aesmael

Today has been the Transgender Day of Remembrance. Likely not still that day here, by the time I finish writing this, but it will be elsewhere still. That day set aside for remembering all the people who over the past and previous years were murdered because of cissexist bigotry, for being trans.

The numbers for this year were a bit tricky to access, being in a Word document, but according to the website this year 101 163 people were killed for that particular who they are. If trend from past years hold true (and what I have read elsewhere indicates this is so), the majority of those murdered were trans women of colour. Not white trans women, and not trans men. A lot of the time trans people who are murdered are assumed and portrayed as having been sex workers, whether they were or not, and because of the widespread stigma applied to sex workers this provides cis authorities further disincentives to take these crimes seriously.

A lot of the time people guilty of these murders, if they are charged, use what is called the 'trans panic' defence. Rather than claiming innocence they instead claim the murder of trans people is justified because of how horrifying and disgusting they find it to be knowing a trans person. This gets accepted as valid in court far too readily, even though it is often untrue or very unlikely to be true that the murder was unaware of the person ey killed being trans prior to the act of killing. It tends, rather, to be that "I found out she was trans so I killed her[1]" is seen by many as a fair and logical train of thought. Even people who say the murder was wrong often say the murdered trans person was also wrong not to walk around wearing a sign saying "Trans", as if that would have made eir life so much easier to live, or would be a reasonable standard to require of someone so as not to be murdered.

[1] Actually they don't normally use gendered pronouns. Normally they describe the person they killed as 'it'.

I was thinking, for writing something for this day, about why these murders happen and why they are predominantly of women. The conclusion I came to was a combination of transphobia, homophobia and sexism.

The mere act of being visibly a woman, presenting as female, is seen by many men as a sexual act. An invitation. This is why a lot of men feel entitled to behave aggressively sexual toward women who are not welcoming of this behaviour - because being a woman is itself considered a sexual invitation or come-on.

It is because of transphobia that the genders of trans people are regarded as invalid where the genders of cis people are treated as real. Thus, trans women are considered 'really men' and trans men are considered 'really women'.

When we combine this with cultural homophobia and macho sexism that sees violence as a valid, even imperative means for men to enforce perceptions of their masculinity and 'defend' it from the threat supposedly posed by the existence of queer people and other ways of doing gender, well...

Because a woman in public is by default seen as engaging sexually with all the men around her, whether she wants to or not, and because a trans woman recognised as a trans woman is seen as being 'really a man', the mere existence of trans women is seen as a threat to the sexuality and identity of heterosexual cis men, one to which violence is often regarded as a justifiable or at least understandable response.

Of course this does not explain why white women are less likely to be murdered in this way than other women because my thought process did not include race until after the fact. I have seen however several other writers express that the lives of women of colour are regarded as less valuable than the lives of white women, just as the lives of trans women are regarded as less valuable than the lives of cis women which I can readily believe. It would make sense that the intersection of these two identities would combine to a far higher murder rate as people might believe either they could especially get away with the killing of a trans woman of colour, or that trans women of colour are especially unworthy of life.

Clearly, this needs to change.

So you're participating in a thread where your main argument is that being a cis heterosexual man who is interested only in cis women and not ever in trans women, and that this is perfectly fine because it is your orientation...

... and then someone says, incidental to her actual argument, that given what you've expressed in that thread, probably most trans women wouldn't be interested in you anyway - you actually have the gall to call that an ad hominem? So you think it is just peachy to repeat at length that you only want cis women and trans women who don't disclose are being immoral and deceptive, but if anyone suggests that trans women might find that attitude offensively unattractive, you claim you're being subjected to an unfair personal attack?

Try getting a sense of proportion before the next time you have an urge to reiterate the beliefs that get trans people murdered.

And all these cis people, feminist and otherwise who have such a problem with the possibility that maybe you'll accidentally have sex with a trans person and feel violated, then perhaps what you should do is confess up-front to everyone you want to flirt with that you would be bothered by them being trans. There's a better chance you'll find kindred spirits than someone carrying icky trans cooties, bah.

[because don't click on links which outrage auntysarah]

It appears the word 'cis' is now verboten at Pam's House Blend, because it offends at least one white cis gay man.

That constitutes the final straw for me so far as that site is concerned, as I have no patience for a discussion in which the official line is that trans and cis people ought not be regarded as on equal neutral footing because doing so offends cis people, just as I cut all interaction with The Bilerico Project and with Pandagon.

Being warned by my sister that a friend of hers will be over today, understood as a warning to dress and present myself in male-coded rather than female-coded fashion so as not to be met with harassment or possibly physical assault by her friend if he should notice me.

Recently there has been an outbreak of outrage, since it became more widely known that the UK LGB organisation Stonewall (their website describes the organisation as being for the rights of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals) lists someone named Julie Bindel as a nominee for their Journalist of the Year award.

Most of my information regarding this has so far been sourced from auntysarah. Her posts so far can be found as follows: Down With This Sort of Thing Too; Bindel's Found Us; Bindel/Stonewall Update; Second Letter to Stonewall.

The primary objection is that Julie Bindel is transphobic and deserves no award or nomination to honour her journalism, especially not from any organisation which claims to support the rights of queer people.

Some of what she wrote in 2004, in which she makes her disrespect for the lives and identities of trans people:

It's not all bad news, however. The British Columbia supreme court in Vancouver recently overturned an earlier decision of the human rights tribunal that Vancouver Rape Relief had breached the human rights code when it refused to allow Kimberley Nixon, a male to female transsexual, to train as a counsellor of female rape victims. In 2002, Nixon had won $7,500, the highest amount ever awarded by the tribunal, for injury to "her dignity".

The arrogance is staggering: having not experienced life as a "woman" until middle age, Nixon assumed "she" would be suitable to counsel women who have chosen to access a service that offers support from women who have suffered similar experiences, not from a man in a dress! The Rape Relief sisters, who do not believe a surgically constructed vagina and hormonally grown breasts make you a woman, successfully challenged the ruling and, for now at least, the law says that to suffer discrimination as a woman you have to be, er, a woman.

I am incandescent with rage at this nonsense, fed up with radical feminists pushing the absurd idea that the motivation for trans people to transition is a desire to conform to ridiculous stereotypes of gendered behaviour. It is plain wrong to attribute this shallow caricature of a motivation to trans people; for anyone to do so suggests ey is either ignorant of the subject or speaking from bigotry or malice. Bindel also, by the way, expresses disappointment in the existence of butches and femmes.

In 2007 Bindel tried to distance herself from some of the language she used in the previously linked article (such as the phrase 'man in a dress'), but the core of her ignorance (or lies, pick one) remains:

Feminists want to rid the world of gender rules and regulations, so how is it possible to support a theory which has at its centre the notion that there is something essential and biological about the way boys and girls behave? As someone who spurned dolls and make-up as a child, I find it deeply troubling that, had I gone to one of the specialist psychiatrists while growing up and explained how I did not feel like a "real girl" (which I did not, because I wanted to be a lesbian), I could be writing this as a trans man.

Again, this is not true. In at least most cases transsexuality is about remapping body to match body image, not a desire to act out stereotypes of gendered behaviour, or a belief that behaviour dictates gender and prescribes sex.

That she claims criticism of trans people is forbidden among liberals is a bit hilarious.

If, as she says, "My concerns about the increasing acceptance of "transsexuality" as a diagnosis are based upon my feminist belief that it arises from the strong stereotyping of girls and boys into strict gender roles[,]" then she can go home comforted by the assurance this is not the case.

During the debate I argued that sex change surgery is modern-day aversion therapy treatment for homosexuals. The highest number of sex change operations take place in Iran, where homosexuality is punishable by death. Sex change surgery, therefore, renders gays and lesbians "heterosexual".

And this is bizarrely wrong. The situation in Iran is dreadful, and those laws need to be changed, but to generalise the situation there to everywhere else is ridiculous. There are some people, even trans people, who argue the purpose of transition is heteronormativity, but that position is bigoted whoever claims it. Again, Ms. Bindel seems to be entirely ignorant about what a trans person is, acting as if transition is something always forced upon people and not a choice made or actively pursued.

Forbidding people and to transition and requiring they be treated for a 'psychological problem'? That would be more like aversion therapy, forcing people to live and suffer in ways deeply distressing to them.

I probably could have let those quoted portions of her articles stand as they are, but I did not feel right presenting them unaddressed.

For those who would be in the area, there is a protest organised:

Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008
Time: 6:30pm - 8:30pm
Location: Outside the Victoria & Albert Museum
Street: Cromwell Road SW7 2RL
City/Town: London, United Kingdom

There is also a petition which can be signed; I signed a couple of nights ago.

Finally, like many people, I emailed Stonewall last night:

Very disappointed to see Julie Bindel nominated for Journalist of the Year. With the views she has printed and publicly expressed about trans people she would be a better candidate for Bigot of the Year. Or would Stonewall be equally disposed to nominate someone who argued that some other segment of the population should be erased from existence? I would hope not, although if not that would suggest Stonewall as an organisation is specifically transphobic, rather than merely callous to the situation of those outside the boundaries it has declared for its scope.

Bindel did not to the best of my knowledge make such an argument. If she had perhaps it could be said she was being honoured for her work concerning the queer community and with no regard to any other aspect of her life. Instead she argues that many members of the queer community be denied their rights, be stuffed back into the closet, and their identities further invalidated. She would have many gay men made to live as and pretend to be heterosexual women. She would have many lesbians made to live as and pretend to be heterosexual men. This is reprehensible, and no one who advocates such a position should be honoured by any organisation claiming to represent lesbians, bisexual persons or gay men.

Not long after, I received the same form reply so many others have:

Dear Johann,

Thank you for your email.

Julie Bindel was shortlisted for a Stonewall award in recognition of her journalism during the last 12 months which often brings a lesbian perspective into the mainstream press.

The awards nominating panel are not endorsing everything she has ever written. A nomination in any category does not mean that the awards panel agree with all of someone’s opinions. Stonewall recognises that some people may disagree with shortlisted nominees.

Regards,

Stonewall

[letter not presented entirely unedited - I reduced the spacing between paragraphs and changed the font]

Now composing a further and not at all pleased reply.

In response to a post elsewhere about the proposed Swedish law to make sterilisation mandatory for trans people undergoing surgical transition, this was posted:

Apparently I'm alone in thinking this is a good idea. At least, in one regard.

The whole "pregnant man" scenario just sickens me, and I'm almost as liberal as they come regarding transpeople.

If she wanted to be a man, then she should take whatever comes with being a man, and that includes the inability to become pregnant. This entire thing was so bleeding obviously done just for the 15 minutes of fame it's disgusting.

Conversely, however, if there were a way for a transgirl to get pregnant, I would be all for it. Women can get pregnant, it's only natural.

So this has nothing to do with my opinions on transpeople having children. What it does have to do with is someone wanting to become a man and refusing to take everything that comes with it.

Sex isn't a buffet, people. You don't pick and freaking choose what tidbits you'd like to partake in. Ugh.

Fortunately laws are not made on the basis of what sickens you. Or they should not be. Whose threshold would we use, after all? If laws were made on the basis of what sickened others, trans people might not be allowed to have surgery at all, or perhaps HRT. Or maybe same-gender romantic / sexual relations would be forbidden. So might eating seafood - my sister finds that pretty sickening.

The way you go about disrespecting Thomas Beattie's identity just because he did something you do not approve of with his body is pretty disgusting. It sickens me, a little, to see you saying such things while talking about how 'liberal' you are.

What in the world would be natural - and here I mean something like 'occurring without human technological interference' about a trans woman becoming pregnant? It is far more natural for a trans man to give birth, as that requires less interference in biology.

I hope you are never in a position to enforce on others your prejudices about what people should and should not be allowed to do with their bodies.

Addendum: Oh, and I see you have decided they - Thomas Beattie and his wife - "obviously" made a new person for the attention and not for, oh, any of the reasons they actually gave. I have some important information to impart to you: people are not necessarily different for your entertainment or to secure your attention. Indeed, it often has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Reminds me of seeing last night on the 'news' talk about The Veronicas caught on film kissing and people speculating they were doing it for publicity.

Really, deviance from the norm does not exist in order to be a spectacle for public entertainment.

A few days ago lost_angelwings and I came across some thoroughly dreadful essays and decided to split the raging between us. I got this community (yay!) but have been sick since so am only getting to it now. Bah! Enough preamble.

( Deal, teer - directly offensive to just about everyone )

And I think I am going to be sick now.

[cross-posted to feminist_rage ]

    Here is an article at the Guardian about the closeness of the Australian election. Suggested correction: Howard is the Prime Minister, not the Premier. Premiers run states.
    Are the Guardian not known as the Grauniad for their frequent errors?

    Here is a video found at Pharyngula in which Roy Zimmerman makes light of Jerry Falwell's God. The video apparently was snagged from God is for Suckers, which site I discovered today still mocks Ann Coulter by calling her transsexual even though I asked them to knock it off back in June.

    On the lighter side of things, this delightful post by Rebecca at Skepchicks. Make sure you watch the video; I was laughing pretty hard by the end of it. The cold reading bingo card Skeptico (the first blog I started following) made is pretty great too.

    Aaand all the way back at Pharyngula, this post about a poll asking how Baylor University ought to approach Intelligent Design. I am torn on this. Would it be better to pursue fruitless research in order to allow it to demonstrate its hollowness, or give it up now for the philosophical vapour it is?

    Lastly I leave you with Memories from Larvatus Prodeo (in exile), in which interesting things are said about one John Howard, Prime Minister.

    In Australia there is a television program called 'Border Patrol' which is a reality show featuring footage of customs officials doing their job. I already hate it because I see it as stirring up unnecessary outrage, anger and mockery of foreign people (the usual ad runs along the lines of "You will never believe what this person tried to get away with - look how stupid they are".

    The one I just saw, looks like this week's main attraction is hassling a transwoman whose documentation does not match her presentation.

    Bad enough this country does not let trans* people have proper passports, nor documentation matching presentation without surgery the best surgeons for which are overseas.

    Posted: My journal, queer_rage, tranny_rage