that you have had exactly the same kind of position in regards to skeptical leaders who halfheartedly touted their own support feminism while speaking out the other side of their mouths about Muslimas and the like. I mean, you spoke shibboleth, but the bottom line is that your actions are what provoked the question in the first place and they are continuing to gainsay what you have finally, grudgingly admitted.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Click the "Preview" button to preview your comment here.
© 2014 - FreethoughtBlogs.com
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%