minimum_wage, this kind of hearkens back to your post from last week. Which is so dense that I'm still working my way through it with varying degrees of success.
Did you read this NYKR article? Would be interested in hearing your (any anybody's) thoughts on the matter.
I saw this article but I didn't post anything about it because i don't believe it's worth giving any attention. When one side of a "debate" is simply an assertion that the other side does not exist, it's not a debate, it's a threat. edit: also note that the "scientists" cited are pretty widely discredited http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Autogynephilia
Fair enough. Sounds like you and longstocking are on the same page. Any reading you might recommend? Like I said, trying to get through your post from last week, but I feel like it relies a little bit on prior knowledge of the issue, of which I have close to none.
It helps a bit to know about liberal feminism and TERFism, and some Marxism, particularly concerning modes of production and primitive accumulation. Knowing about womanism is useful for understanding the gaps in the article. The links provided in the introduction about dialectics and sex as a social construct really are useful if you haven't encountered those before. Which parts do you have trouble with?
Got lost on a few of the logic strings, that may be just take more read-overs. There were a few points at which I felt like the author was writing for a crowd with prior knowledge, or at least more intimate knowledge of the material. Esp. when it comes to terminology. A few portions that stand out: This means wholly rejecting the biological-essentialist “brain sex” framework that liberal feminists cosy up to, but radical feminists rightly oppose. Incredibly dense paragraph, and every portion of it kind of requires prior knowledge of all relevant philosophies/identities/worldviews what have you. No idea what they're talking about w/ "brain sex," but maybe it was addressed earlier on. I suspect it's way less an awesome term than it sounds like. Oh, and before that: I have to take the "prevailing notion" at face value if I don't have any prior knowledge of modern liberal feminism. Also, not entirely sure what they mean in the first place. Still getting through the rest of it- I've had to re-read a few of the paragraphs a few times. Overall though, I get the impression that without some close experience with/in either camp- "transness," or liberal feminism or radfem- the reader must have some pretty extensive (or even I don't know basic?) academic knowledge to really get the relationships at play here (trans versus non; feminism versus trans; transwoman versus patriarchy; transperson versus him or herself, etc.) and thus connect with the message as a whole. So like I said, seems like a level 200 text whereas I should be starting at 101.This means staunchly combating the reactionary subsections of the trans population overtly influenced by gender roles in their decision to transition as this only serves to reinforce gender roles and provide a smaller space in which womanhood or manhood can reside. Radical feminists rightly criticise this to some degree but draw the wrong conclusions, and liberal feminists fail to engage with this at all. We must be very careful in our own criticisms, however, as some people take any trans woman’s display of femininity as automatically illegitimate, as a sign that they’re “faking” or “appropriating” womanhood, or that they’re some sort of drag queen.
The prevailing notion – at least in liberal feminism – that dysphoria causes transness is wholly wrong. An equally wrong idea, popular for radical feminists, is the view that transness causes dysphoria. There’s no one-way causal relationship; instead, they co-emerge. They’re in a feedback loop, forever remaking, reforging, and reshaping each other. Utterly inseparable, yet distinct at the same time. The spiral metaphor applies very aptly here as well.
This is a part I have problems with. I believe it's saying that people who consider desire to fulfill traditional gender roles in their decision to transition are reactionary. Like: I want to be a housewife so I need to be a woman. I'm not sure that anyone actually embarks on transitioning on such grounds and even if it affects someone's decision then that's up to them and it's totally valid. Rads believe transitioning is either mostly sexual or about appropriating gender roles. They reject the appropriation as male privilege. Liberals don't really think about gender roles beyond providing cis women access to male gender roles as empowerment. This reads pretty straightforward. "Brain sex" refers to the liberal conception of sex as being biological and innate. Essentially that old cliché "a woman trapped in a man's body", which was a useful analogy when trans people were struggling to be distinguished from cis queers, but is not entirely accurate. This goes back to what I just mentioned about "brain sex". In the liberal conception, gender is innate to the brain, conflict with the body causes dysphoria, the way to fix dysphoria is by transition. In the radfem conception, sexuality or appropriation create the desire to be a woman, the desire causes bodily dysphoria, the dysphoria causes the desire to transition. This is also pretty straightforward.This means staunchly combating the reactionary subsections of the trans population overtly influenced by gender roles in their decision to transition as this only serves to reinforce gender roles and provide a smaller space in which womanhood or manhood can reside.
Radical feminists rightly criticise this to some degree but draw the wrong conclusions, and liberal feminists fail to engage with this at all.
We must be very careful in our own criticisms, however, as some people take any trans woman’s display of femininity as automatically illegitimate, as a sign that they’re “faking” or “appropriating” womanhood, or that they’re some sort of drag queen.
This means wholly rejecting the biological-essentialist “brain sex” framework that liberal feminists cosy up to, but radical feminists rightly oppose.
The prevailing notion – at least in liberal feminism – that dysphoria causes transness is wholly wrong. An equally wrong idea, popular for radical feminists, is the view that transness causes dysphoria.
There’s no one-way causal relationship; instead, they co-emerge. They’re in a feedback loop, forever remaking, reforging, and reshaping each other. Utterly inseparable, yet distinct at the same time. The spiral metaphor applies very aptly here as well.
Thanks for the clarifications. One follow-up question: This is actually the only definition I've ever encountered in regards to trans people. Maybe because in terms of public education, it's about as easily digestible a definition as you can get? Anyhow, what's a more accurate read? Thx for taking the time."Brain sex" refers to the liberal conception of sex as being biological and innate. Essentially that old cliché "a woman trapped in a man's body", which was a useful analogy when trans people were struggling to be distinguished from cis queers, but is not entirely accurate.
I want to read this but I have made it a personal policy to avoid anything that even so much as mentions radical feminism, especially trans-exclusionary, for my own sake. I don't have the mental fortitude to deal with that. I think a lot of other trans women feel similarly. Sorry if this isn't useful commentary.