Every time a lesbian calls herself a lesbian when dating a trans guy who fully views himself as a man, she wounds him.In the early part of her article, Ms Hope tells us a little of her experience; she segues into a paragraph about labels and how they can be used to hurt. But that particular sentence caught my eye.
What Ms Hope is saying here is "I can call myself whatever I like, but you can't call yourself whatever you like because your self-chosen label might deny me my existence" or something. The self-proclaimed lesbian has to redefine herself, whether she wants to or not.
Seriously. That is what she's saying.
My guess is that Ms Hope didn't think about the implications of her assertion. If she had, she might have rephrased it, or changed it. After all, lesbians are routinely denied their humanity, too! It's not nice, or productive, to get into a useless battle about who has it worse, with declarations that the more aggrieved party has to prevail. (Really, it isn't.)
Ms Hope's example certainly highlights an interesting issue about all these labels, but her conclusion is lop-sided, and limited. In this example, according to Ms Hope, one or the other has to redefine themselves; she prefers it to be the lesbian. (I'm sure there's some unsupportable, emotionally heated, argument about "cis[sexual/gender] privilege" in there, somewhere.) Perhaps it is no one's business who redefines themselves in such a relationship? Why should the lesbian have to redefine herself? What label should she use? What label would be satisfactory to Ms Hope, and the individual?
It's a veritable minefield of labeling issues! :-)
Actually, it's a minefield of gender issues, too.
Other than that, Ms Hope seems to be persuading herself that her life is, indeed, her life. Believe me - it is your life, Ms Hope.
===
Added (26 Nov 10): For some whimsical reason, I decided to check the statistics for this blog. I noticed a lot of people arriving at this post; I didn't check who or whom, but it prompted me to put together a small table of contents for the entire discussion.
===
===
Added: Please read this: Kinsey Hope hates free speech.
Added (12/29/10): You know what's really stupid about Kinsey's argument about how sacred the two-spirit concept is? It's apparently a modern invention...
"Two-Spirit People (also Two Spirit or Twospirit) — an English term that emerged in 1990 out of the third annual inter-tribal Native American/First Nations gay/lesbian American conference in Winnipeg"Something that was "invented" in 1990 is not sacred. It hasn't had time to become sacred!
Added (12/31/10): I've been debating for awhile whether to add this bit; I've decided to do so. Ms Hope's argument was better articulated by Noam Chomsky in the 1970's; his argument was over a Confederate flag being displayed at an MIT dorm. While it was a better argument (in its originality and articulation), it was still nonsense. And Ms Hope's ideas about the sacred being off-limits definitely aren't original: they are encapsulated in many of the laws of the Arab world. The ones that say it's blasphemy to allow, for instance, equality for women, or to defame the name of the prophet and so on.
Her argument about labeling is as trite as it is condescending and arbitrary.
Carolyn Ann
Um....I'll call myself Bob, if that would help.
ReplyDeleteNot a problem, Jim! :-)
ReplyDeleteIf an identity is built on bigotry (like say regarding trans folks' genders not being valid), it isn't sacred.
ReplyDeleteI don't let white people call themselves Two Spirits either. Just sayin'
Just sayin' what, exactly?
ReplyDeleteClarity is a wonderful thing. You really should try it.
Google might help you here. Toss in "two spirit", "trans" and "appropriation"
ReplyDeleteYou might learn something.
I did. I'm not sure what I should be taking from the resulting list?
ReplyDeleteIsn't "spirit" some sort of Wiccan term?
*sigh*
ReplyDeleteAlright, quick summary since I should be writing other stuff.
Two spirit is a Native American term that is fairly transgender in its concept. So it's a part of NA culture. When white trans people who have a split id take two spirit as a trans identity, they're stealing from Native Americans and engaging in racism based on the power given to us by white culture and the harm done to NA culture by genocide.
So even though they id as two spirit, it's bigotry causing them to, which means their id isn't sacred and shouldn't be protected.
Are they stealing? Or being inspired by? Why does Native American culture have a monopoly on the concept? Is it racist to be inspired by something from another culture?
ReplyDeleteYour last statement isn't sensible. You make an assertion, expect me to subscribe to it, and then use it to make a wild assertion.
You assert that one set of identities is sacred, but another set, which you don't approve of, is not. Is that not bigotry?
Well?
What is "spirit" anyway?
ReplyDeleteThe "soul" doesn't exist, so why should a strange concept such as the "spirit" exist?
By the way - there's a post at the front of the blog so you don't have to go through the whole "approval" process.
ReplyDelete*looks puzzled*
ReplyDeleteI was always led to believe that the word "lesbian" was an adjective describing a woman as being solely attracted to women.* As such, if a woman who had until that point considered herself lesbian found herself attracted to a man, then that would be a clue that she was not accurately described by the word lesbian, and should probably stop using it about herself since it would be inaccurate.
Dating a man implies attraction to him, so if a woman were dating a man the word lesbian wouldn't be an accurate adjective to describe her.
Or to put it in short, labels are there to describe you, not define you.
*From a linguistic point of view, if it means something other than that then you need to get in touch with just about every English dictionary there is and tell them they need to do an update.
It's a noun and an adjective, Lucinda:
ReplyDeletelesbian |ˈlezbēən|
noun
a homosexual woman.
adjective
of or relating to homosexual women or to homosexuality in women : a lesbian relationship.
===
(From the Oxford American Dictionary)
Labels both describe and define. If you, for instance, describe yourself as a lesbian (I don't know if you do, and don't mean to imply anything by the example) you describe something about yourself - that you're attracted to women - and also define yourself as someone who is not, we can safely assume, interested in dating a man.
What Kinsey really showed was how limiting labels can be.
A chap I know was married for a zillion years, but after his wife died, he started dating a guy. Is he gay? I'd say so. It would be difficult to argue he's straight! He loved his wife (that I do know), and as far as I know, he loves the chap he's currently living with. (His daughter is less delighted with his new love, to be honest.)
Kinsey's point was that the lesbian has to define herself according to whom she's dating, particularly in the circumstances she defined. I disagree - if the transgender argument that "you are who you say you are" is to hold, the lesbian must be allowed to define herself as a lesbian, regardless of whom she's dating.
All the example really shows is how limiting labels can be! Labels, overall, can be either liberating or limiting. I'm (rapidly) coming to the conclusion they are more limiting than liberating. :-)
OOPS!!! Sorry, Lucinde!
ReplyDeleteStupid blogger (me being the stupid blogger) error - even though I checked the spelling of your name, I still got it wrong! Sorry! :-) <-Embarrassed smiley.
But I think that Ms Hope was right--if you insists on continuing to call yourself a full-out lesbian while dating a trans man, you are actively denying your partner's gender identity because you are refusing the possibility that you could be attracted to a man--therefore he's different because he's *really* a woman. It's not about redefining yourself--it's about acknowledging that you are not solely attracted to women. Perhaps you are bisexual, polysexual, or pansexual, but not completely homosexual.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if you take lesbian to be an adjective, how is a relationship between a cis woman and a trans man lesbian exactly???
-M
Who cares? Who's business is it, anyway?
ReplyDeleteMs Hope states that calling yourself a lesbian and dating a transgendered man denigrates the chap. So the lesbian has to redefine herself? Why shouldn't the transgendered man redefine himself? Perhaps the situation isn't as clear cut?
Not to be crude about it, perhaps the lesbian like vaginas, and the transgender man retains a vagina? Does the vagina become masculine because of a claim?
Why is his identity more sacrosanct than hers?
Why is her sexual identity discarded in order to accommodate his? (Yet again what men want becomes the order of the day? I hope Ms Hope, and you, aren't feminists!)
While Ms Hope complains about binary genders, in her argument she basically says that claimed gender outstrips claimed sexual identity. The problem, as posed by Ms Hope, is a paradox. It has no right answer, but I suspect it has more than a few wrong ones.
Ms Hope's argument is incomplete. As I've discovered, she applies tiering to various causes, identities and so on. If you're white, for instance, you can't hold this belief because it's sacred to some group. If you're a transgendered man, you're allowed to hold onto your identity, even if it means your partner has to relinquish hers. And so on.
Her arguments have one consistency: they superficially elevate one thing over another, unrelated, thing. Trivial paradoxes aren't usually worth the time; they can't be argued against - not because they're true, but because Ms Hope is like so many others who pose similar quandaries: her mind is made up about the answer. I call it the Glenn Beck style of argument.
Jeez. I haven't had any coffee, yet. Coffee? I haven't even gotten up, yet! I only got out of bed to feed the cats, and have a quick yoghurt. I'm off back to bed.
ReplyDeleteAre you really going to argue that we should label trans folk's junks based on birth assignment? Question: How exactly do you call yourself trans and not understand that trans men don't generally call or relate to their junk like "vaginas?" Who are you to de-gender people's bodies? Seriously. Oy.
ReplyDeleteAre you going to argue that a penis is female? Because you are!
ReplyDeleteI'm transgendered; I don't call myself "trans". And why should my experience be any indicator to that of transgender men?
I'm not "degendering" anyone. In your argument you're denying the lesbian her identity. So who's identity would you say is superior? And why?
On your blog you say "you're going to carve a space [...] for trannies". Didn't you know "trannies" is generally considered a pejorative within the transgender community?
It is up to the individual person to decide how their body is referred. If someone tells me that they want their body to be referred to in a certain way, who the fuck am I to decide that some cissexist doctor gets to override them? Hell no. How do you think that it is not de-gendering to refer to a person's body using language they specifically request not be used? So, yes, I will say that a trans woman has a vagina, if that is how she wants it labeled.
ReplyDeleteNo one's label is "superior" to anyone's. However, if she is dating a man, does that label really apply? Kinsey already gave an example where the two can work together. Her example is that sometimes a person is a lesbian but has an exception of one male partner. But that is a discussion for the 2 people involved.
And, yes, I am painfully aware of how people in the trans community (myself very much included) are affected by the word "tranny." I reclaim it from the transphobes who would use it against me, when it was our word to begin with. But really that is a derail. What I am challenging is your cissexist labeling of genders and bodies. Let's not change the subject, mmkay. :)
Ummm.. not posting my comment? I thought you were just ranting on and on about freedom of speech or whatever. Funny.
ReplyDeleteI did post it - so what are you complaining about?
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you care to look around, you might notice I got a comment from a chap who issued a death threat against a friend of mine. So I'm being a little careful. If that's okay with you?
Nome: What's the 33 mean?
ReplyDeleteI heartily disagree with you. Biologically speaking, a vagina is a vagina and a penis is a penis. One is masculine, the other feminine. If the penis can be relabeled so easily, why would so many people go through the pain, heartache and all the other problems associated with gender reassignment surgery?
The fact is, the penis is biologically an indicator of masculinity. It's just the way it is!
If someone wants to refer to their penis as a goldfish, I have no particular objection. What I objected to is your assumption that one person has a superior claim to their identity than the other person has to theirs!
I do find it interesting that you undermine your own argument. You state that a person can relabel any body part; so I could say my arm is my leg, for instance. Or are you restricting your argument simply to the sexual organs? In which case, as I said, I don't care if someone calls their penis their goldfish. It's still a penis, and still is, and represents, the masculine. But getting back to your point: if I renamed my arm, and called it my, oh, handlebar-holder, and I was hurt in a motorcycle crash - do you think the EMS people would agree to call my arm whatever I called it? Or would they simply persist in calling it my arm, and possibly saving my life by using commonly known and agreed upon names for common and commonly named body bits?
I wasn't "derailing" the conversation. (Just out of curiosity - why are people so keen on "derailing" when they more accurately mean "distracting" or "diverting" or "digressing"? Is it yet more lazy thinking, or is it just trendy?) I was merely curious.
Just to make sure: I don't really care if someone calls their penis their vagina, or their goldfish. How they refer to their sexual organs is entirely up to them. But when it comes to medical necessity - speaking of doctors (and why is the gender history of the doctor so important? Surely that's a digression of yours?) - the penis, and its associated organs, remain a penis.
ReplyDeleteThat's not mis-gendering, denying anyone's gender or affirming it. It's a simple fact.
Look at this way: I'm trained in emergency medical care - both first aid and "there's no one coming, so we have to figure this out ourselves" aid. If someone asked me - it's all hypothetical (and hopefully will remain that way!) - to refer to their penis as their vagina, I would be in a quandary. When communicating what I know to the professionals, I need to use a common language. It doesn't include any scope for the patient to demand their penis become a vagina. If I referred to it as a vagina, and the initial professional care was based on the summary, and the patient died waiting for the correct care to happen - who is to blame? Me, for honoring the person's wishes, or their's, for insisting on vernacular that confused the heck out of everybody, and resulted in their death?
It's a dramatic, and I agree ridiculously implausible, moral tale - it's a derivation of the "shoot the boy or the planet gets it" moral quandary. (Logically, it's the same problem.) It has one virtue: it highlights the failing of your argument quite well.
I am curious how you can assert that calling something by its proper name is "bad" in some way? I'm going to take a guess and assume you argue that proper names are important. You'll agree that a cat is a cat, for instance? A car can be a car, an autocar (if you're in France) or an automobile. A body is a body; an arm is an arm; a leg, a leg; a toe, a toe, and so on. And yet, when it comes to one particular organ, you are willing to relax the rules on proper names so that a preferred name can be used.
So you end up arguing that a penis is a vagina, but you also find yourself insisting that an arm is an arm. Which is the proper reference?
33 refers to the comment number on Kinsey's blogpost.
ReplyDeleteI'm just ill at the amount of blatant transphobia and cissexism you spout out. Your medical examples have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It's a completely different context and situation.
The medical establishment is cissexist and so of course uses those terms. After dealing with a multitude of doctors, I still am working out how I wish they would handle things differently, because it's definitely not an affirming situation for trans folks. To me, it would convey the message of exactly what organ you are referring to if you said "male-assigned genitalia" rather than, penis, but I guess that's too much jargon for people who spend up to 10 years learning all the other terms they need to know.
But what I am talking about more has to do with how your lovers, friends, etc, call a person's junk. There is no reason they need to misgender a trans person's body, short of (I suppose), communicating with a medical authority (although I've found ways to get around misgendering my partners when talking to doctors).
And, no, I do not limit how people refer to their bodies in any way. Again with the out-there example, if someone felt the need to label their arm something other than "arm," I will respect them.
I don't see how it is such a big deal to you that I always label my body in the same way a (cissexist) doctor would. I also do not understand what is wrong with wanting my partners to label me in ways that does not send me into a dysphoric depression. This seems like such a simple concept to be debating. Our bodies are our own to label in ways that make us feel empowered.
There are many ways to deal with dysphoria. There are also different kinds of dysphoria. Social dysphoria is different from body dysphoria. And every one finds a different way to cope. Some need SRS to feel ok in their bodies, and some don't. And regardless of where they are in this process, I don't see where someone else gets to decide how a body is labeled. I don't see how that affects the right to self-label.
I also don't get where you find gendering body parts masculine or feminine appropriate. That's just odd. So are you saying trans women aren't real women until they get SRS? Or that they're not as feminine? Umm.. incorrect. Curious, how do you gender intersexed genitalia in this binary you are constructing? Hint: trans men are MEN. Some of them are MASCULINE. Doesn't really depend on their parts.
About the term derailing: it is the common term used for when someone tries to create a side issue to move the topic away from what is already being discussed. Since that is what you were doing, I don't see how you're going to pull a semantics argument on me. Lol, a derail about derailment. Beautiful.
Thanks. I need to count 33 comments on a blog I am no longer interested in. Great. Would it have been that much trouble to provide a link?
ReplyDeleteSo context matters? And the individual gets to determine their entire context? I don't know about you, but I don't live in a vacuum; I live around and among other people. I think that while we can define some of our context, in terms of just living in society, we can't define them all. For the simple reason that we can't control how others perceive us!
The example wasn't facetious - you just don't want to think about proper nouns. I did say it was extreme; perhaps you missed that bit? Or perhaps it wasn't expressed in an suitably outraged polysyllabic vernacular? You also seem to be very successful in confusing two issues; my example has nothing to do with personal experience at a doctors. It's an abstract intellectual exercise; take an example to an extreme and see if it still makes sense. If it does, fine. If it doesn't, perhaps the principle being discussed needs to be rethought, or recast?
(Condescension? Right back at yer! :-) )
So you do agree that proper nouns are needed? That some item should be commonly named? But in one instance, you make an exception and state - without much support except an angry denunciation - that this one item can be what its owner determines it to be. Did I get that right?
So far you haven't actually persuaded me that my argument is either wrong, or "transphobic". (That's such an easy accusation to make, I'm somewhat astonished you waited this long! I told my wife it would crop up in the next comment from you. I'm glad to see I was right.) Questioning a claim is not "phobic", it's necessary. If the claim survives scrutiny, great. If it doesn't, great. We all learn something. But you, it seems, prefer to make a claim and then not have it challenged. If it is challenged, the challenger is clearly some sort of bigot because they don't agree with you.
Take my example apart. Prove it wrong. Or give your own, and see what I can do with it. It's easy to write angry words - it's not so easy to think about your claim and dissect it. Can you prove you have the wherewithal to do that? Or are you only concerned about being angry and outraged?
Please point out where I have stated anything such as you suggest. I didn't say a transman is not a man; I simply disagree with you that a penis can be feminine. Tell me how a penis can be feminine, simply because someone says it is so. Isn't that an argument of convenience? I'm not sure what gender intersexed genitalia has to do with this discussion? That's a subject I know nothing about. Your interpretation of the word "masculine" is limiting; it's also fraught with cultural and sexual connotations I have no intention of addressing. My meaning is "of or relating to male". Your meaning is more along the lines of defining qualities about the appearance or behavior of men. Both are valid, both are in the dictionary. That's what I mean about you not thinking about what I'm saying: you don't make any effort to understand my point. I understand yours, I just don't wholeheartedly agree with it.
And, for the record, I do think there are unconsidered implications to someone with a penis saying they are a woman. I'm not saying the claim is wrong, or incorrect. I'm simply saying there are implications that are not usually considered. I'm going to guess you consider thinking that to be transphobic because it denies someone their claimed gender? It might, it might not. I don't know, to be honest. But if someone says they are a woman, who am I to disagree? (That was a substantial distraction and we should stay with the main argument. Or, more accurately, the bit where I try to tell you the difference between derailing a conversation and a small digression.)
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteThe derailing bit: it's a minor digression. Not a "derailing". You know the sort of thing: you're chatting to someone while walking down the street, and see a pretty flower. You quickly mention the pretty flower, and get back onto the main subject. It's a quick digression. Derailing the conversation would be if I insisted upon, oh, noting that my personal experience with doctors instead of concentrating on the point being made. If you said "let's get back to the point", and I refused to - it could be said I was derailing the conversation. The Israeli's refusing to stop building on Palestinian land, for example, derails the peace process. Asking a question, or noting a pretty flower is a mere digression.
Right now, we're having two parallel conversations. One about your claim that if someone says the penis is feminine, it is and my disagreement of that, and one about the meaning of "derailing".
Let me ask you: would you consider the person who couldn't tell the difference between a minor digression and an active "derailing" to be interested in an actual discussion? To be interested in actually thinking about what the other person has stated? How would you view their ability to make coherent arguments, or their interest in such things in the first place?
You see, naming something accurately is very important. If we called items any old name, and then insisted that our context, and hence name, had to be respected by any and all, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that person just a little bit out of touch with reality? (That's an extreme example, again.)
What are the implications for women who are born with a vagina, etc, if the person with a penis can say that it is feminine? What are the implications for feminism? Can't a woman argue that a man is usurping what it means to be a woman by redefining the very symbol of manhood - the penis - to be feminine? Why can't it be viewed as fanciful if a person redefines their penis to a vagina? Because it degrades the person? Isn't that person degrading people with an actual vagina? The two aren't even similar, sexually. Your claim doesn't make sense.
Is it denigrating to someone to say that a generalized claim is ridiculous? That a claim can't actually be supported, except in emotional terms that have implications for others? I don't think it is, but you disagree. Such is life. I think that before you argue I'm denigrating anyone, it's useful to think about who is being denigrated. If a penis is a vagina, and a vagina is a penis, then what it what? Did we just enter the land of Humpty Dumpty where a word means what he says it does? Isn't that denigrating the language we speak? Isn't equating a penis to a vagina denigrating the entire notion of feminism? If they're the same, why are women complaining, anyway? The simple fact is they are not the same.
I suspect you're thinking of only one side to your claim; I additionally suspect you think your argument has only one aspect to it. On top of those, I strongly suspect that you can't tolerate discussion that might end up with you seriously thinking about your claim. Your argument is one of convenience; you also argue it with religious fervor. Why should I consider your argument differently to claims made by the pious?
Quick note: You see, we changed the subject of the conversation. That wasn't a derailing. It was a simple change of subject.
ReplyDeleteI'll also note that I screwed up the order of the comments; they are now in the correct order. If you wish, I can start a new post and we can resume the conversation there? That way you wouldn't have to wait for me to remember to check the Blogger dashboard. Let me know, I'm happy with either way; I'm thinking more of your convenience.
Ummm... TL;DR. Unlike some people, I don't have time to sit at my computer multiple hours a day writing blogposts about my every thought. And so I do not have time to go on long rants making gender essentialist that you can define a person's body based on their birth assignment. I just don't have the time. I also don't want to waste the small bit of spoons I have left after being told by cis folk all day that I am not what I think I am, that my body is not what I see it as, to then have to explain it to a transgendered person as well. (Still confused how a transgendered person does not understand the most basic concept of body mapping)
ReplyDeleteSo.... Have fun.
Also, considering you had left comment # 7,8,10,11,16,20,23,28, and 30, and left your last comment a mere 3 days before MY comment, I'm hardly asking you to read a huge chunk of text. I was simply informing you that I responded to you on kinsey's blog and thought you might enjoy the light read. But I could just leave it here for you, since I wouldn't want to inconvenience you.
ReplyDelete____________________________________
@Carolyn
I would like to point out here how you invoking the oppression that your wife’s family survived is an extremely offensive example of cultural appropriation right there. Firstly, her history is not YOUR history. Just like a cis person who dates a trans person does not get to call themselves trans, you do not get to try and use your wife’s history as a political weapon. People died by the hundreds. Where do you get off making such a cheap political trick out of that?
My family survived the pogroms on my mother’s side and holocaust on my father’s. So what. Yes, I have experienced racism for being Jewish. Yes, my family has a bloody history with antisemitism. But that does not mean I get to argue that I have no white privilege. That simply means that the axis is more complicated than complete privilege-complete oppression. Binaries fail, big woop, I already knew that.
So when you try to argue that you can “borrow” (aka, steal) from other cultures because your wife’s history (and probably your wife herself) has experienced systemic oppression? Your basically *using* appropriation as a tool to justify further appropriation.
_______________________________________
Just some food for thought.
You're a real piece of work, you know?
ReplyDeleteIf you're not misconstruing something, you're recasting it so you don't like it. You just don't like to be challenged.
And talk about "derailing"! You now criticize how I spend my time? Fuck you. (By your own logic, you're now criticizing how I live my life. So fuck you.)
lol, way to not post my last comment..?
ReplyDeleteNathyn, I'm not sure what happened to your comment. There was one in my "awaiting approval" queue from you, so I said to publish it. And now I can't find it! It's not in my spam queue, either. There was one from you in my spam queue (which I've just discovered exists! I'm so on top of technology...), but I didn't read it, I simply selected it and hit "publish". (I think it was something about reading?)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what to tell you. It seems that Blogger has lost your comment; I'd be appreciative if you reposted it. I'll drop a trouble ticket into Google when I get a few more moments, and hopefully it will pop up somewhere!
Be assured I didn't delete it (not even inadvertently); I only delete spam.
I suspect the new spam feature has something to do with the problem; it's only in the last couple of days this has started happening, and I think the spam thing has been activated - it was done automatically by Google; they didn't send me an email telling me it existed, or that they'd implemented this feature - that the problem of disappearing comments has occurred.
Sorry! I don't know what else I can do.